The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-11-29

i. a uWeliing rouse so constructed tndt IL
occupies a part or a street as permanent
structure is per sc a public nuisance. 2
Nhen a person erectS or is the author OF a
nuisance, an action may be maintained
any request or notice 10 remove the same.
8: Where a lessee erects a nuisance he is
liable without notice TO remove the same.
1904. Utterback VS.. State of Indiana
Lawrence G. c. Affirmed. Bowling. il.
To accuse any person OF any crime punish
able by law with the intent to extort from
such person any money or other valuable
is a violation of the statute, and the accu-
sation may be made by filing an affidavit
before an officer having jurisdiction to re-
ceive it, and having process issued thereon.
:. The evidence must be in the record TO
decide questions depending on the evil
dence. 3. In a crimina cause instructions
must be brought into the record by a bill
OF exceptions. 4. The signature of the
Judge to a memorandum on a bill OF ex-
ceptions. giving his reason why a new trial
was not considered. does not constitute
such a signing of the bill as is required by
the statute.
1851. Broadway VS.. Gr~oenendyke. Wayne
G. G. Reversed. Baker, il. Payment Is
a question of intention between the credf-
tor end debtor. =. Ordinarily, a promise
to pay a debt is not a payment of the debt.
3. A debtor giving to his creditor a prom
fssory note, not governed by the law mer-
chant, affords no evidence that IL was Of
fered and accepted as payment; while the
giving of a promissory note governed by
the law merchant is prima facie evidence
of payment, which must be accepted as
conclusive in the absence Of any evidence
that such was not the intention OF the par
ties.
1902. Lingquist VS.. State of Indiana
Huntington c. c. Affirmed. Monks. il.
In the revision OF an act of the Legislature
of the amendment of a section the title of
the act to be amended must be referred TO
by setting IL out. and the act as revised, or
section as amended. must be set forth and
nllhllShad nf full 1nn0fh - ~ ~ IF 1902
(Acts 1885. p. 2. Burns, 1884, section lSSO
does not contravene Section u. Article 4,
OF the State Constitution. 3. When an act
is identified In the manner required by the
Constitution, and il is not certain what act
was intended to be amended, the court will
resort to means other than the title to de-
termine what act was intended. But IL the
act is not identified as required by the
Constitution, the court cannot resort to
other means of Identification. 4. The courts
take judicial notice that an act with the
title set forth in the title of the act of 1893
was approved April Ia. 1881, and took effect
Sept. 19, 1881. s.. When the court does all
that 1t is requested to do by an objecting
party the latter is in no position to COM
plain of conduct of the party complained
of.
Affirmed. Jordan. il. Where the special
finding dlscloses that it rests upon and re-
spends to the facts averred In the second
paragraph OF the amended complaint. the
ruling of the court upon the first para
graph was harmless. 2. A contracting
party has a right to rely on the express
statement of the opposite party in respect
to a material existent fact which is the
basis of a mutual agreement or engage
ment, when the truth or falsity of such
fact is known to the party making the
but unknown to the one to
whom 1t is made. n the latter, under
such circumstances, is not required. before
the final contamination of the engagement
or agreement. 10 investigate Or mako n
searching inquiry in regard to the truth or
falsfty of such statements. 3. Where one
occupies the position of an agent he is re-
quired in all negotiations to state all mat
tiers within his knowledge fully and truly
to his principal, ano make no representa-
lions which are not true in every material
particular, and. as a general rule, the prin-
cipal has the right to rely and act upon
the statements of his agent. 4. For the
purpose of consideration the evidence must
be properly embodied in a bill Of excep-
tons.
1872. ca G, G. & ST. L. Railway Com
c. c. Affirmed. Hadley, il. When a par
~ appeals to a court OF equity and invokes
Its extraordinary writ Of injunction he must
rely upon some substantial equity. and cam
not avail himself of naked irregularities or
neglect of mere forms to shield himself
from a liability confessed to be just. 2. A
court of equity looks at the substance of
things and will not lend its aid to assist
one in avoiding a legal duty by the en-
ployment of means that have done him no
harm. 8. A railroad company is bound to
know that a municipal corporation through
which its road runs is entitled to tax the
property Of the company for support Of the
1888. Bowman VS.. Bowman. Morgan C.
c. Reversed. bowling, il If an ailega-
ton In the opposite pleading be altogether
agreement of parties to secure a divorce and
afterwards remarry Is void. 3. In an action
for seduction the unchastity of the woman
4 mr. II rha time Of H. ion
Of the wrong by the defendant may under
some circumstances be a complete defense.
but in a suit, for the breach of a contract
TO marry. where the seduction is alleged
in a~ggrayation OF the damages a plea Of
previous unchastity must aver that this
TACT was hot known TO the defendant when
promise of marriage, TO a woman who has
been guilty Of lewd behavior. If made with
knowledge of her improper conduct is bind
ing, and the fact of her previous life con-
upon a breach OF the promise. D. Instruc-
tions are to be construed as interdependent,
entire charge. 6. Where the defense in a
suit for breach of a marriage contract is
the lewd and immoral conduct OF the
der such a plea that the contract was
broken by him on that account. z. On the
proper affidavit being filed by one of the
litiga1ts Ii is error for the court to allow
an attorney TO participate in the trial Of
the cause as counsel for the opposite party.
3. When this court is convinced that the
Judgment of the lower court Is excessive it
will be reversed.
1854. Armstrong VS.. Hufty. Carroll c. c..
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Monks, il. When a person Is made a par
ty to a proceeding on account of his being
an heir of some one he is made a party
in his own person as an individual and not
in any other character, and when a judg-
ment or decree is rendered against him it
Is as an individual and not otherwise, and
he is bound thereby as to all his interests.
2. 1t is only to those titles which are i'm
perfect the statute OF limitations apply.
3. The same construction as placed upon
Clause 3 of Section 29f, Burns's r. s. 1884,
scriptions of real estate sold under DEGREES
of foreclosure and on ordinary executions
must be given to Clause 4 OF said section
in regard to such descriptions when the sale
is made by executors, administrators, etc,
by order Of court. 4. 1t is not necessary to
make the mortgageor who has conveyed the
mortgaged real estate a party to a pro-
ceeding TO foreclose the mortgage unless a
personal judgment Is desired against him,
but unless the person to whom he has con-
veyed is made a party the foreclosure as
to him is void.
1869. McNally VS.. White. Hamilton c.. c..
Mandate modified.
1928. State OF Indiana VS.. Hendry. Steu-
ben c. C. Dismissed and leave granted to
withdraw record.
ISS9S. Mathews VS.. Rund. Benton c. C..
Dismissed and leave granted to withdraw
record.
1876. Stevens VS.. Leonard. Lake c. c..
Certiorari granted.
1906. Fordice VS.. Lloyd. Pike C.. C. Pub
1875. Cory VS.. Pyles. Boone c. c. Notice
ordered served on appellee's attorneys Of
record.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
Maud II. Kuetemier VS.. Oscar Kuetemier