The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-05-14
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1926. Sizor VS.. City of Logansport. Cass
c. c. Affirmed. Monks, J.-Where the me-
veyors as near the water line of a stream as
possible, and was intended to mark the
water line, in all conveyances where such
line is mentioned it must be held to mean
the actual water line, unless the contrary
appears from the deed itself
1894. Garrison vs. Garrison. Marion S.
c.. Affirmed. Howard, c.. il. 1t is not error
for the court to refuse to sustain mo-
ton, in divorce case, for an allowance for
attorneys fees, as the allowance should be
ito her attorneys on their petition. 2. The
record should show that the appellant has
taken an appeal.
1898 Demaree VS.. Johnson. Johnson C.
c. Petition for rehearing overruled,, but
mandate modified. Howard, c. il. A de-
murrer admits the truth of pleading and
the court cannot go, elsewhere to find it
untrue. 2 In special elections the notice
called for by the law is absolutely essential
notice is given, if the people have been in
formed as to the fact. time and place of the.
election, and have actually participated in
it, then, the election cannot be held invalid
so far as notice is concerned unless there
is a clear intent manifest in the statute to
make something relating to the manner of
giving the notice essential to such validity.
Appellate Court.
1887 Broden VS.. Thorpe Block, etc, Asso-
citation. Marion S. G. Affirmed. Wiley, j.
Il. Before appeals from the special to the
general term of the Marion Superior Court
were abolished, the bond provided for in
R. S. 1894 Sec. 1414, such statute clothed the
court with large discretionary power in re-
curing the bond, and fixing the conditions
thereof, when the proper affidavit was filed
for such purpose, and the action of the
court cannot be reviewed in this court UNI
less there is manifest abuse OF such dis
erection. 2. Where a complaint on an APP
peal bond shows the filing of the bond by
the direction of the court upon it being exc
cuted and a breach of the bond, it will be
sufficient to withstand demurrer 3. Such
a bond must be regarded as strictly statu-
tory. 4. When the evidence Is not properly
in the record it cannot be considered.
25O6. Perrin National Bank VS.. Thompson.
Tippecanoe C. C. Affirmed. Henly, il.
Where q special verdict under the act of
1896 found every question of fact necessary
to sustain each paragraph of plaintiff $
complaint the lower court could not have
plaintiff and when such a judgment is rem
dered this court will not disturb 1t when the
evidence is conflicting. 2. 1t is harmless err
ror to instruct jury generally when they
are directed to return a special verdict.
2190. Capital City Dairy Company VS..
Plummer. Marion S. c. Appellants petit
1919. Smell VS.. Maddox Delaware c. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled:
24S1. Wood VS.. Wood. Decatur Z. =.
Transferred to Supreme Court.
Superior Court.
Room 1-Jno. l.. McMaster, Judge.
Arthur p. Schofield VS.. City of Indianapo-
lis ct al; damages. Jury out.
Lydia Drimmie VS.. Pet King. Dismissed
Dy DldlHtlu anu COSlS pdlu
Isaac II. Ringer, Administrator, VS.. Ben
jamn Fl. Ringer ct al: foreclosure chattel
mortgage. Finding and Judgment for plant
if against defendants for $l7.34 and costs.
Room "A. r. Hovey, Judge Pro Tenn.
Albert Raab, Trustee, VS.. Clark McPhee-
tiers ct al; foreclosure. Judgment against
defendant for $959.12 and costs. Foreclosure
and sale ordered.
James Maxey VS.. Jacob l.. Bieer ct al;
damages. On trial by jury. Jury out.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Guy Schoone VS.. W;n. T.. lockwood: dam
ages Jury instructed to return a verdict
for defendant
John w Blackldge VS.. The Lewis Porter
Cabinet Company. Dismissed by plaintiff.
Judgment against plaintiff for costs
Margaret Conboy vs.. Railway Officials
and Employees Accident Association; pol
icy. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen Judge.
Ada Raper VS.. George Raper's Estate.
Submitted to court. Evidence heard
Criminal Court.
John t. McCray, Judge.
The State of Indiana VS.. Ernest Wake
field; grand larceny. Defendant arraigned.
Plea of not guilty.
The State of Indiana VS.. Charles
Teschnitz. petit larceny. Defendant with