The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-19

the sheriff to make the proper deed. and
the prayer following is that the defendant
be compelled to produce the certificate to
the sheriff. and that such sheriff thereupon
required by the terms of said certificate.
such complaint makes case that was OF
exclusive equitable jurisdiction prior TO
June Is, 1852, and not triable by jury.
1886. Halstead VS.. Jessup. Greene G. G.
Reversed. Hackney i'll. Forfeitures are
not favored by the law. and they will not
be enforced in the absence of clearly stated
conditions for forfeiture. 2 Executory con-
tracts containing provisions as to time for
performance are construed with reference
to the intention of the parties and to ascer-
tain If 1t was meant to make such provi-
sions conditions upon which the right TO
1878. Lewis VS.. Watkins Hendricks c.
c.. Affirmed. Monks, il. The interest
her husband dies seized, as against cred
itors, is free from all demands of such cred
itors. and an order of court to sell such in
terest to pay the debts Of the estate, un-
less secured by mortgage or other lien on
said real estate which binds her interest
therein, and the sale thereof, are absolute
utilities, and the purchaser of such inter-
est takes no title thereto; but if she con-
sents to such sale by the administrator I'M
ceives her share of the purchase money
she will be estopped from disputing the va
H 1ity oI Of ne ec sa9 a and 9s r PSs
can sale of a decedent's real estate be
made so as TO sell the interest of the widow
therein, and when it is sold under the pro.
visions of Section 2503 her full share out Of
the gross receipts of the sale must be paid
to her, and when the same IS sold under
Section 2504 her full share Of the gross pro-
ceeds must be paid to her If so much re-
mains after satisfying the liens if not then
what remains thereafter must be paid to
her; but in either case her share is no more
liable for the payment of the debts of the
deceased: except the liens when SOLO under
the same was derived. When such sale is
made under Section 2504, and the liens which
bind the widows interest are satisfied, she
is entitled to her share of the gross pro-
ceeds of the sale, if so much remains, and,
if not, then she is entitled to all that re-
a contrary disposition of her share of the
proceeds is void
1906. Campbell VS.. State of Indiana. No
jury as follows: IF you find from the evil
dence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
goods described in the indictment, or any
portion of them, were stolen and that such
stolen property was found in the exclusive
time after the larceny was perpetraIeo,
such possession imposes on the defendant
the duty and burden of explaining has pos
session of said goods, and II ne mas Ialled
to satisfactorily account as to how he came
by the stolen property, or has given a false
account of how he came into possession OF
such stolen property the law presumes that
the defendant stole the property, and this
presumption may be strong enough 70 JUS
struction is not reversible error when, in
other instructions, it is made clear that the
court meant a REPUTABLE or diSputable pre-
sumption of law arose, instead of a conclu-
sive presumption of law, as to the defend
ants guilt When NJ, do the tSsf he ssnS
ant is guilty, it is the duty OF the jury TO
find him guilty.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
1912 Roach VS.. Clark. Elkhart c. c.
Petition for rehearlng overruled.
gomery c. c. Dismissed under Rule 20;
Huntington c. c. Petition for rehearing
Appellate Court.
1851. Packet Co. VS.. Rogers Jefferson G.
c. Affirmed. Comstock, il, When a per
| son delivers goods to a packet company
| to be carried on a certain steamer, desig-
| mated in the bill of lading, which exempted
the company from liability for loss from
| liability for the loss of the goods by fire
when they were delivered aboard another
vessel of the same company and so de-
| stroyed, when the shipper does not consent
| to the delivery of the goods to the boat to
which they were delivered. 2. A deviation
| sponsibe for all losses, even from unavoid-
| able casualty, for under such circumstances
| the loss is traced back through all the IN
| termediate causes to the departure from
PASS Butcher VS.. Zonler De Kalb c. c.
| Affirmed Wiley, jim an action for ma
Hcious prosecution, where the complaint
| shows plaintiff was convicted before a JUS
| tice of the peace, renders the complaint
| bad on demurrer, unless 1t clearly appears
! from other allegations that such conviction
was procured by fraud, collision or per-
! jury.
Room III. L. McMaster, Judge.
VIM. D. Huffman VS.. Fred w. Brandt;
| damages. Taken under advisement.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge
Frederick H. Coffin VS. Charles j. Card
ner; damages. On trial by jury;
Walter ]. Patterson vs.. The Farmers and
! Citizens Voluntary Live Stock Insurance
| Company; policy. Judgment against de-
| PENDANT for 1856.
Room S-vinson Carter, Judge.
Charles D. Worcester VS.. c., c., c. & st.
L. Railway Company; damages. On trial
James A. Dillman VS.. Milton S. Myers;
| Jno. B. Renard VS.. Ed B. McComb; dam
ages. Dismissed and costs paid.
Circuit Court.
| Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
| The State Bank of Indiana VS.. VIM. H.
| Kershner ct al; on notes. Submitted to
court. Evidence heard. Finding for plant
| if. Judgment against defendants for $4,-
O5261 and costs, without relief
| Petition of Indianapolis Desiccating Com
pany for condemnation of right of way for
lateral railroad Dismissed by petitioner
Center Lodge, l. o. o. F., VS.. Grand
Lodge, I. o. o. F.; partition and injunction.
| Evidence continued.
Criminal Court.
John F. McCray, Judge.
The State of Indiana VS.. Lon Baldwin and
| Isaac Torson; burglary and grand larceny.
| Defendant Baldwin arraigned and pleaded
| not guilty. Withdrew plea of not guilty to
| second count and entered plea of guilty to
petit larceny. Fined $40 and sentenced to
the county Jail for ninety days. First count,
charging burglary, nollied.
The State of Indiana VS. J. w. Rice and
| Sadie Waugh; fornication. Defendant filed
plea in bar. State filed demurrer Demur-
rer overruled.
| New Suits Filed.
Rose Sldllman VS. Anthony Prange: dam
ages. Superior Court Room 3.
| United States EncauStic Tile Works VS..
| VIM j. Mather ct al; suit on account. Su-
| perior Court, Room 2.
Raphael Kirschbaum vs. William G. Hol-
| land ct al; suit on note. Circuit Court.
Maud Mae Kelley VS.. John l.. Kelley; suit
for divorce. Superior Court. Room 2.
| Joseph Varon VS.. Ella Varon; suit for d.
| vorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
| Paul v. Skillman VS.. Anthony Prange:
damages. Superior Court, Room 1.