The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-28
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.


Affirmed. Monks, J.--1 The fact that there
is a secret understanding between two
parties engaged in loaning money, whereby
they are enabled to avoid the usury law,
may be shown by circumstantiaI evidence.
z. A borrower who has paid more than the
legal rate of interest may recover such ex-
cess which has been paid in direct action
or in any action brought by the person re-.
ceiving such usIA Gus interest on contract
express or impl.ed against the debtor, as
there is no statute in this State prohibiting
such recovery. 3. The payment of usurious
interest is not voluntary payment in such
a sense as to entitle the receiver to retain
the AMOUNT paid above legal interest;
but such payment is regarded as under the
constralnt Of a formal though Illegal con-
tract obtained by taking advantage of the
necessities of the borrower and therefore
excepted from the ordinary rule that one
voluntarily paying money on an Illegal
claim cannot maintain an action to recover
such payment.
1921 Gates VS.. Haw. Hancock C. c.
Affirmed. McCabe, il. Where bill of
exceptions in an agreed case shows that
the cause was submitted to the court for
trial without the Intervention of Il jury
on the following agreed statement of facts.
The parties hereto hereby stipulate
by their respective attorneys, that for, the
purpose of the trial of this case the follow
ing facts are agreed upon and admitted, J."
which is followed by the statement of facts.
after which the bill states that the above
agreed statement of facts contain all the
facts agreed upon, and which were admitted
70 the court, and all the facts heard or con-
oiuSISu ny the court III the Q6IeTmlndLlOA OF
said cause" if it is apparent that the word
facts was used to convey the same mean
ing as the word evidence the court will
construe it so that it will make it clear that
the agreed statement was all the evidence
given in the cause 2. A license may be
granted to an applicant to sell liquor even
though a sale under such license may vio-
late some of the provisions of Section 4 of
the liquor law of 1885; said section contem-
plates the granting of the license, though a
sale hereunder in the room may violate it.
8. An application for liquor license need
not set forth such a description of the
room in WHICH liqucr is to be sold, which
shows that the interior of the room can be
seen from the street in front of it; and be-
cause room is so situated that it's interior
cannot be so seen is no ground for remon-
STRANGE.
1870. Preby VS.. Wabash College. Mont
gomery 9, G. Leave given to withdraw
re 9so1S and refile record for appeal.
8. c. Submitted under amended Rule XIV.
Cause advanced.
Appellate Court.
2426. Heath VIZ. Carter. Fountain c. C.
Affirmed. Henley, il. Appellate courts
Will not weigh the evidence to ascertain
where the preponderance lies. g father
may give property to his son-in-law as an
advancement to his daughter, and the hus
band will not be considered trustee for
ment.
lIS7 P fsr@.a vs. 1,, Walton vanderburg
legation is sufficient for consideration to
support promise. 2. The overruling of a
motion to separate and paragraph plaintiff
complaint is not available error. g. The
question of consideration ordinarily is a
mixed question, both of fact and of law;
but where there is no disputes as to the
facts the question for consideration be-
comes one of law alone.
Superior Court.
Room ii. l.. McMaster, Judge
Harry b. Burnett ct al. VS.. Mary J.
Cloud ct al; mechanics lien, finding and
judgment for plaintiff against Mary j. CLOUD
for $12SS6 and costs
Room 2-Chas. A, Dwyer. Judge pro tenn.
Anna Dale VS.. Joseph Miller ct al. Chat
tel mortgage; on trial by court.
Room 3-yinson Carter, Judge.
Philip Reichwine. admir-, VS.. Carl Metz
ger; note. Finding for defendant, judg-
nient against plaintiff for costs.
Alexander jameson vs.. w. A Rhodes; APP
peal. Finding for defendant, judgment
against plaintiff for costs.
Henry G. Land VS., Mary ]. Cloud; divorce.
Dismissed costs paid.
Indiana Society for Savings VS.. John K
Reed ct al; foreclosure. Finding and judg-
ment against John K. Reed for 81, 039 IL and
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Eliza A. McCance VS.. John Lowden ct al. /;
from Hancock county; contest of will. Evil
dence concluded.
Criminal Court.
John F. McCray, Judge.
State of Indiana VS.. William Ottley; petit
larceny; nollied by State. Defendant in
State prison.
State of Indiana VS.. Harry Crews; at
tempted criminal assault; nollied by State
for lack of evidence.
New Suits Filed.
Luora Allen VS.. The Indianapolis Gas
Company; damages. Circuit Court.
Robert LAndblom vs. William b. Overman;
amount on note. Superior Court, Room g.
Matte Hall VS.. William T. Hall; divorce
Superior Court, Room g.
Mary c. Haley VS.. Harvey Haley; suit for
divorce. Superior Court, room l.