The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-04
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME corRr

u.
Thomas. Huntington c. C.. Affirmed Had
ley, c. il. In an action by an admins
traitor for the wrongful killing OF his de-
cedent, when 1t Is alleged In the complaint
that the decedent left surviving him his
widow and a son one year of age, and that
both are still living. the legal presumption
Is that the widow and infant child were
both entitled to the service of the deceased,
and that such services were valuable to
both, and such presumption is sufficient to
sustain a complaint against a demurrer
which confesses the truth of the aver
ments. 2. In considering a special verdict
the court must indulge all reasonable pre-
symptoms against answers to fnterroga-
tories and in support of the general verdictA
and if the general verdict thus aided is not
in irreconciable conflict with the answers
1t must stand. 3. By general verdict the
jury pronounces upon all the issuable facts
in the case. 4. The law commands no fool
ish thing, SO that which will be Intellectual
will be excused. 5. If looking and listen
ing before driving upon a railroad track
would not have assisted the traveller tde-
ceGent) in discovering the approach of
train the court cannot say as a matter or
law that his failure to do so was negh-
gence, but the question of negligence must
be determined by the jury from the
surrounding facts and the con-
duct of the deceased tested by
dent person placed in like situation.
s. The rule of law requiring person APP
preaching a railroad crossing to look and
listen only requires the exercise or these
senses when they are reasonably calcu-
lated to give information.
1887 Weaver VS.. State of Indiana. Suln-
van c. c. Affirmed Jordan, i'll. An am
davit by defendant in criminal cause
for a continuance OF the cause for trial on
account of an absent witness should
state that he believes the facts TO be true
which he alleges he can prove by such
witness. and that he used due diligence TO
secure the attendance of such witness; and
ha of
ing the witnesses subpoenaed Is charged
to the defendant. The affidavit should
further show probability of procuring the
testimony of such witness within a reason
able time in the event the trial is post
poned. 2. Where the evidence is sufficient to
warrant a conclusion that defendant was
implicated with the commission of the
crime with which he is charged, verdict
of guilty will not be set aside on the
ground of the failure of the evidence.
1897. Mark VS.. North. Delaware c. c.
Motion to dismiss postponed until final
hearing.
1896. Simpson VS.. Plate CLASS Company.
Howard G. c. Motion to transfer overruled.
1864. Musser VS.. State of Indiana Black
ford c. c: Motion to amend appellants
brief sustained.
1921. Layman VS.. Buck. Greene c. c.
Motion to dismiss overruled.
APPELLATE COURT.
1904. Lumber Company VS.. Rice. Marion
S. c. Affirmed, Robinson, il. A surety on
a bond undertakes to do the particular
thing If the principal fails. 2. Where a
lumber company, a corporation, became
surety OH a contractors bond, in case the
material for the construction of the build
ing to be constructed would be purchased
from such surety. and the bond provides
that the building shall be completed free
from liens; held that the surety was bound
by Its contract, after receiving the consid-
heard to deny its power to make such con-
tract.
1854. State of Inolana vs. Cosner. Law
renee c. c. Affirmed. Wiley, c. J.-Af-
firmed upon the authority of State VS.
Robertson, decided nov. %. 1899.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Susan Carnahan VS.. the Adams Express
Company; damages. Evidence heard and
taken under advisement.
Della Leffingwell VS.. George Hall; for
services. On trial by court.
Room 3-vinson Carter. Judge.
Frank 7. Edenharter ct al. VS.. Ida c.
Zwick; appeal. Jury returns verdict for
plaintiff for 500.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Alice NJ. Hanson vs. Jane c. Meyers Es-
tate. BY agreement OF parties claim al
lowed for $500, each party paying her own
costs; Judgment accordingly.
Samuel Z; Morss, trustee. VS.. Samuel
for $40. at costs of estate
Philiptna Waller ct al. VS.. William Wal
Ter ct al; partition. Defendants Mary M.
and Bernard Waller agree to divide funds
and dissolve trust between them; commits
sioner ordered to pay said defendants
Charles E. Johnson vs. Jesse Johnson's
Estate. Submitted to court; evidence heard
In part.
Frank Seehofer VS.. Frances Kantman's
Estate. Allowed for S35, at costs of estate.
Frances Wfgfall VS.. William Wambaugh's
Estate. BY agreement of parties claim al
lowed for 5000, at costs of estate.
.. NJ. Simmons ct al. VS.. Frank N. GIL
christ ct al; from Hamilton county. Plain
tiff called, defaulted; cause dismissed for
want of prosecutions; judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Katie Hackney VS.. George B. Martin; on
note. Dismissed for want of prosecutions:
costs paid by plaintiff.
Katie Hackney VS.. George b. Martin:
complaint for deceit. Dismissed for want
of prosecution; costs paid by plaintiff.
Solomon Meyer ct al VS.. Samuel r.
Waters; from justice of peace. Submitted
to court; evidence heard; finding for de-
PENDANT on answer pleading discharge in
bankruptcy; judgment against plaintiff for
costs.
Emma z. vanhorn VS.. Joseph A. Van
horn; divorce. Dismissed for want of prose-
cution; judgment against plaintiff for costs
Jerusha Wolfe VS.. William N. Browning;
breach of promise. Dismissed for want OF
prosecution; judgment against plaintiff for
costs.
Winnie III. wiles VS.. Wilson Morrow's Es-
tate. Allowed by agreement for s., 500. 60 and
costs, including $27 attorneys fees, secured
by mortgage.
Rachel Goodwine VS.. Wilson Morrow's
Estate. Allowed by agreement for ss.240
and costs, including $40 attorneys fees, Sc
cured by mortgage.
Earl Fruit Company VS.. w. Harry Rob-
erts ct al: complaint on bill of exceptions.
Dismissed by order OF court for failure TO
file cost bond; judgment against plaintfn
for costs.
Charles n. Elliott VS.. John +. Geckler:
election contest Dismissed by plaintiff,
judgment against plaintiff for costs.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Conrad Draut ct al. VS.. Ferdinand p.
Boiling ct al: mechanics lien Superior
Court, Room i.
Louis III. Reed VS.. Mary III. Ingersoll ct
al: damages. Superior Court.
Matthias Harth vs.. John Doe ct al; suit
to quiet title and return deed. Superior
Court. Room 1.
Hattie NJ Hendrix Alexander Hen
dirk; divorce. Superior Court. Room 2.
Jessie Perry VS.. Ezra s. Perry; divorce
Superior Court. Room 2.
The Marion Bond Company, trustee, vs.
Estella G. MacDaniel ct al; Improvement
lien Superior Court, Room g.
son: divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
Ferdinand p. Boehling vs.. William
Lather ct al; suit on bond. Superior
Court, Room 3.
Caroline Schnepel VS.. Henry Schnepel;
petition 10 sell real estate. Circuit Court.
Jauunry