The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-29
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

10000. Minnick VS.. State ex rel Steele
Henry G. G. Reversed. Jordan, il. The
act of March s, 1897 (Acts 1897, Page 24D
does not require that the evidence be filed
with the clerk of the trial court before II
is Incorporated into n bin of exceptions and
under the law of 1897 the method employed
to report the evidence given upon a trial
Is not essential. 2. BY Section 63S, Burns.
1894. an exception must be taken by the
Directing party to the decision of the court
at the time IL Is made, but time may be
given to reduce the exception to writing
but not beyond the term, unless by special
leave of court. and If motion for a new
trial be filed in which such decision is as
signed as reason therefor such motion
shall carry such decision and exception
thereto forward to the time of ruling on
the motion. and time may then be given
within which TO reduce such exception to
writing. 3. When town is organized I'M
der the general laws, by Section 59l5,
Burns, 1894 school trustee who has been
elected but fails to qualify may be sue
ceeded by one appointed by the board.
4. The qualifications which the law pre-
scribes for a person to act as an officer are
conditions precedent and must be complied
with in order to constitute the person
chosen to fill the Office an officer de jure.
Such person Is not In a position 10 de-
mand possession OF the office to which he
has been elected or appointed. or to exer-
else the functions thereof, until he has
qualified as the law exacts. 5. Where a
or has notice of his election in time to
qualify within the period of five days IL is
his duty to do so, unless he does not intend
to accept the office. The failure of such
party elected to qualify within the period
designated by taking the oath OF office in
the absence of showing that such neglect is
not attributable to his own fault will au-
thorize the board of trustees of a town or
common council of city to assume that
their appontee does not intend TO accept
the office, and it then becomes the duty of
such body to fill the vacancy.
1879. Owen VS.. Dresbach. Grant G. C..
Rehearing denied. Baker. IA recital at
the beginning of the finding and Judgment
does not overcome the record of what was
done.
1871. Hutchinson VS.. wenzel. Gibson c.
c. Reversed. Hadley. C. il. In actions
for malicious prosecution where the facts
are not disputed the court must decide as
matter OF law. whether they do or do not
constitute probable cause: but where they
are disputed, then the court must hypo-
thetcally state the material facts, which
there Is evidence fairly tending to prove,
and positively direct to the law upon the
assumed state of facts. 2. Probable cause
for a prosecution is that apparent state of
facts found to exist upon reasonable in
Quiry which would induce reasonably in
telligent and prudent man TO believe the
accused person had committed the crime
charged. g. A belief, however honest, IL
suddenly acquired upon information not
known TO be true, will not justify prose-
cution IL formed upon inadequate inquiry
under circumstances which afford reason
able and convenient opportunity to verify
such belief and which prudent men would
investigate before acting. T. The belief of
an accuser counts for nothing when care
lessly or recklessly formed upon a single
item Of information. II IL be shown that he
failed TO inquire into other reasonable and
convenient sources pointed out 10 him that
would have established the innocence OF the
accused. 5. Information that will ccnsti-
tute probable cause must relate to such
| facts as strongly tend to- establish the
crime charged accompanied with reason
J able ground for the accuser to believe that