The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-15

Supreme Court.

1882. Geisen VS.. Reder. Porter G. G. At
trmed. Hackney, c. il. In order to pre-
sent an agreed case 70 the court the re re-
lowed. The affidavit required by law, to
show that the case is real and in good
faith is essential to give jurisdiction of the
bility of evidence do not arise upon an
agreed case the primary feature of which
verted but fully agreed upon and presented
the basis for a conclusion of law. 3. The
burden rests upon the appellant to bring to
this court record disclosing error In the
action of the trial court and in failing to
do so this court Will presume that the Judg-
ment of the trial court was correct
1850 State ex rel. Taylor vs. Mount Ma
rion c. c. Reversed. Howard, il. Where
several parties are candidates for the office
of appellate judges they have such a COM
mon interest that they may sue Jointly for
the purpose of having their names placed
upon the official ballot to be voted at the
ensuing election. 2. When statutory court
is to expire at certain date judges elected
therefor before its expiration are elected
only for the term for which the court was
created. g. In extending the life of a court
already in existence the Legislature has no
You'd the time when the court would ex-
pre had the court not been extended, and
any attempt to so. continue them in office
beyond their term is void.
1909 State ex rel. Harrison VS.. Menaugh.
Whitley c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled. There is no existing law which au-
the November election of this year.
Dunke. cass G G Petitioni for i reheari Ing;
1854. L. & N. A. Railway Company VS..
Heck Carroll c. c. Petition for rehearing
1914 State of Indiana VS.. Winstandlev.
Clark c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled
1886. Lilard VS.. State Of Indiana. Wander
burg c. G. Petition for rehearing overruled
1880. T: H: & /. Railroad Company VS..
Sheeks Marion S. c. Motion to dismiss
1904. G. & E. Railway COMPANY VS.
ing overruled
1869. .Wilcoxon VS.. City of Bluffton. Wells
1916. Wilson VS.. State of Indiana Steuben
G. g. Dismissed under Rule 90
1910. Eastman VS.. Board of Commission
erS Grant c c. Submitted advanced brief
ordered filed by Oct q, iS9S. SET for oral
argument Oct. q, 1898.
Appellate Court.
80. Samples vs.. Carnahan. Owen c. C.
Reversed: Robinson, il An answer by
admits an innuendc which may be drawn
from the language used. 2 Where q person
writes 10 another with whom he has had
business transactions, urging him to with
draw note in the hands of an attorney for
Sohectlon, IN which writing he questions the
honesty ana Integrity of an attorney. In an
actlcn Tor libel based on the writing 1t will
lot be considered that the writing was a
privileged communication in the absence OF
confidential inquiry from the person to
whom It is written. 5. If an answer denies
either directly argumentatively a ma
teriai allegation in the complaint, although
9 Justification may also be pleaded. the de-
fendant has no right to open and close the
case
2S1S; Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company
VS.. Does. Clark c. c. Reversed. Com
stock, il. In an action against a railway
company for negligently burning property a
special verdict to authorize judgment for
the plaintiff must show affirmativeiys that
jury. ?. The special verdict of a jury
should find the facts and not draw conclu-
sions from the ultimate facts of the case
2455. Diggs VS.. Way. Randolph c. c.
Reversed. Black, III. An improper ex-
hibit will not be considered in examining a
pleading for the purpose of determining the