The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-18
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COuRT

1885, State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. C. Affirmed. Baker. il. The
rules of pleading that govern in charging
bribery of an official, extortion by an off,
cial embezzlement by an official, ETC., are
to be accepted in determining the suffici-
ency of an indictment under Section 2031
Burns 1894 2. An indictment against the
officials of a banking company for receiv-
ing money for deposit when the banking
company was insolvent, under Section 2031
Burns 1894, must allege that such money
was received by said officers in their OFF,
cial capacity.
1867 State of Indiana VS. winstandley
Clark c. c. Affirmed upon authority OF
1866. Baker, j.
1869. State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. c. Affirmed upon authority OF
1860. State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. C.. Affirmed upon authority OF
1856. Baker, ].
1861. State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. c.. Affirmed upon authority OF
1866. Baker, j.
1862. State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. G. Affirmed upon authority OF
1856. Baker, j.
1858. State of Indiana VS.. Winstandley
Clark c. c. Affirmed upon authority OF
1soS6. Baker, j.
1854 State of Indiana vs. Winstandley
Clark c. C.. Affirmed upon authority OF
1866. BAKER, j.
1886. State of Indiana VS. Winstandley
Clark c. c.. Affirmed upon authority OF
1856 Baker, j.
1890. State OF Indiana VS. Winstandley
Clark c., c. Affirmed upon authority OF
1866. Baker, j.
1897. Kinsey VS.. Boyce. Marion c. C.
Motion TO dismiss overruled.
1900. Collett VS.. State of Indiana. Ran.
dolph c. c. Clerk granted permission tc
affix seal.
1907. Pearson VS.. Kepner. Miami C. c
Motion to advance overruled
1925. Lahr VS.. Ulmer. Knox c. c. Mo
ton 10 advance overruled.
1927. Cincinnati, Indiana polls & Louis
Vile Railway Company VS.. Brown. Jas
per c. c. Appellants petition for extern
sion of time in which to file brief granted
Minutes
1901. Thomas f. Everett. guardian. VS.
Irva NJ Faults ct al. Tippecanoe c. c.
Appellee's brief filed
1906. William II. Bent, receiver of the
Wabash Soap and Chemical Company
Wabash c. c. Additional copies appellee's
brief No. 2
1000. Lake Erie & Western Railway
Henry c. c. Appellants reply brief 90
Appellants petition for oral argument.
1922. Walter j. Dixon ct al. VS. William
II. Eckenberry. Howard {. c. Additional
copies appellants brief co..
1897. l.. a. Kinsey & Co. ct al VS.. Jane:
Bryce. Marion c. c. Appellants petition
TO postpone consideration of motion, etc
APPELLATE COURT.
1853. Madden VS.. Dunn. DeKalb c.
Affirmed Black. i'll. An amended com
plant supersedes the original complain
and puts II out OF the record. 2. The gen
eral verdict covers the whole matter II
issue and determines every material ques
ton against the unsuccessful party, in
Guiding the application OF the law TO tn,
facts. while the special findings in answe
to proper interrogatories only determine
particular questions of fact. 3. Specia
findings of facts alone or In connection
with the general verdict are not intended
TO answer the purpose OF special verdict
but TO override the general verdict b.
reason of irreconcilable Inconsistency be
tween them. Z. When the amount o