The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-13
THE COURT RECORD.


When a party to an action in attachment
or garnishment claims the right to hold
property as exempt on the ground that ne
is a resident householder of this State such
claim must be set up in answer to the pro-
ceeding in attachment or garnishment as a
partial or complete defense thereto; and in
passing upon the sufficiency of such an
swer. the right of such party to plead such
facts in the trial of the cause and the
right of such party to the exemption
claimed by such answer under the evidence
given. the court acts judicially. 2 Whether
property is liable to attachment or garnish-
ment is question to be tried and deter
mined by the court in which the proceed
ing is pending, and until the judgment is
vacated or set aside the question is res
adJudicata- 3. Mandamus will not lie to cor
rect an error in judgment of a judicial
tribunal; the only remedy in such case is
Dy appeal, or, If there was no jurisdiction
by Injunction.
Huntington c. c. Dismissed. McCabe j.
Where a Judgment was rendered against
several defendants and an appeal was TAX
en- from such Judgment, when in the title
or the cause, immediately preceding the
assignment of errors after naming the APP
pellee, the following words appear, to-wit,
peal; the said Jennie Crist having been
one of the judgment defendants. Held that
sad sad Crist IS not party to the appeal and
this court is without jurisdiction thereof.
1854. Ferner VS.. the State of Indiana. Jay
G. c. Affirmed Hackney. c. J.-1. Section
$685. ct seq. r. S. 1894 makes it a crime to
practice dentistry without being properly
charged that the defendant unlawfully
practiced dentistry without having first
obtained and procured certificate Of
qualification and registration so to do from
the board of dental examiners" and with
out, during the period of time mentioned
in the information. being lawfully regis
tered according TO law and not then and
there, nor during any part of said period.
physician engaged in the practice of medi-
cine or surgery. it was sufficient to charge
the absence of registry. g. Registry relating
to the practice of dentistry relates to the
permanent authority to practice dentistry
and temporary permit is only a pro-
lection until the board shall meet and make
the registry. 4. A'itpermit'' granted by a
member of the board of examiners would
be bar to prosecution and available as
a defense to a charge of practicing. den
tistry without registry D. Exceptions in the
nature of defense, and those not part
of the clause creating the oftense, but made
by another section of the statute, need not
be negatived in the charge or information
and need not be proven by the state. s. The
power to appoint the board of examiners.
as provided by Section 1896, r. S. 1894 is
duty rather than privilege and the board
is an instrument of the government to pro-
tect other citizens in their rights. z. APP
peals are recognized as allowable only from
judicial decisions. s. Boards appointed to
examine persons asking permission to prac-
tice a profession do not render judicial de-
cisions.
1924 Hickle VS. Weller Miami c. C.
Dismissed under Rule &c.
1858 7. H. & /. Railroad Company VS..
Zehnar. Marshall c. C. Certiorari granted
and issued
Appellate Court.
2462. Olson VS. Chism. Benton c. C. Az
frmed. Robinson, il. In order that an
extension of time of payment may release
a surety on promissory note 1t must ap-
pear that it was for consideration, for
time certain and without the surety's con-
sent and that i the holder knew that the
2. In case the evidence is contradictory this
court cannot interfere with the finding OF
1907 Fuller VS.. Fuller Madison c. c.
Affirmed. Comstock, J.-Where a person
entered the family of her half-brother and
no agreement to receive pay for her services
nor to pay board or care received by her,
and assisted in the care of household duties,
al the death of such person the law will
not imply a contract between the parties
whereby the half-brother canrecover from
the estate of the decedent for necessari .;
she made her home with him. In such case
the facts and circumstances. must exist
which within themselves clearly raise the
presumption that such services were to be
paid for to authorize recovery
2S74. Feighner vs.: Delaney. Upton c. c.
cover for malicious prosecution 1t is suffi-
cient for the complaint to set forth the
iss9abe facts WITHOUT setting forth ro the
2. A letter addressed from one prosecuting
attorney to another setting forth his rea-
pressed and submitted to the court with
the motion therefor is not a part of the
record in such case and not admissible in
evidence in an action for malicious prosecu-
ton based upon. the indictment mon
pressed.
Room IL. l.. McMaster, Judge
Lettie Martin VS. p. c., G. & ST; L. Rail-
road Company; damages. On trial by jury.
Nellie Deagan VS. John Deagan; divorce.
Finding and decree for plaintiff at her cost.
Isaac H. Bradford VS.. Fred M. Rancher;
account. Finding of judgment for plaintiff
against defendant for 5000.
Room 3-Vinson Carter. Judge.
Edward Kaiser VS.. Eta Kaser; divorce.
Evidence heard. Taken under advisement.
Saving Association; to quiet title. Judgment
on demurrer against plaintiff for costs.
j. NJ. L. Willborn VS.. Fred M. RauScher;
account. Finding and judgment against de-
PENDANT for S167.36 and costs.
Carl w. Schulmeyers Charles G. Lob
man ct al. foreclosure. Dismissed by agree
ment of defendant, Thomas F. Brewer.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen. Judge.
Margaret F. Peelle VS.. The Provident
Fund Society of New York; on policy. On
trial by jury.
New Suits Filed.
Ida F. White VS.. Charles J. Gardner ct
al; damages. Superior Court, Room 2.
Wesley Hare ct al. VS.. Frank Johnston ct
al; suit on notes Superior Court Room 1.
Benjamin Chandler 'vs.1Anna Laura Clan
der; suit for divorce Superior Court.
BeIIva E. Hutchins VS.. Frank b. Hutch
ms: suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Mutual Home and Savings Association VS..
John l.. Wilkinson ct al; mortgage. Su-
perior Court. Room g.
John Hopewell ct al. VS.. The Wheelmen's