The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-05
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.


1913. Haggerty VS.. Wagner Marion 8 q
reversed. McCabe, G. J.-When Peter Wag-
ner held an undivided interest in real estate
on the 18th day of May. 1856, and on said
tition, and the land not being susceptible of
DIVISION was sold by commissioner upon
divided among the parties to the action the
Wife OF said Wagner was in no way made
a party to the action. her husband being a
party plaintiff; she never Joined her hls-
Dand In a conveyance of the land nor had
she any knowledge of the partition suit
until after her husbands DEATH in no way
had she disposed of her inchoate interest in
the land, by her own act. In 1894 she
brought proceedings for partition of said
land. alleging that upon such facts she had
not been Invested of her interest in the
land. Held That she was not a necessary
party to the. former partition suit, and that
the sale and deed therein extinguished her
inchoate right to the one-third of her hus-
bands share therein.
n 1854 State of Indiana VS.; Feagaris
Where a person was indicted for being in
terested in a contract for street improve
ment, while he was acting as councilman
OF the city in which the Improvement was
being made the indictment is insufficient
when it fails to allege that the defendant
the Improvement mentioned. 2. An indict-
ment must state by direct averments the
facts constituting the offense as defined by
must be shown by its averments as to fully
inform the accused of the charge preferred,
and the court and jury of the crime of
which, upon trial, he is to be either con-
victed or acquitted.
1900 Jamison VS. Lake Erie & Western
Railroad Company. Morgan c. G. Affirmed
Monks, jim an action to review a judg
ment the facts stated in the complaint
should be sufficient to Withstand demur-
record sought to be reviewed and filed
Herewith.
1872 Austin VS.. Sanders. Upton c. C.
Appellants motion to dismiss sustained.
Appellate Court.
2252 Savings Bank VS. Cooper. Putnam c.
G. Affirmed. Henley, il. An assignment
of errors as follows: THAT the lower court
erred in everything the demurrer of the ap-
pelant to the amended answer of the ap-
pelees," is too indefinite to present any
question to this court. 2. Where there are
several paragraphs Of pleading, and the
suffciency of one is attacked in the argu-
ment, the particular paragraph should have
been designated in the assignment of err
rors if the correctness of the ruling of the
lower court is to be questioned in this tri-
bunal. 8. In order that the original long
hand transcript of the official shorthand
reporters notes be made part of the bill
of exceptions, the record must afffrmatively
show that such transcript was first filed in
the clerks office, afterwards Incorporated
in the bill of exceptions, then presented TO
the trial judge and by him authenticated by
his signature, then the bill of exceptions
must be filed with the clerk T. When the
evidence is not in the record this court will
presume that the instructions asked and re-
fused were refused because they were not
applicable to the cause made by the ns eve he
considered correct upon any state of facts
admissible under the issues they Will not
be regarded erroneous. 8. "A new trial VIII
not be granted, upon the ground of mis-
behavior of part of the jury during the trial,
unless it aftirmatively "a pears 5na az n rne
know the fact before the jury retired to
consider their verdict.
2544. Curtis vs.. State of Indiana. Marion
Criminal Court. Affirmed. Wiley, =. u
Affidavits showing the misconduct OF the
Jury in support of a reason for new trial
must be brought into the reGord oy on t HIi
question of the misconduct OF the jury Is
heard orally. and not brought into the rec
ord. this court will indulge the presump-
ton in favor of the trial court that its rul-
ings thereon were correct.
244S. l., D. & w. Railroad Company VS..
lilly Hendricks G. c. Ceruorarl issued.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Allison Maxwell VS.. Sarah He'll: not".
Finding and judgment for plaintiff against
defendant for $120.
Mary Stout vs.. Charles stout; divo re
JUDGE. Judgment against plalntin 1or
Nettie Sharp VS. Olive Rishling ct al;
foreclosure Finding and judgment for
nIaintiff against defendant Rishling for
N749 Finding of liens in favor of defend
ants. Nickerson. Walker ana Whlteshetn:
Francis Eggleston VS.. Jesse Roach ct al;
foreclosure Plaintiff dismisse5 as to de-
PENDANT Roach. Finding for plaintiff for
$S44.43.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Nicholas Hoffbauer VS.. Citizens Street
railroad Company; damage. On trial by
jury.
Hery Clay Allen, Judge.
Francis E. Bergen ct al. VS.. Harriet
Leggo ct al; partition. Dismissed by plain
tiff and costs paid.
Edward Springer VS.. George Springer's
estate: claim Allowed by administrator
for $3.50. Costs against estate.
New Suits Filed.
Anna M. Chappelle VS.. Hobby F. Chap
peIie; suit for divorce. Superior Court
Room 2.
Francis Thorpe VS.. the Globe Life and
Accident Insurance Company; suit on pol
ICY Circuit Court.
Clara Martin VS.. Cora Martin ct AL; suit
for partition. Circuit Court.
James V. Nixon ct al VS.. Fletcher M
Noe; suit on note. Superior Court, Room 2
Minnie Clark VS.. John Clark; suit for di-
vorce. Superior Court, Room g.
Indiana Society for Savings VS.. Orville
d. Coser ct al; suit to foreclose mortgage
Superior Court, Room 8.
Indiana Society for Savings VS.. John X.
Reed ct al. suit to foreclose mortgage
Superior Court, Room. 3.
>-O-a--------
j. G.. HamiItOn's House BurgIarized.