The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-16
THE COURT RECORD.
Sunreme C0nrt.


1904. City of Evansville VS. Senhenn. War
rick c. C. Reversed. McCabe, C. il. An
infant of tender years is deemed in law
not possessed OF sufficient discretion to
make 1t guilty OF negligence for its failure
to exercise due care for its own safety.
q An infant of tender years cannot be-
charged with negligence, nor can he be so
charged with the negligence of his parents
or guardian. g. A municipal corporation
is responsible for the negligence of an in
dependent contractor with such corporation
in placing lumber in the city in asnegligent
manner, unless the lumber has been placed
in its position long enough that the cor
poration may be presumed to have notice
thereof
1921. Baldwin VS. Sutton. Cass C. c. At
firmed. Jordan, il. In appealing to this
court the complaining party is required to
specify with reasonable certainty the ruiz
ings of the lower court upon which he re-
lies and desires reviewed, and such assign
nent must be supported by the record, and
error not we'll assigned can be made
available. as all appeals are tried by the
record. 2. Whore 1t is sought to reverse
the trial court in adjudging costs 1t must
appear that there was motion made
to modify or correct the judgment in such
respect.
1924 Smith VS. Dietrich Marshall c. C.
Tr Trans to Appellate Court; !.
Appeal dismissed and leave given to with
draw and file record.
Appellate Court.
240S. Kyle VS.. the State. Grant c.. c.
Affirmed. Robinson, il. When the state
had been made in the defendants drug
store by physician, while he himself was
present in the drug store and only a few
feet away, with nothing to prevent him
from knowing what was going on, and
that few minutes afterward defendant
found on the showcase, a prescription call
ing for whisky, which he placed On a
hook with other prescriptions, such facts
may authorize the jury. to conclude that
the gift was made with the defendants
consent. The law does not contemplate
that druggist may give parties perms-
sion to go to his prescription case and get
what they want while he Is only few
feet away and makes no effort to see or
learn what they are doing and then
escape the statutory penalty in pretense
q A gift or sale Of liquor in any other
manner than that provided by statute is
Authorized to sell or give away sintoxicat Ing
liquors except as provided by law, and in
case a prescription has been furnished him
to sell such, and the same has been used
and has performed its purpose, a second
sale or gift upon the same prescription is
in effect a sale without a prescription.
T. The letters "a. s. (meaning sufficient
quantity or quantity as desired') added
to a prescription for whisky does not make
the prescription comply with the statute.
Company. Marion S. G. Reversed. Hen
ley, J.-When the answers to interroga-
tories are such as tend to show that either
of the defendants (appellees) were free
from fault. in q personal injury, are so flat
ly contradicted, not only by direct ques-
trend Of the whole verdict as to completely
lose their force the verdict should be for
the plaintiff.
2O2S Ross VS. stockwer Monroe c. c.
Certorari granted.
2036 l., N. a. & c. Railway Company
VS.. Downey. Owen C. c. Petition for re-
hearing overruled
1880 Maud VS.. Peterson Vigo G. G..
Motion for certiorari overruled.
1851 Paxton VS. Manufacturing Company.
Sullivan G. G. Motion to dismiss postponed
until final hearing
2455 Diggs VS.. Way. Randolph c. c.
Certiorari granted and issued.
New Suits Filed.
Maud May Schaffer VS. William C. Schaf-
fer; divorce Superior Court Room g.
Bernard Pollard VS. Washington Township
Society for the Detection or Horse Thieves;
damages. Superior Court Roorl 2.
Chancey Wallace US. Mary Y. Wallace;
divorce. Superior Court Room 2.
Salvador Oteri vs.. Fred Crawford ct al:
suit on account. Superior Court Room 8.
Edith Wundrum VS.. William w Wund-
rum; divorce Superior Court Room 5.
Alonzo A. McCray VS.. Mary A. WINS:
Alonzo A. McCray VS. Zachariah T. Hobbs
ct al: Improvement lien. Superior Court.
Room l.
II. f. Kinney VS.. The Metallic Manufnc-
turing Company ct al. suit on note. SUI
perior Court, Room /.
Willard W. Hubbard VS.. Ceatta r. Oliver
ct al. suit 10 foreclose mortgage. Superior
Court. Room 2
Thomas II. Gamble ct al VS.. Henry C.
Wiese ct al; suit on note. Superior Court
Room 3.