The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-10

a copy of the election to take under the will
with the complaint. 2. The mere execution
of an election to take under the provisions
of will and filing the same with the clerk
will not estop the widow (who made the
election) from afterwards making an cleo
ton to take under the law provided the
rights of innocent parties are not affected
by the latter determination. 3. Where
thirty days from June 5 was granted in
which to file a bill of exceptions, and the
bill was not presented to and signed by the
judge until the 18th day of July, and on
the same day filed in the Office of the clerk,
held, that the bill of exceptions formed no
part of the record. f. Where a part or all
of pleading is stricken out on motion. the
clerk in making transcript for an appeal,
parts stricken out; but when the clerk does
copy the part stricken out into the tran
script as a part of the record, and there
is no bill of exceptions showing that the
same was stricken out, this court cannot
disregard such part, but must, unless the
proper correction is made by writ OF certio-
rari, consider the pleading as if the same,
or no part thereof, had been stricken out.
1S349. Drake VS.. Schoenstedt. Adams c.
G. Reversed. Howard, c. J.-Where GER
tain amount of real estate was assessed for
the construction of a tile ditch and the
ditch was constructed with capacity sufi-
from such land, but for all the water which
naturally flows toward said drain; held, that
the owner of such land can be enjoined
from causing the water to flow into said
ditch which would naturally flow in an
other direction, and thereby rendering the
joining land owner who had been assessed
for the construction thereof, and for which
land the capacity of the drain had been par
ticularly constructed
176l1. Tate VS. Hamlin. Marion 5. Z. Pc
tition for rehearing overruled.
1879. Fulk VS.. State of Indiana. Allen c.
c. Transferred to Appellate Court.
Appellate Court.
250S. State of Indiana VS.. Matthias. War
rem c. G. Reversed. Comstock, il Any
one who sells intoxicating liquors under the
license of the United States is amenable
to all the provisions of the act of the Leg
those relating to obtaining, revoking and re-
mOnstrating against licenses. 2. Under the
liquor act of 1896 an indictment will lie for
selling Intoxicating liquors on Sunday to
be drunk as beverage; also, for maintain
ing screens for preventing view of the
interior of the place where such liquors are
sold when the sale of such liquors is I'M
lawful.
22O9. Jones VS. Hirshburg. Jackson C. c.
Affirmed. Wiley, i'll. In an action by a
husband against the mother of his wife for
alternating his Wife's affections it is not nee
essary to show in the complaint the devices
resorted to or the language used to induce
plaintiffs wife to leave him. 2. The prov
ince of a complaint is to state and plead
the fact or facts which constitute the cause
of action. 3. 1t is not the province of a
pleading to state the evidence or conclusions
of law. 4. The averment of the amount of
damages suffered may be made in the
prayer of the complaint. 5. When a set
of interrogatories were propounded by each
side of the case and the jury returns an
swers thereto they constitute a single YER
dict. g. In case a special verdict contains
unnecessary matters, if, when all surplus,
redundant and irrelevant interrogatories are
eliminated from the verdict, there still re-
mains sufficient facts upon which the judg-
ment of the trial court may rest, it will not
be disturbed on account of such surplusage.
Z. venire de novo will not be awarded
unless the verdict is so defective and uncef-
tain upon it's face that no judgment can be
rendered upon it. 8. When the questions to
be determined depend upon the evidence, In
order to present the question to the court
the evidence must be in the record. g. A
person who causes a wife to leave her hus-
band is liable to the latter in an action for
damages.
23I1 Offutt VS. Gowdy. Rush c. C. At
frmed. Robinson, c. J.-When person
brings an action to procure a new trial on
account of newly discovered evidence It is
necessary to plead the newly discovered ey-
idence and the evidence in the former trial
the newly discovered evidence must be of
very material and decisive character not
cumulative, but such as to render 1T rea-
sonably certain that another trial would
bring about a different result.
254l. Daniels VS. State of Indiana. st.
Joseph G. G. Transferred to Supreme Court.
Wiley, J-When the assignment of error
calls in question the validity OF q statute
2314 City of Rushville VS.. Leyden. Rush
c.. G. Appeal dismissed
1928. HalStead VS.. JeSSup. Greene G. G.
Transferred to Supreme Court.
Superior Court.
Room 1-B. S. Higgins, Special Judge.
Frederick Rand, receiver, VS.. John G..
Wright ct al; on trial by jury.
j. L. McMaster, Judge.
Norman C. Scott VS.. William Sharpe;
note. Judgment for plaintiff by agreement
for $1,214 and costs.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Company VS.. John Armstrong ct al. Dis
missed and costs paid.
Amanda farrell VS.. City of Indianapolis;
damages. On trial by jury. Jury out;
Railway; damages. Dismissed by plaintiff.
Costs paid.
Eddie B. Sutton VS.. Mamie 6. Sutton; di-
vorce. Decree granted plaintiff.
Room S-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Henry O'Kay VS.. S. p. Hamilton ct al. /;
appeal. On trial by jury,
Roughen Greeson VS.. Edward Harmon ct
al; injunction bond. Jury returns verdict
for plaintiff for $130.SO.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Samuel Schuck VS. Charles C. Burch, COM
missioner. Verdict for defendant.
Benjamin r. Nysewander VS. the Heaton
Manufacturing and Lumber Company; ac.
against plaintiff for costs.
Sarah e. Johnson VS.: Robert Roe's estate.
Submitted to court i Eyid De heard End
terest, and $23 attorneys fees; total. $254 90.
John L. Woodward Cornelius Nc
Groarty, superintendent of workhouse;
habeas corpus. Submitted to court. Evil
dence heard
James w. Johnson VS.. John c.. Riley; re-
plevn. Submitted to court. Evidence
heard.
New Suits Filed.
The Indiana Bond Company VS.. Charles
A. Seaman ct al. street lien. Superior
Court, Room 2
Sarah Cooper VS.. the Globe Life Insur-
ance Company of Indiana; suit on policy.
Superior Court, Room 2.
Martha A. Ward VS.. Frederick w. Willie
ct al. suit to foreclose mortgage. Circuit
Court.
ct al suit to quiet title. Superior Court,
Lille Graham Jones VS.. John Henry Ora
ham Jones; suit for divorce Superior
Court, Room L
Matte Palmerton VS.. Frank Palmerton;
divorce. Superior Court, Room 2.
John E. Wilson VS.. Annie r. Wilson; suit
for divorce Superior Court, Room 3.
George Van Pelt ct al. VS.. James w. Py-
att; suit for damages. Superior Court,
Room 3.
DEW Md HIJTuDIEJC TETTTIDE