The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-11-30
THE COURT RECORD.
APPELLATE COURT.

1854. Rinehart VS.. State ex, rel. Keith.
Madison >. g; Affirmed, Wiley. c. il
This court will not weigh the evidence to
establish the preponderance. =. To secure a
new trial upon the ground of newly discov-
cred evidence, such newly discovered evi.
dence must not be merely cumulative, and
due diligence must be shown why the evil
dence was not sooner discovered: and the
affidavit showing newly discovered evil
dence must show some affirmative act on
the part of the party looking toward the
discovery of such evidence. 8. Reasonable
diligence and watchful vigilance is required
on the part of litigants in the preparation
for the trial of their cause, and courts will
not grant them relief on account of their
own laches. 4. 1t is not reversible error to
refuse an instruction when the substance
of IL has been given in another instruction.
Mikesell. Montgomery Z. e. Reversed. Rob-
ins9n; Ill In pleading, facts must be
way of recital. 2. Facts cannot be gathered
by mere conjecture from an ambiguous or
doubtful pleading. 3. The fact that a GER
per Sc does not dispense with the require
ment imposed upon the complaining party
to show that this imputed negligence was
a proximate cause of the injury sued for.
1888. State VS.. Robertson. Lawrence c.. c.
Affirmed. Wiley, c. il. Section 2i0o Horn
er's r. s.. 1897, does not hold county COM
claims an against the county.
physicians bill is an element of the dam
ages sustained and for which recovery is
asked, the plaintiff can only recover there
for upon evidence OF the reasonable value
O.. the physicians services.
2910. Equitable National Bank vs. First
National Bank. De Kalb G.. c. Affirmed.
Henley. J.-Where the only assignment OF
error is that the judgment is not sustained
by the evidence, and when. upon mamma
ton of the evidence, 1t appears that the
conclusion OF. the trial court was right the
judgment will not be reversed.
29sS; Whitman Co. VS.; H9rnbrookk yam
Where a person undertakes TO sell an ar
ticle for another and the latter is TO APP
prove the sale before it is coosummated,
such person liable to the former for his
compensation in making the sale. 2 Where
tain article, subject to the approval OF the
principal, such approval must be given to
render 11Ss the the principal Sp iia4 Whf G y the T S2a6Tae e.
G. Reversed. Robinson. il This court
will not presume that the clerk of the
trial court certified TO something. which
was untrue. 2. A note payable in bank is
negotiable as an inland bill of exchange. 3.
In an action on a negotiable note the in
showing that he is a bona fide holder; 4.
Where there is no evidence TO establish a
material fact upon which Judgment of the
viii be reversed. S. There must be some
evidence in the record to call forth instruc-
2ss5. C. C.. G. ( st. L. Railroad Com
pany VS.. Shrum. Montgomery c. c. Re-
versed. Comstock, J.-One rendering serv-
ices for another in which the interests of
the public are not involved may. when the
benefit of such service is enjoyed, recoV-
err the reasonable value for such services
from the person who receives the benefit.
although such services are rendered WITH
out the knowledge of the benerclary, put
ton of the services without entering into a
contract, or there must exist such clrcum-
stances as imply an obligation TO pay
Iii. Hernly VS.. Brannum,. Madison s. G;
Reversed. Comstock. IL Sureues ana
lie strict terms of their obligations. but
there should be no forced construction
ei,,er to release or 10 hold them. : Inc IN
ment is 10 be ascertained from the instru-
ment read i'm the light of the surrounding
2Ss7. b. & o. S. W. Railway Company VS..
NIusyrave. Gibson c. C. Reversed. Hen
ley. 1.-THE law assumes that a traveller
approaching a railway crossing actually
saw what he could have seen by looking
attentively, and heard what he could have
heard If he had listened attentiVely.
2767. BRAY VS.. Miles. Hendricks c. @.
Petition for rehearinS oVerruied per cur
lam. When this court is convinced that
the decision of the cause was correctly
made a rehearing will not be granted.
294l. West VS.. Graft. Gibson {. G. Re-
versed. Black. i'll. A statement or facts
agreed on by the parties TO an action Is 10
be treated as the evidence introduced upon
the trial. 2. To maintain repleVln the de-
PENDANT must have been In possession or
the property at the commencement OF the
action. 3. Fraud is a question OF fact,
and cannot be properly inferred from the
mere doing Of what one mas a legai right
TO do. 4. An assignment Tor the oeheht or
creditors which names the particular cred
itors for whose benefit Ii Is made is not a
general assignment, but is special as 10 the
persons named.
2s39. Week VS.. Widgeon. Wells c. c..
Affirmed. Black. 1.-THE evidence must be
in the record by a proper bill of exceptions
TO determine whether q judgment on ac-