The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-13
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1888. Bridgewater VS.. State. Marion c.
G. Affirmed. Downing, il. Where the
undisputed evidence showed that defend
ants victim was unarmed and was accom-
panying home from a Sunday picnic a
woman who was defendants wife, but
whom he did not know to be such, when
he was stabbed and killed by the defend
ant, the jury had a right to reject defend
ants own testimony that he was assaulted
and did the cutting in self-defense, and to
find defendant guilty of murder in the sec
ond degree. ?. An instruction that If the
jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant ''wilfully'' killed his VIC
TIM, but the killing was done without
malice express or implied, and without pre-
meditation, voluntarily, the defendant
might be found guilty of manslaughter,
was as favorable to defendant as he had a
right to ask. 8. When the court has prop
erly instructed the jury trying a murder
case that they are exclusive Judges of the
law and the facts, 1t may properly refuse
to add that they are the sole" judges
thereof, since a court cannot be required
TO tell a jury that ii may without cause
disregard the instructions of the court as
to the law governing the case.
17S48. Cambria Iron Co. ct al. vs.. Union
Trust Co. ct al. Wayne G. c. Reversed.
Hadley, G.. il. A pleading In the form
filed under our code practice when the in
tervenor has an equitable interest in the
subject matter of a suit in equity. AND the
property to which his interest attaches is
in the custody of the law and liable to be
sold and pass beyond his reach unless his
rights are protected. 2. The sufficiency of
such a plea is to be determined by the rules
that govern intervening petitions in equity.
3. Where a Street-railway company builds
its tracks under an ordinance franchise. the
terms of which are expressly accepted. not
only the company but all others who ac-
quire any rights in the railway by mort
gag purchase or otherwise, hold such
rights subject to the conditions of the or
dinance as to paying for paving between
to the rights conferred by the ordinance
are to be solved against the company or
others claiming under it, and in favor Of
the city which passed the ordinance. 4.
Such company cannot affect the rights of
the holder of a mortgage on its property
by accepting the terms of an ordinance
subsequently passed, unless the mortgage
consents, but If it consents for one purpose
1t is bound as to all others that spring
therefrom. 5. The mortgage or the prop
erty of a street-railroad company is charge
able with notice Of the conditions on which
it holds its franchise and the burdens
1901. Case, admrx., VS.. Nelson, exceptor.
Cass c.. c.. Motion to set aside transfer and
reinstate cause overruled.
1902. Chisholm VS.. Towle, trustee. ct al.
AXE s. c. Publication ordered.
1856. Baker ct al. VS.. Martin. admir-. ct
al. Boone G. G. Motion to dismiss post
.poned until final hearing.
1902. Hay ct al: VS.. Mcdaniel, jr, ct al.
ASAhS POCtPOiANo
until final hearing.
APPELLATE COURT.
1855. Kenney, receiver, VS.. Wells, ct al.
Knox c. {. Affirmed. Comstock, il.
Where the mortgagor of some machinery
sold it TO another, who executed his own
note for the mortgage debt in consideration
of an agreement that he should have pos
session OF machinery until he should earn
money from its operation TO pay the debt.
and before he had an opportunity to do so
tho creditor fOok tho y, aohinarx, frop, bfr,
TO satisfy the mortgage. the consideration
of his notes thereby failed. 2. a joint de-
mur-er TO two paragraphs of pleading may
be properly overruled if one OF them is
good. g. Where the ~pleadings fairly adj
mitted of a certain theory, giving instruc-
tons applicable TO such theory will not be
considered reversible error.
1852. Colborn VS.. Fry. Clark G. c. At
firmed. Henley. il. Where a dealer gave
TO another, who was going TO a distant city
10 purchase lumber for the company of
which the latter was president, a written
authority addressed ITO whom II NAV con-
s., is authorized to purchase such lumber
as he may select for me-" which was duly
signed. such writing did not operate TO
make him liable for the price of lumber
purchased by the bearer for his own COM
pany and charged TO II. of which no notice
was given to defendant until several
months after the sale was made. 2. The
admission of incompetent evidence which
does not tend to change or affect the plain
meaning of competent evidence tina re-
mains undisputed. Is harmless.
1884. Perkins Windmill & AK Co. VS.. Yeo-
man. Knox c. c. Reversed. Black, j.
Where a cause of action or defense as
pleaded is based on an alleged contract
that is not stated to hav been In writ
ing. IL must be treated as founded on an
oral contract. and If the contract Is shown
at the trial to have been a written one the
action or defense must fail.
1854. 10y ct al. VS.. Madison & Hancock
Gas Co. ct al. Madison c. c. Transferred
10 Supreme Court.
1865. Wilson vs.. Carrico. Sullivan c. c.
Transferred to Supreme Court.
297i. PARROT VS.. Richardson. Huntington
c. G.. Transferred to Supreme Court.
1856. Bogue ct al. VS.. Bennett. Grant C.
c.. Transferred to Supreme Court.
1868. c. & S. f. Railway Co. VS.. Spencer,
Boone G. c. Certiorari granted.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
Charles Smith. administrator VS.. c., c..
G. & st. l.. Railroad Company; damages
On trial by jury.
Room flames NJ. feathers, Judge.
Celtic Saving and Loan Association No
! 3 vs.. Dennis Beach ct. al; foreclosure o,