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

will be able to produce competent and
sufficient evidence thereof upon the trial
6. 1t is error to instruct a jury In ma
licious prosecution case in language from
which the jury may infer that the oniy de-
Tense the defendant may have to the action
Is that the plaintiff was actually guilty OF
the crime for which he was proSecuteG.
1884. Wilder VS.. Baum. Gay I. T.
Motion to dismiss overruled
1926. Essex VS.. Meyers Whitley Z. (.
Certiorari granted and issued.
APPELLATE COURT.
24H c.. c., c. & ST. L. Ry Co. VS.. Stew
art Marion S. c. Reversed. Wiley, c, j.
1. A complaint must be construed upon the
theory which is most apparent and clearly
outlined by the facts stated therein = Only
one theory can be contained in a single
paragraph of complaint and the court must
construe the pleading most strongly against
the pleader and determine its theory from
its prominent and leading allegations 3.
complaint cannot have a double theory.
4 An action will not lie for damages for
fright resulting in nervous prostration
and permanent impairment of health when
such fright does not arise from impeding or
apparent danger to the party demanding
the damages, but from impending apparent
and POSSIBLE danger or peril to another.
1923. American Carbon Co. VS.. jackson.
Hamilton c. G. Reversed. Robinson, il.
The action of the Circuit Court denying an
application to remove the cause to the
Federal Court can be reviewed in this court
only when the ruling of the court and the
aDDlfCat1On q
tons. or when made part or the record
by order of court. 2. A motion to remove
a cause to the Federal Court relates clear
ly to collateral matter. II is an issue taken
upon a matter aside from the merits of
the case. 3. Where "A defective appliance
Is alike open to the observation of the en-
ployer and employe and necessarily within
the comprehension of both alike. and the
employee exercising his own judgment as
to the manner of using the appliance, does
use it, no recovery can be had for re-
sulting injury. T. Where testimony upon a
material element of a case is uncontra-
ficted this court on appeal must determine
its legal effect
S197 In re Ray VS. Glessner. Shelby c. c.
Transferred to Supreme Court.
1909. Benford VS.. Grimes. Montgomery
G.. G.. Leave granted to withdraw trans
cript
1928 Lukin VS.. Halverson. Starke c. c.
Motion of appellant for reversal overrued.
SUPERIOR COURT
Room 1-James p Baker Judge Pro Tenn
Emma Schroyer VS.. City of Indianapolis
damages. Jury out.
Room FLAMES M. feathers. Judge.
W. J. Hubbard VS.. ]. A. Hamilton ct al. !;
damages. Evidence and argument con-
cluded. Taken under advisement.
William Wishard VS.. George Harness;
note and account. On trial by court.
August w. Buschman VS.. William f.
Buschman: receiver Submitted to court
on application for receiver. Evidence heard.
Henry Kothe appointed receiver and quail
lied.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Anna c. Sewage VS.. Charles 3. Selvage;
divorce. Judgment against plaintiff for
costs on complaint, and against defendant
for costs on cross-complaint
Joseph w. Sewage VS.. Don K. Hall; ap-
peal. Finding for defendant. Judgment
against plaintiff for costs.
John c. Dunn vs.. Frank McCray ct al (;
mechanics lien. On trial by court.
CIRCUIT COURT
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
David Robinson VS.. Indianapolis Street.
railway company; damages. Trial re-
sumed. Evidence concluded. Arguments
heard. Jury instructed and retired
CRIMINAL COURT.
Fremont Afford, Judge.
Calvin I. Fletcher: attempting criminal
operation. Trial resumed Evidence heard
A. r. Ragsdale held for contempt of court.
Charles Lohrmann: doing business with
out license. Defendant arraigned. Plea OF
guilty. Fined So
NEW SUITS FILED.
The United States Printing Company VS..
]. c. Hubinger & Co.: complaint on ac-
count Superior Court. Room L.
Francis G.. Banker VS.. Alva r. Sacks and
William c. Lebo; on note. Superior Court,
Room 2.
William wilkins vs.. Cort Matthias and
Maria Matthias: to foreclose mortgage.
Superior Court. Room /.
Estella r. Tedrowe Joseph T. Ted
rowe; divorce Superior Court, Room 2.