The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-17
THE COURT RECORD.

purely statutory. 2. An action to set aside
Will and its probate. on the ground that
to contest the will. 8. With reference to
personal property the law of the place
where the teStator is domiciled at the
time of his death governs as TO the Capacity
of the testator to make a will, and as to
the forms to be observed in its execution
and revocation, and as TO its validity in
every respect. 4. Questions as to bequests
of personal property are adjudicated when
the will is admitted to probate, and the
where land is situated governs the dispo-
stion thereof, whether by will or deed. 6.
The probate of will in enc State gives no
State. z. Under Section 277O, Revised
Statutes, 1894, when a foreign will devises
real estate situated in this State, and a
duly authenticated is presented under our
statute for filing and recording any person
proceedings, and II the foreign will is also
admitted to probate or filed and recorded
such person may contest the same within
the time prescribed by said section. s. Sec
ton I'LL Revised Statutes, 1894. does not
apply to contests of foreign wills authorized
by Section 277O Revis ed Statutes. 1894. 8.
creates right that would not exist in its
absence. and must be exercised within the
tended or limited by Section 297, Revised
Statutes, 1894. of the code of civil pro-
ceedure. 10 When the jurisdiction of a
court depends upon the finding Of certain
facts the exercise of jurisdiction implies the
finding of such facts.
1929. Clause Printing Company VS.. Chi
cago, ETC., Bank. ElShart c. G. Affirmed.
McCabe, C. il. There Is no error in re-
fusing to entertain a motion to strike out
a motion. g A motion for, nunc pro tune
entry is not part of the record unless
made so by a bill of exception or an order
of court. 8. The hearing of such motion
is not trial in any proper sense under our
code.
1910 Watson VS. Finch. Marion s. c.
Affirmed. In the absence of the clerk s sig
-.a.sr%% ~ hc
treated as a copy of the original record,
and cannot be received or used as evidence
to sustain appellants complaint
G. Dismissed.
Appellate Court.
$3.50. Helms VS.. State ex rel. Cunningham.
Rush G. G. Affirmed. Robinson, J.-When
a township trustee borrows money for the
purpose of building a schooihouse and exc
cutes his note therefor, and the lender sues
the trustee and his bondsmen for the
amount, alleging that the trustee appro-
priated the money to his own use, it is not
error to sustain demurrers to answers
thereto when the same facts may be shown
under general denial.
2SO1. National Bank VS.. Osborne. Elkhart
c. c: Affirmed. Black i'll: A trustee of
a school township is a public officer and
all who deal with him as such are charged
with notice of the extent and limits of his
official authority. which Is statutory, His
authority to execute promissory notes or
warrants as evidences of school township
debts is limited to debts for legitimate
school purposes. Such note or warrant is
not commercial paper, and its assignment
cannot cut off any defense of the township,
and in an action against school township
upon such note or warrant for school sup
plies 1t is necessary for the 1plaintim to show
that the trustee was acting within his Of
fetal authority, and for such purpose 1t
must be made to appear that the supplies
were suitable and necessary for the use
of the public schools under his jurisdictions;
also the delivery to the school township and
it's acceptance of the supplies must be
lows: This warrant is given for neces-
sary school supplies, consisting or reading
circle library and cases" etc, shows upon
its face that it is void, and purchasers are
charged with notice thereof; and such pur-
chaser has no right to rely upon the rep
resentation. of the trustee that the war
resentation render the. trustee personally
liable to one who purchased 1t with knoWl-
2547. Town of Boswell vs. Wakeley. New
ton c. c. Transferred to S. C.-When one
member of this court has set as trial judge
in cause and on appeal the other members
are equally divided upon the question pre-
sented the cause will be transferred 10 the
Supreme Court.
Superior Court.
Room 1-Lawson M Harvey, Judge.
Duane H. Bowles, Trustee. VS.. Robert
Thomas ct AL; suit on note. Jury out.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Mary O,Brien VS.. Johr o'Brien; partition.
Finding for plaintiff that property IS not
susceptible of division ordered sold and
James S. Cruise appointed commissioner TO
Frank d. Fee VS.. Monarch Supply Co. ct
al; damages. Jury return verdict for plant
if for $125.
]. M. Amos VS.. Claudine A. Stackhouse;
note. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
L. e. Carr VS.. Lou NJ. Warner; SANDER
Defendant defaulted Submitted TO &c court;
evidence heard and hn9lng LOT plai a1nn anu
judgment against defendant for 500 and
indiana Electro-plating Co. VS.. Robert M.
Foster. Dismissed for want OF prosecution
and Judgment against plaintiff for costs.
B. Koehring & Son VS.. l. c. Miller; ap,
peal. Dismissed for want of prosecution ana
Judgment against defendant for costs.
City of Indianapolis VS.. Albert Blake
from dice Court. Finding for plaintln ana
judgment against defendant for u ana costs.
Mrs Emily Dill VS. Matilda Bailey Es-
tate. Submitted to court. evidence heard
and finding for plaintiff for s. and costs
Patrick IA. Moore VS.. Polar Ice Company;
appeal. Dismissed by plaintiff and costs
paid.
John F. McCray, Judge.
State of Indiana VS.. Orville Adams, alias
Frank Adams; grand larceny. Finding Of
State of Indiana VS.. Will Kraatz; assault
and battery. Appeal from justice court Evil
Slate 20 of indiana VS.. VIII Kraatz; quar-
reIing on Sunday. Appeal from justice
court Fine of so assessed.
State of Indiana VS.. Al Harrington; Durg-
larry and grand larceny. Motion for new
trial sustained and evidence heard. Finding
of guilty Imprisonment in county jail for
six months.
New Suits Filed.
Thomas W. Smock VS.. Oliver G. Leavitt
ct al. habeas corpus. Superior Court.
Room 2.
Harry H. Atkinson VS.. James w. Haugh-
ey ct al: malicious prosecution. Superior
Court, Room /.
Richard NJ Barwise VS. Helen G. Bar
wise; suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Room !.
Mary Bracket VS.. Sidney G.. Bracket ct
all suit for support. Superior Court
William L. Taylor VS. the Indianapolis &
Broad Ripple Rapid Transit Company; suit
on account. Circuit Court.
Anna Leavitt Smock vs. Thomas Wade
Smock; suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Room 2.
William Cobler VS.. Malinda Cobler; suit
for divorce. Superior Court Room B.
She Knew that Much.
Pittsburg Observation-Disclosures
Il see" said Miss Northside, that the
Governor of Pennsylvania has been on the
Chickamauga battlefield and Methodist