The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-29
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

| Supreme Court.
| 1875. Fink VS. State of Indiana Allen
C.. c. Reversed. Jordan, il. In an az
| fi4aVit and Information the particular crime
with which the accused is charged must be
| preferred with reasonable certainty by the
| essential averments in the pleading as Will
enable the court and jury to distinctly un-
derstand what is 70 be tried and deter
mined, and fully inform the defendant of
| the particular charge which he is required
| to meet. 2. In order to make an informa-
ton valid for obtaining money or property
| by means of false pretenses there must be
an absolute and direct negative of the par
| ticular pretenSes by which the money or
| property was obtained, and thereby show
| that they were false.
pany VS.. Hay Company. Marshall c. c.
Petition for rehearing overruied per Gu
| RAM The fact that the jury in returning
| special verdict under the act of 1895 found
| that the loss was certain amount and
| also interest from the date of the loss viii
| not justify a reversal on account of the in
| tereSt finding .but the objection on account
! of the addition of interest must be taken
advantage of by motion to modify the
| judgment
| Affirmed. Hackney il In a suit to
| cancel a note, as a forgery. where the de-
| tense AYERS that the plaintiff executed the
| notes to one of the defendants as a COM
| promise of a threatened SANDER suit, 1t is
| improper to cross examine plaintiff with
| reference to the character of the defendant
when no statements with reference to her
| character were brought by the examination
| in chief. 2. There can be no inference from
| the mere conveyance of ones property that
| he is a debtor or that he does so to defeat a
claim the validity of which he denies. g.
Where a person brings an action to cancel
| a note it is not proper for the defendant to
show that the plaintiff never denied the eX-
ecuton of the notes unless such circum-
stances are shown that made it the duty of
plaintiff to speak. 4. In order TO justify
expert testimony the question must be with
in the domain of expert evidence. s. Where
the defense to a suit for cancellation Of
notes is that the notes were given in set
Element of an impending SANDER suit it is
proper for the plaintiff to show circum-
stances which would entitle the defense to
no damages or as little damages as possible.
g. Where a case is tried by a court only
this court will not presume that improper
examination of witness was allowed over
the objections of the other party to such an
come prejudiced in favor of the examining
party. Z. In an action for cancellation of
notes it is within the discretion Of the trial
court to allow such evidence as will estab-
lish the forgery of the notes as long as the
opposite party is not harmed by such ac-
ton.
1SlO2. Prescott vs. Haughey. Marion c.
c. Certiorari granted.
1876. Pullen VS.. Mckee. Marion S. C.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
1927. Pullen VS. Edwards. Marion s. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
lf2s P fd VS. Marion s
1887. Gezesk VS. Hibberd. ST. Joseph C.
G. ,05 EDITION Ttl for rehe 4g oyyerIr.ued :
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Appellate Court.
2243. Insurance Company VS.. Boyd. Shell
by C.. G. Reversed. Wiley, il. When an
action is brought upon fire insurance pol
icy for loss caused by fire and the policy
contains a clause that If the house upon
which the insurance is placed becomes va
cant without the written consent of the in
surer the policy shall become null and void,
l. Is not necessary to allege that the house
was occupied at the time of the burning,
in addition to an allegation that the party
had performed all the conditions on his
part. A company valves notice Of loss
when its agent informs the insured that the
company will not pay the loss. g. To en-
title a party having the burden of proof to
a judgment in his favor on special YER
dict such verdict must find and state every
essential fact necessary to a recovery. 4.
Where person accepts a policy of fire in
surance exempting the company from Ia
bility thereon in case the property insured
shall become s'vacant, unoccupied and unin-
habited'' the company will not be liable
ceases to be used as a place of human hab-
itation or for living purposes.
2344. Rhodes VS.. Jameson Company Ma
foreclosing mechanics lien demand for
payment is not necessary before bringing
the suit. 2. It is not necessary to itemize
the statement of the account in filing the
same as a mechanics lien, 3. The taking
of promissory note not governed by the
| law merchant is not the payment of the
debt I'D will not bar a mechanics lien UNI
les agreed to by all the parties.
Superior Court.
Room John l.. McMaster, Judge.
Addie Campbell. VS.. Citizens Street-rail-
road Company; damages. Jury returned
Michael A. Fleck. administrator VS..
Home Benefit Association; on policy.
Plaintiff dismisses at his cost.
Plymouth Saving and Loan Association
No. 2. VS.. Daniel Miller ct al. foreclosure
Receiver Barth files final report Report
approved and receiver dismissed.
Room 2-Lawson NJ Harvey, Judge.
The First National Bank of New Castle
Ind. VS.. Charles E. Atkinson ct al: note
Judgment against defendants for $50 20 and
costs
r. C. Haworth VS.. Clay whitley ct al.
note Judgment against defendant for $500
and costs.
Wesley Edwards VS.. John Burgan; ap-
peal. Cause dismissed for want of prosecu-
ton.
Caleb N. Lodge VS.. Caroline Stone: fore
closure. Dismissed at cost of plaintiff
Room 3-vinson Carter, Judge.
Jenkin- Heaton Manufacturing and Lum-
Der Company VS.. Effie f. Nysewander ct
| al; lien. On trial by court. Third day.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
State, ex rel. Mary Williams VS. Jacob
Hess; bastardy. Evidence concluded.
New Suits Filed.
Indiana Bond Company VS.. Mary john
| sen; street lien. Superior Court Room l.
| Aetna Saving and Loan Association VS.
Albert Schad ct al. suit to foreclose mort
gage. Superior Court. Room 3.
Miami Powder Company VS. Joseph II
Jordan ct al. suit to foreclose mortgage.
| Superior Court. Room q
Winfield S. Richards VS.. James A. Is
grlgg; suit on account. Superior Court,
| Room 3.
julius NJ Martens VS. James MendenhaIl.
| Improvement lien. Superior Court Room l.
-a-9->
NINE REDS In A SWOOP.