The Indianapolis journal., 1897-05-22
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.
HACK STANDS - RAILROAD DEPOT -
DESIGNATION by COMPANY.

| HACK STANDS - RAILROAD DEPOT -
DESIGNATION by COMPANY.
| 1927. Knox c. c. Lucas ct al VS.. Herbert
ct al Reversed. Monks, il, Railroad
companies have the right. If they admit
omnibuses and hacksSto their grounds, to
| designate the stand each shall occupy and
| thus prevent quarrels and other scenes CT
| hack owners have been assigned stands
adjoining a platform of a railroad depot
| by order of the railroSd company neither
| can complain that the best or most con-
venient location was given to the other.
PERJURY = AFFIDAVIT = HOW
CHARGED.
1853 Miami, c, C,sC.r, aKeii. alias White. VS..
| State. Affirmed. Hackney, j. = /. Where
| time is not of the essence of the oftense
| charged the failure to state it or the i'm
| perfect statement of it in the affidavit
| indictment is not a fatal defect z: An afh-
davit which charges that the defendant
| went before the mayor of a city in which
| there is no police judge and made oath 10
an affidavit charging a certain person with
| grand larceny, and did so for the purpose
| of procuring from such officer a warrant
| for his arrest on such charge, and that the
charge was wholly unfounded and the de
| fendant knew that fact, sufficiently charges
| the crime of perjury without charging that
a prosecution was commenced or that legal
proceedings were pending, 3. a person who
makes false oath as the initial step of a
| criminal prosecution is guilty of perjury,
| although the prosecution should ran before
| the defendant IS arrested.
NEGLIGENCE WORKMAN ABB
NT-MINDEDNESS.
|
1851 Hancock C. C. Young VS.. Citizens
| Street-railroad Company. kehearlng de-
MED iedaa MeGaee & 1 Ihe 70 T9Tken aT npas n 9
street along which run the tracks OF
street-railway company have no greater
rights in and upon the tracks of such com
pany as against its cars than have any
other persons lawfully upon such street.
2. The negligence OF such workman, Que
him to be injured by q passing street car,
will not be excused to any greater extent
than would the negligence of any traveller
who passed upon and over the tracks while
| thinking Of his work or business. 3. In
cases involving questions Of negligence,
where the facts are undisputed and the in
| ferences which may be drawn from them
| are not equvocal and can lead to but one
| conclusion, the court will adjudge as matter
! Of law whether there is or is not negligence.
1924 Shelby c. G. Weakley vs.. Wolf.
! Submitted by order of court Cause ad-
vanced and distributed. Order per curtain.
| 1850 Tppecanoe s. G. Cougar VS.. Timber
| lake ct al Petition for rehearing over
ruled under Rule 81.
Appellate Court
PERSONAL INJURIES - NEGLIGENCE
SPECIAL VERDICT.
2163. Posey C. C. L. & N. Railroad Com
| pany VS.. Espenschied. Reversed. Wiley,
| il. Unless the special verdict in an action
for negligently inflicting personal injuries
establishes negligence on the part of the
| defendant and freedom from negligence on
the part of plaintiff Judgment should not
| be rendered in favor OF plaintiff z The
| establish or fix any general rule as to the
| length of time it will stop its trains at a
| station for the purpose Of discharging and
| receiving passengers without regard to the
number of passengers received or dis
charged on the patrtlcul3I trip. 3. Where
a man who was neither old, intirm nor Grip
| pied boarded q train With his two daugh-
| ters to find seats for them, and, because
| the train was crowded passed forward
| through two coaches, found them seats and
| had just reached the platform the train
| started uD at the end of d stop of three
! min ybar1 he 10 81
and stepped off while the train was in mo-
/ ton and was thrown down and injured, he
| cannot recover from the company for such
| injuries.
| APPEAL JURISDICTION - APPEL
LATE COURT.
2176. Marion S. C. Pullen ct al VS. Stew
| ard ct al Transferred TO Supreme Court.
| Henley J. - Where the Judgment of the
court below not only awarded a money
| judgment for damages, but granted in
! junction or other equitable relief as Well
| the Jurisdiction of the appeal is in the Su-
preme Court.
| IVER-AssUMPTION OF RISK-UN-
SEEN DEFECTS.
| 2400 Lake c. c. East Chicago l. and S.
Company vs.. Williams, Affirmed. Robin
son, il. Where appellant filed no brief
| except the supersedas brief all errors as
| signed. but net discussed in such brief are
| waived. 2. Where a servant knows of de-
| fects in the machinery and notifies the mas
| ter, informing him OF his intention to leave
| on that account and the master Then nrorn
| ises to- repair within a reasonable time and
| the servant relies upon such promise and
continues in the service and IS injured by
reason of such defect before the expiration
of reasonable time in which to make the
repairs, he will not be held to have as
sumed the risks incident to such defects
| 3 A servant does not assume risks from,
unseen defects of which he does not know
and cannot learn by such observation and
| inspection as he can reasonably make
RULE OF COURT - SUBMISSION OF
CAUSES
Ordered that Rule 10 OF the rules of this
court be amended TO read as follows:
rs. On Wednesday of the first week of
each term the docket will be open for sub
mission of causes upon call or for such
times, If the cause be ready for submission
the same shall stand submitted either upon
motion Of the party or by the order Of the
court. The docket shall remain open from
day 10 day during the sittings OF the court
for the submission Of such causes as the