The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-14
THE COURT RECORD.

lSo50. Mcintosh VS.. State of Indiana Cass
peal from judgment in a criminal cause
wherein the defendant was convicted, in the
absence of the evidence given in the cause
this court will not consider the Instructions
given as being erroneous If they would have
been correct under the issues upon any
SuppoSabie state of the evidence. q In such
case It will not be considered error for the
court to have Instructed the jury that under
the law the defendant was. compel ent
witness in his own behalf, but that they
were the judges of the weight which ought
to be given to his testimony, and that, in de-
Gliding such weight, they should take into
consideration all the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the case, as disclosed
by the evidence, and give defendants tes-
to be entitled to in view of all the facts
and circumstances proved in the trial. and
crime the right to testify IN their ro own be-
half. but their credibility and the weight to
be given to their testimony are matters ex-
clusiyely for the jury; therefore, in weigh
ing the testimony of the defendant in this
case, you have the right to take into con-
sheraton the manner of his testifying-the
account of the transaction and his interest
in the result of the case as affecting his
crredlbility: You are not required to receive
blindly the testimony of such accused per-
son as true; neither are you at liberty to
disregard his testimony, but you are to
give 1t due consideration and to determine
whether or not his statements are true and
made in good faith or only for the purpose
of avoiding conviction" when they were
PENDANT, that 1T was their duty to consider
the defendants testimony. together with all
Of the other evidence in the case, and, while
it was their right to consider his interest in
the result of the suit still they were not
on that account authorized to disregard his
evidence; neither should they disregard ii
because he was charged with the crime de-
scribed in the indictment. 3. Instructions
should be considered and construed as
whole and not in detached fragments, and
when so considered, if they can be said to
have presented the law to the jury upon the
v1Ofr, inI
ed with reasonable clearneSS and accuracy,
it will not be presumed that the jury was
misled thereby. 4. In inStructing jury
upon the doctrine Of reasonable doubt it is
not error to charge them that where
circumstance is of doubtful character or
accused the benefit of the doubt. If, how
ever, all the facts established necessarily
lead tho mind to the conclusion that the
defendant is guilty, though there be a. bare
possibility that he is innocent, you should
find him guilty. 5. In its charge to the
cast suspicion upon. any legitimate defense
interposed in the action; still, If necessary,
give the jury such advice and such caution
as will aid them in arriving at the correct
Appellate Court.
1854 Swain VS. Grinley. Parke c. c. At
firmed. Henley, c. il. A creditor is not
bound to accept the terms of contract en-
tered into between his debtor and
a party, bat he may accept it. 2 AS be-
tween the original debtor and the purchaser
of mcrtgaged real estate, who has assumed
and agreed to pay the mortgage debt they
by the transaction as between themselves
fix their liability for the debt secured by
change the liability of the original. debtor
to the payee of the debt, who can pursue
the debtor individually and collect his claim
without regard to any arrangement which
may have been made between the maker
of the note and the third person. 3. If
there is a contract between the seller and
has n rQ6 a. a 6X
the purchaser becomes principal for the
Payment of the note secured by the mort
gage, and afterwards the seller is compelled
to pay me debt, then after such payment
the seller can proceed against the pur-
chaser personally or foreclose the mortgage
which equity will keep alive for his benefit.
2516. Dutton VS.. Ensley. Pulaski c. c.
Reversed. Wiley, il Where a party upon
representations parts with the title to prop
erty he will be estopped from afterwards
asserting title to the same. 2. Where a per-
son sells real estate upon the representation
when in fact it was not, afterwards he will
be estopped from claiming title to the build
ing.
1866. City of Alexandria vs. Young. Della
ware c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
27sS. Hoff VS.. Stone Company. Lawrence
c. G. Certiorari granted.
Superior Court.
Room IL. l.. McMaster. Judge.
Laura Kitley VS.. Richard Kitley; divorce.
Dismissed; costs paid.
crescent Loan and investment Company
VS. James Fl. Hedriclz; foreclosure. Find
ing and judgment for plaintiff against
James II. Hedrick for s1,276 and costs
Lettie Martin. administrators. VS.. p. c..
c. & st. L. Ry. CO..; damages. On trial
by jury.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge
Theodore F. Smither VS. William "
Rocker; account. Jury returned verdict
for plaintiff in the sum of sos.
Mutual Home Savings Association VS..
Loren A. Miller ct al; foreclosure. Judg
ment against defendant for $917.20 and costs.
Ella s. Harold VS.. David G. Bryan;
| damages. Dismissed ; costs paid.
Thomas f. Kane VS. Covenant Mutual
Life Associations; policy. On trial by jury.
Room 3--vinson Carter, Judge.
Williamson VS.. Bachman; damages. On
| trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
| Margaret F. Peele VS.. The Provident
| Fund Society of New York; on policy. Evil
| dence concluded and jury retires.
New Suits Filed.
| Anthony WIshmire VS.. Ezra Myers ct al
! damages. Superior Court Room /.
James NJ. Larned VS.. Louisa A. Larned I:
| suit for divorce. Circuit Court.
Gertrudge Yarn VS.. John j. Carriger II
| al; suit TO foreclose mortgage. Superior
| Court. Room g.
Indiana Bond Company VS. Sylvester G.
| Shera CT al: Improvement lien. Superior
! Court, Room 2.