The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-15

Of other creditors or liens and to protect
this right she is entitled to have the per-
sonal assets. not res aired for the payment
or claims expressly preferred by statute.
applied TO the payment OF the mortgage or
other liens necessary to protect her one
third interest in the real estate and clear
such assets are not sufficient to protect
her interest, she may have all the real eS-
tate or her deceased husband that does not
descend 10 her as widow. sold and the pro-
ceeds applied 10 payment of liens on real
estate SO as TO protect the interest given
tate OF the decedent. including the widows
interest therein, is sold by TIE administra-
tor 10 discharge a Hen thereon the widow
is entitled TO one-third of the gross pro-
ceeds of the sale. provided that sum re-
mains after the lien is paid. 3. If widows
husband is sold and conveyed to pay her
husbands debts, secured by mortgage
reimbursed for the full value of
her share therein out of other
assets of the estate. real and personal.
IL any and such claim Is preferred and
must be paid before the claims of general
creditors. 1. II a man die the owner of sew
eral tracts of real estate leaving widow
and children surviving him, and a part Il
said real estate is subject to a mortgage
executed by him in his lifetime. in the ex-
ecution of which his wife Joined one-third
of all his real estate may be set off TO the
widow in one body, and If set off in the
part covered by the mortgage ii is the duty
of the administrator to apply the personal
estate in the order prescribed by statute to
pay said mortgage debt and If the same
is insufficient for that purpose TO sell so
much of the real estate not set off TO the
widow as is necessary to pay the balance,
and thus carry out the directions of the
statute.
iS0Si Edison vs. The State Knox c. c.
Affirmed. Hackney, III. A charge of theft
in stealing many articles is not defeated il
the proof show the stealing of but few Of
charges the defendant with having unlaw-
fully and feoniously stolen, taken ard car
a = p n - Of
two finger rings of the value Of IS: one
pair of hair clippers of the value Of 81 and
one pair ot scissors, OF me value oI 81,
it is sufficient to state public offense.
1922. Harmon VS.. The State Elkhart c.
C. Affirmed. Howard. il. The jury is the
exclusive judge of matters OF fact, and their
determination cannot be reviewed 2. In
order TO take advantage of giving alleged
erroneous instructions, exceptions should be
must be shown, afirmatively, by the trans
crpt that the instructions set out therein
are all that were given by. the court, and
the Instructions given must be In the record.
g. A bin of exceptions, in order to be in the
record, must be signed by the judge.
1906. Abshire VS.. Williamson Wells G.. q.
Motion to dismiss postponed.
1902. Dale VS. Detoff. Porter c. c. Strick-
en- from the docket.
1916. Koontz VS.. Savings Bank Marshall
G. c. Motion to dismiss sustained.
1929. State Bank VS.. Hams. Hamilton Z.
c. Motion to dismiss overruled.
1855. Tippecanoe Lumber Company vs.
Scholl. Tippecanoe G.. c. Dismissed by
iSi74. Michigan Insurance Company vs.
Frankel. Hamilton c. C. Certiorar
1920. Board of Commissioners VS.. Chap
man. Allen S. G. Petition to advance over
ruled.
1927. Hubbs VS. Kuntz Trust. Perry C. C.
1929. Hilker VS.. Hilker Allen S. c. Dis
missed
cation for leave to assign cross-errors
granted.
1885 Gimbel VS.. Field. Kosciusko C. C.
1924. Miller VS.. State. St. Joseph c. c.
Certiorari granted.
1858. Travellers Insurance Company VS..
Kent White c. C. Publications ordered
1851. Johnson VS.. State of Indiana. Marion
CIR. C. Certiorari ordered.
( 1887. Stoltz VS.. Manor. Jay Q. O. MOTION
for leave to re-entitle assignment of errors
Appellate Court Decisions.
225S Russell VS.. Stoner. Marion S. c. Afr
weigh sigh the evidence. e. Where bond is
taken for the performance of a building
contract and shows that the contractor
was building the house for his wife. such
bond is competent to show that a material
man. In furnishing materials, dealt with the
husband and not with the wife g. Where
objections are made to questions asked a
witness there must be made a specific state
ment by way of an offer to the court as to
what Is sought 10 prove ana the lcStliloliy
which the witness will give in answer to the
questions, in order to take advantage of the
error in sustaining the objection to the
question.
2iOs. Board of Commissioners vs. Reinier,
Shelby C. C. Reversed Wiley. G. Estates
ana counties are not liable for damages re-
account of defects therein, resulting from
the negligence of it's officers, unless right
of action is expressly granted by statute,
Jay c. C. Affirmed Black J.-Where q
promissory note, after the statement of the
principal which the maker maker promises to pay
words render the sum TO be paid indefinite
and uncertain, which renders the note nom
2309 L. N. A. & G. Railway Company
VS. Wright. Tippecanoe s. G. Petition Tor
rehearing overruled. -
2445 Haas VS.. City of EVANSVILLE Wander
burg G. c. Certiorari granted.
Superior Court.
Room 2--Lawson M. Harvey, Judge
Thomas r. Powers ct al. VS.. James New
man; on account. Dismissed and costs
David Bradley Manufacturing Company
VS. George Prler. Judgment against de-
fendant for $6S5,91 and costs.
Inn T. Hitler VS.. Thomas Colbert; habeas
corpus. Dismissed. with Judgment against
German Fire Insurance Company VS.;
against defendant for S2.366, 80 and costs.
John w. Schmidt ct al. w. Manvah w:
Grim ct AL; on account. Judgment d6dllSl
defendant Grim for SIS and costs.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
A. III. Bowser VS.. Minnie Sackett ct al
Cause redocketed. .
Lucy K. walker VS.: Mahala Kitchens
estate. Claim allowed by agreement of par
ties in the sum Of $40 and costs against
estate.
Room 3--Vinson Carter, Judge.
William M. Kennedy VS.. Eta Kennedy;
divorce Finding for plaintiff and divorce
granted. Judgment against plaintiff Tor
Frank M. Giichrist VS.. H. p WATSON ct
al. On trial by jury.
New Suits Filed.
Mary Partee VS.. Anna Butler; slander.
Sary b. Logan ct al. VS.. William p
Smith ct al; suit to quiet title. Superior
Court, Room l.
Emma D. Pool vs.. George Willis Pool; di-
yorce Superior Court, Room 2.
Eliza Gallagher VS.. City OF indianapolis
ct al; damages. Superior Court Room ].
Albert l.. Copeland VS. Alice Copeland; d.
vorce Superior Court, Room ]:
Ann e. Wood VS.. John j Hilgenberg ct
81 ca1ft for partitiOn. Superior Court,