The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-10

venue has authority to make any orders
that could be made by the court in which
the suit was filed.
BOILER EXPLOSION - NEGLIGENCE
DEFECTS.
1873. L. y. a. & c. Ry. Co. VS.. Lynch.
Starke c. G. Rehearing oenied. Hack
ney. il. The mere fact that one OF its To-
comotives exploded should not be consid-
cred the determining the existence OF negi-
gence on its part. 2. This fact may, how
ever. be considered in determining whether
the boiler which exploded was defective.
PERJURY - INDICTMENT - SUFFI-
CHENEY.
1907. State VS. Sutton. Montgomery G.
c. Reversed. Howard. il. An indict-
ment which charges that the defendant was
a witness in certain case and certain
matter became and was one of the mate
he feloniously, falsely. willfxlly and cor
ruptly testified, deposed and swore'' 10 Ger
tain facts regarding such point, which tes-
timony is properly shown TO have been
false. the indictment is good against mo-
ton to quash. .. This is true where the ac-
ton In which he testified is shown TO have
been suit for damages for killing colt
and the alleged perjured evidence touched
defendants qualifications to testify as an
expert witness as 10 tne vaqe eh Oh the sG
ct al. Vanderburg c. c. Petition for re-
hearing overruled.
1851. Enoch Myers VS.. Jordan f. Gibson.
Fulton c. G.. Motion for certtorari over
ruled.
Appellate Court.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE-NICHOLS
LAW-RECORD.
1886 Heron VS. State. Montgomery c.
G. Affirmed. Robinson. i'll. Duphcity Is
sufficient ground for quashing an indict-
nent. 2. An indictment which properly
charges that the defendant failed 10 re-
move the screens from the front windows
of his saloon on the 4th of July, and also
charges that he sold liquor on that day.
but fails to charge that the liquor was sold
to be drank a beverage. or TO state to
whom the sale was made. Is not bad Tor
Il ia fnf 81 Vol 90 &c
not ended until Judgment Is rendered, and
until that time the court has power 10 ex-
tend the time for filing bill of exceptions;
4. The defendant was properly convicted
upon proof of a violation of part only OF
! the provisions of Section of the Nicholson
law ). Unless the record afhrmatvely
instructions to be given in writing before
the argument began. the case will not be
were given orally. g. The fact that the
judge gave the defendant an exception TO
the giving of oral instructions shows that
written instructions were properly re-
quested.
SUMMONS-PRECIPE-
2122. Axtell ct al. vs.. Workman. Greene
c. G. Affirmed. Black. il An assign
ment that the complaint does not state a
cause of action must fail if either para
graph is sufficient. 2. Where complaint
when filed was Endorsed clerk will set this
on the 26th day of the present term of this
court the same being the 21st day of May,
1895, and the clerk issued a summons to
the 21st of May, which was served by read
ing TO the defendant on the 18th of May,
the defendant cannot object to such service
because of the insufficiency of the precipe.
8. The statute does not prescribe a form
to be used in the Endorsement of precipe.
4. A defective precipe may be objected to
or disregarded by the clerk. but cannot be
| made the basis Of a motion TO quash the
service of a summons duly issued and
served
FINDING FACT-PRAC-
TICE.
1923. Wippennan VS.. Hardy. Carroll C.
c. Affirmed. Henley, il. The finding
that the note sued on was fully paid and
satisfied before the suit was begun was not
| the statement of conclusion of law, but
was the finding of an ultimate fact. 2. The
| acceptance by a creditor of the note of a
| third person in satisfaction of existing
| debt operates to extinguish the debt, even
! though the note be for less sum than
| the original debt. 3. Where such note is
accepted under an agreement as to what
| debt it shall satisfy it cannot De applied
| by the creditor to discharge a different
| debt and leave the first debt in force. 4.
| A statement by appellee's counsel in his
| brief that for the sake of peace and har-
| mony" he will admit certain contentious of
the appellants counsel. which. If estab-
| lished, would require the case to be re-
versed. while he is contending that II be
| affirmed, does not amount to confession