The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-19
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1860. Smith VS.. State of Indiana. Marion
Grim. c. Affirmed. Hadley. il American
quails are game birds, and as such belong to
the State in its sovereign capacity as the
trustees OF the citizens in common. 2. An in
dividual has no natural right to take game, or
to acquire property IN it; all the right he pos
sesses or can possess in this respect is granted
him by the State. 3. In granting the privilege
of reducing quail to possession, with proprietary
right, il is competent for the State to prescribe
such conditions OF enjoyment as are deemed
reasonable and necessary to protect the com
mon interest. And the citlzen. when he ac-
cepts the States grant. accepts 1T impressed
with all the restrictions and limitations laid
upon Ii, and when he acquires property under
such license he does so with full notice Of his
qualified right. and so, If he loses that which
he has taken, or held possession OF. upon for
hidden terms, he has lost nothing that belonged
to him, and there has been no taking Of prop
erty without due process of law or without
just compensation. 4. This court must assume
that the Legislature rightfully apprehenced the
meaning of the words employed by them in
stating their intention in the enactment Of n
penal statute; and in the absence of some fact
relating to the subject matter legislated upon
or other provisions Of the act inconsistent with
the ordinary meaning Of the language used, we
must conclusively presume the meaning to be
that which is usually conveyed by the words.
5. Section 2209. r. s.. 1894. which forbiGs any
person having in his possession quail during
the period from the FIRST day OF January to the
tenth day of November is not unconstitutional.
ard forbids the possession Of quail during such
period notwithstanding they come into a pos
SCISSORS possession lawfully during the open
season.
1876. Mott vs.. Fiske. White c. c. Affirmed.
Monks, il. A court of equity will have regard
to the real nature of the transaction, and,
although a deed be absolute i'm form. IL, in fact.
Ii was received as security for the repayment
OF money. 1t will he treated as a mortgage.
and evidence written or oral will be received
to show the facts. 2. A finding that a grantee
had no knowledge of the execution Of a deed,
but that he took SAID deed as security for
said Indebtedness shows that the grantee had
no knowledge OF the signing and acknowledge
ment of the instrument. but when received ac-
cepted the same as security for an indebted
ness.
1928. Board OF Commissioners VS.. State ex
rel. Shields. Monroe c. c. Reversed. Baker,
il. The Legislature. by a general law in ref
erence to the business and duties OF counties
require each county as a governmental SUBJ
division Of the State to enact and maintain
a courthouse and Jail within the limits OF the
county. 2. A right or duty Of any township or
any county as a governmental subdivision can
not be created by special law. 3. A tax for a
State. county or township purpose cannot be
imposed CT authorized under a special law.
3. A tax for county purposes must be uniform
and equal throughout the county.
1926. Chicago & Erie Railroad COMPANY VS..
Thomas. Huntington C. G. Rehearing granted.
1889. Clements VS.. Davis. Montgomery c.. C.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
19440. Jackson VS.. Saylor. Lake c. G.. Motion
to dismiss overruled.