The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-04
THE COURT RECORD.



Supreme Court.
1926. Shelter VS.. Hines Jay c. C. Re-
versed. Hackney jim an action to set
aside fraudulent a conveyance OF real
estate description thereof which does not
state the county or State in which the land
Is situate is fatally defective, for without
pointing out the location by county and
State or some fixed monument of which
judicial knowledge can be taken it cannot
be shown that the lands are within the jul
1882. iIickels VS.. Eilesser. st. Joseph c.
c. Reversed. Jordan, J.--Where a married
woman in 1870 and a child by a former mar
lands derived from the estate of the moth
er.s prior husband and childs father, such
conveyance will not estop the child from
claiming her expectancy in the land con-
veyed 70 her mother in the event the latter
dies during a subsequent coverture.
1873. Shields VS.. State of Indiana. Black
ford c. c. Affirmed Monks, i'll 1t Ia
error TO overrule a challenge to juror upon
the ground that ne is not competent ITO
serve upon the jury on account of the
formation of an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendant when he swesirs
that he believes he can try the case fairly
upon the law and evidence notwithstanding
his opinion. 2 This court cannot Interfere
with the determination of the trial court of
questions concerning the qualifications of
jurors merely because the answers of the
jurors are or seem to be inconsistent. g.
Where a person testi1es in chief for the
defendant in IL criminal cause as an expert,
the state may cross-eXamine him concerning
the facts to which he testified in chief and
A. The extent of cross-examination is with
out the discretion of the trial court, and will
not be interfered with unless an abuse is
shown. 8. In a criminal prosecution the
injured party is not a party thereto and
his admissions and statements are not evil
dence either for or against the accused, I'M
less they are a part of the res gesta. 6.
When jury is instructed in a criminal
cause 1t is not necessary for the court to
use the word unlawful in the instructions IL
the elements stated are such that when ap-
piled TO the evidence and construed with
the other instructions as a whole the jury
are not misled as to the essential elements
of the offense of assault and battery Z. ,
Instructions must be considered with ref
erence TO each other and an entirety,
and If they correctly present the law to the
jury the judgment will not be reversed. g.
The jury are the exclusive Judges of the
facts and of the credibility of the witnesses.
and If they have reasonable doubt OF thu
guilt of the accused he must be acquitted
character or not. g. Failure of the court
to number and sign all instructions is not
sufficient to authorize a reversal of the
judgment 10. The provision of the statute
that cruel and unusual punishments shall
not be inflicted has reference to the stat
ute fixing the punishment and not to the
punishment assessed by the jury within the
limits of the statute.
Appellate Court.
1890 Cummings VS.. Grton Marion s. C.
Affirmed conditionally. Robinson, c. i'll.
Where defendants answer is held good on
demurrer he cannot successfully urge an
appeal that the court erred in not carrying
complaint to which the answer was adj
dressed. 2. Where the special findings ia
a suit upon note provide for less attor-
ney s fees than is allowed in the judgment
the finding will prevail.
1886 Larned VS.. Maloney. Lake c. e.
Affirmed. Henley. J.-Ahirmed upon al-
tf.ority of No. 1884, decided at this term Of
court.
2341 Baum VS.. Thoms. Marion S. q.
transferred to Supreme Court
Superior Court
ROOro 1-T0hp T. MoNoctoy Tudoo
John M Eldridge ct al. VS. Eliza Heaton.
Finding and Judgment for defendant Hesl-
ton against plaintiff for 81. 1853
nett; damages On trial by jury.
Caroline b. Okey VS.. City of indianapolis
ct al; damages. Jury found for defendant.
Room dawson NJ. Harvey. Judge
James 3. Cook VS. INDIANAPOLIS Infirmary
ct al; account. Dismissed at plaintiffs
cost.
Room S-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Edwin NJ. Lee, receiver, VS.. Charles A.
paid.
Walter J. Hubbard VS.. Charles Hiday;
note. Finding against defendant for $3.50
Mary Traquair vs.. George 1raquair d.
vorce Dismissed by plaintiff. Finding
against Plaintiff for costs.
John H. Cranor VS.. Apollos b. Cronkhte;
mrasogrtgage; Finding against defendant for
State Building and Loan Association VS..
William L. Perrott ct al; bond. Finding
and judgment against defendant for $3.50 and
costs.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
James a. Bruce VS.. Mason j. Osgood; to
quiet title. Frank Il. Gavin special judge.
On trial by jury
Criminal Court.
John f. McCray, Judge.
The State of Indiana VS.. John Brown.
Judgment on defendants plea of guilty to
petit larceny Finding defendant twenty
to the Indiana Reformatory for not lesg
than one nor more than three years
The State of Indiana VS.. John Catalinas
profanity. Appeal from Justices court
Judgment on finding of guilty. Fined 81
and costs.
The State Of Indiana VS. Anna WikoskI,
attempted assault. Appeal from Justices
court. Tried by jury. Verdict of not
guilty Defendant discharged.
New Suits Filed.
John CEodkin VS. Henry C. Wiese ct all
suit on account. Superior Court Room 2,
Harry M. ElZea vs.. the Indiana Bicycle
Company; damages. Superior Court,
Room 3.
Big -Four Building Association of Indiana
close mortgage Superior Court, Room ].
Jefferson j. Britt vs.. l.. S. Lakin & Co.;
damages. Circuit Court.
Rachel Goodwin VS.. Irwin Dickinson ct al;
foreclosure, Superior Court. Room l.
The Farmers Bank of Frankfort vs..
Frank +. Moore ct al; suit on note. Su-
perior Court, Room g.
---------s- e-p-----------
supreme Tribunal, X. of r.. Cases.
The Supreme Tribunal OF the knights of
Pythias. at its meeting yesterday, heard