The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-11-30
prosecution is based 4 Evidence which is

=.
immaterial is inadmissibles
1880. layIaan VS.. Hughes putnam G: g:
Affirmed; Mccabe, when the BOARD or
commissioners has jurisdiction in establish
ing a gravel road and making assessments
therefor It's proceedings are not Voio al
though irregular and erroneous.
1887. State ok rel. Morgan vs.. Real-estate.
etc, Association. Monroe c. O. Reversed.
Monks, G. J.--1. Building association stock
county assessor may compel building as
ISOLATION to allow i'm to examine the books
of the association for the purpose OF de-
termlnlng whether any stock OF the asso-
1914 Snyder VS.. Citizens, etc.i company
Randolph G. c.. Animerd. Jordan, jim
ofder 10 deprive a corporation or It's exist
ence by quo warranto proceedings the in
formation must show that the corporation
was organized under the laws of this State
1861. Lane VS.. State of Indiana Clinton
&. 9. Affirmed. Monks, G. il When an
Indictment charges that the defendant killed
ana murdered a person unlaWfully, by GER
tain means, it is an averment that the de-
ceased died. and on account or the DEFEND
ants alleged acts. 2. All that is required
in criminal pleading Is that the averments
be certain to a common intent 3. In order
TO present any question concerning the ac-
ton of the court in giving or refusing to
give instructions the bill of exceptions mus
aflrmatvely show that 1t contains all OF
the instructions given by the court to the
jury. 4, Dying declarations are admissible
when the circumstances Immediately con-
nected with the decedents injury shows
that he believed his death was certain. s
"A HOuOn 10 Strike out the evidence or
dying declaration after the witness has left
the stand and after other evidence of a
subsequent dying declaration has been in
troduced Is properly oVerruled. 6. If dying
declarations are made different at times ali
are admissible and the fact that declara-
ton made at one time was reduced to writ
times inadmissible.
1889; Hay vs. Marsh Clark c. C. At
aar rd. Hackney, J.-z-When there is evil
dence which, II standing alone, supports a
finding of the trial court this court will ac-
eGept such evidence and disregard all in con-
1859; Hay vs. Marsh. Clark G. c. At
flrmed on authority of 1889. Hackney, j.
le4o9 Husted vs.. National Association.
Madison c. c. Affirmed. Howard, 1.-THE
sale of real estate upon the foreciose of a
nechames lien is void, as to & mortgage
VINO had not been Joined as a party in the
foreclosure suit, after the expiration of the
year Tor foreclosing the mechanics lien.
1873. c., c., c. & st. L. Ry. Co. vs. Scant-
land. Randolph 9. G. Affirmed. Howard
IL. When there is sufficient evidence to
support the findings returned by the jury
TINS court Will not reweigh such evidence.
e. Misleading instructions should not be
1875. Conn vs.. Board of Commissioners.
Cass c. c.. Affirmed. Jordan, il. A pub
Tic ditch Wher completed belongs to the land
owners whose lands have been benefited
thereby and taxed for it's construction 2,
The board of county commissioners in its
corporate entirety is not a trustee of the
work done in constructing public ditch g.
The board of county commissioners cannot
ne sued by contractor for the sum due
TOT the construction Of public ditch when
the contract for the construction is let by an
engineer appointed by said board. L. The
engineer appointed by the board of COM
mlssioners to superintend the construction
OF a public ditch has the power and 1t is
ms duty to issue to persons the necessary
instrument to enable them to obtain their
pay for work performed on such ditch.
1892 Geisen VS.. Reder. Porter c. G.
Petition for rehearing overruled Hackney
IL: In order to present an agreed case it
must be as authorized by statute. 2. A rec
ora to be sufficient must disclose a decision
IN pending cause, upon the proper plead
ing Iszs or statutory agreement
versed. Hackney. il Parties to a con
tract are charged with notice Of the legal
force OF the instrument. 2. A tenant is
estopped to deny the title of his landlord.
Isl02. Prescott VS.. Haughey Marion S. c.
Affirmed. Jordan, IA joint application
for for new trial by plaintiffs against the de-
PENDANTS jointly is properly overruled when
plaintiffs are not entitled to recover against
all the defendants
1860. Hunter VS.. Union Trust Co. Marion S.
Z. Reversed. Howard, J.-+4kn insurance COM
pany Incorporated under th6 act of 1885 (Acts
1850, Ia, regulating the incorporation
or mutual life insurance companies, cannot
carry on building and loan business, and
borrower from such company is entitled
to have all moneys paid to the company
applied on his debt
1888 State of Indiana vs. Winstandlev.
Clark G. G. Dismissed. Monks, c. il.
When in criminal case It is not aff1rrna-
II contains all the instructions given by the
court to the jury. this court must presume
that such bill does not contain all the in
structions. q ErroTs fn instructions cannot
be considered when all the Instructions are
not in the record.
1874 Mutual Life Insurance Company VS.
Trankel. Hamilton c. G. Petition for re-
hearing overruled.
1878 c. & C. Terminal Ry. Co. VS. Ham
m9 9n6 ETC. , CO Porter r., G Ten days
for rehearing and the brief in support there
Of
1867 Timmons VS. Pine School Township.
Benton c. G. Transferred to Appellate
Superior Court.
Room III. l.. McMaster, Judge.
John W. Chapman VS.. Edwin j. Arm
strong ct al. On trial by court.
Room 3--Vinson Carter, Judge.
William II. Gordon ct AL VS. w. C. Stew
art ct al; note Dismissed and cost paid.
Maria S. Doty VS.. D. s. Armstrong; note.
Dismissed. Judgment against plaintiff for
Ida schwab VS. Charles w. schwab d.
vorce. Dismissed by plaintiff at her cost.
Emmet II. Wiley ct al. VS.. Maria F. Sum-
Ter. ct al; foreclosure. Dismissed and costs
paid.
George w. Stout vs.. c. NJ lillian ct al;
note and account. Evidence heard and
taken under advisement.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Alien, Judge
Philip Mertz vs.. 7. J. iBleckenstaff ct al;
appealed from justice of the peace. Sub.
mitted to court and evidence heard.
Martin H. Field VS.. Henry G. G.. Balls,
trustee; foreclosure. Dismissed by plaintiff
and costs paid.
New Suits Filed.
George w. Teeters VS.. Calvin J. Thatcher:
mechanics lien. Superior Court, Room q
Jessie Mcclellan vs., Bayard F. Mcclellan;
suit in replevin. Circuit Court
James A. lsgrigg VS.. James Davis ct AL;
MECHANICS lien. Superior Court. Room /.
Patrick MnPnbWs
suit on account. Circuit Court.
Frederick Oe1ler vs. Roman Oehler; dam
ages. Superior Court Room 2.
Ellis T. Silvios VS.. James Yule; suit on
account. Superior Court, Room 3.
EENPPHI r0UpT rUcEc