The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-09
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1920. Drake VS.. Everson. Hancock c.
e. Affirmed. Baker, c. J.-Under the act
of 1899. (Acts 1899. p. 3s4, the court must
make the order for the filing of the trans
cript OF the evidence while the cause is yet
before the court: and after the expiration
OF the time fixed, no new time can be set
for such filing.
1914 Best vs.. State of Indiana. Marion
Grim. c. Reversed. Monks, il. 1t is
not necessary TO constitute the crime of
larceny that the taker should have in
tended to appropriate the property taken
70 ms own use. 2. Where the crime
court to instruct that to en.itle the de-
PENDANT to an acquittal the jury must be
satisfied from the evidence that the fell
onious intent did not exist; the true rule
being that, If the jury has reasonable
doubt OF the existence of the felonious In
tent the defendant is entitled to an ac-
1885. Cameron VS.. Parish. Warren c.
e. Reversed. Jordan, il. A remainder
over cannot be engrafted upon or carved
out OF precedent absolute estate In fee.
z. When an estate is generally and indefi-
n1tely given to a person with full power of
disposition, in the absence In the will OF an
express mention to show that the estate
given is limited to the life of the donee,
1t must be held that such devise of prop
erty carries with 1t fee simple to the
same, and any limitation over ii is inopera-
tive or void by reason of its being repug-
nant to the principal devise. 3. The doc
inconsistent
rights is applicable to wills. 4. Equity
Will not permit a person to hold under a
Will and also against its provisions. 5.
This court is bound to assume, until the
contrary clearly appears, that a teStator
by his will only intended to dispose of his
property subject under the law to his dis
position, and, in order to create a proper
case for election under the doctine of
equity his intention to dispose of property
not his own must be made TO clearly APP
pear beyond a reasonable doubt from the
will itself 1t must be disclosed by such
instrument that he therein assumed the
power to dispose Of the property of an
other who hereunder was also made
beneficiary.
lslo3. Borders VS.: Williams Pulaski C.
c. Reversed. Hadley, il. Under Sec
ton 6S12, Burns 1894, the causes therein
mentioned are the only ones for which the
contest of an election can be maintained,
and an allegation that the confession re-
ceived more legal votes than the contestee
Is conclusion and surplusage g In an
election contest plaintiff can only recover
according to his allegations and proof. g.
The failure to count certain votes cannot
be inquired into without a specific plea
4. Where ballots were enormously marked
for two candidates for the same Office but
were correctly marked as to- others. such
ballots should be counted where they COR
rectly indicate only one candidate voted
for.
1871. Hutchinson VS.. wenzel. Gibson c.
c. Petition for rehearing overruled.
~.
C. Petition for rehearing overruled.
1888. Bonner VS.. Bonner. Warren c.
c. Advancement refused.
Minutes
1927. c.. /. & L. Railway Company VS..
William b. Brown. Jasper c. c. Appel
lant's brief.
APPELLATE COURT.
1862 Shelby VS. Bolin WAYNE C. q
Affirmed. Henly. il. Where the prin-
cipal does not sign a bond or undertaking
in an action thereon an averment OF the
insolvency Of the principal is immaterial
2 If, as an answer to an action upon an
undertaking. defendant pleads that the
original obligor has died and his estate
settled 1t should show that the estate was
situate in this State.
1855 Farmers Bank VS.. Orr. Clinton
c. c. Petition for rehearing overruled.
3o05. Campbell VS. Nixon. Marion S. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Minutes
1895. Ellen Lark eft al VS.. Benjamin Rich.
creek. Marion S. c. Notice issued for June
30s9. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville
Railway Company vs. William H. Neff
Montgomery c. c. Appellee's brief on petit
1915. Andrew ]. Pugh VS. Peter e. Miller.
Monroe c. c. Appellants brief.
1876. Arthur Jordan eft al. VS.. The IN
dianapolis Water Company. Marion s. c.
Brief on behalf of Cynthia A Butsch a.
SUPERIOR COURT
Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Nancy z. Reed, administrative. VS.. Citi-
zens' Street-railway Comany. Damages
Jury out.
Room flames NJ. feathers. Judge
Robert Martindale VS.. Antonio Meo ct al. :
foreclosure. Defendant defaulted. Finding
and judgment against defendant for s216 IS
without relief and costs. Foreclosure and
sale ordered.
Wesley A. Stout VS.. William Buschman
ct al. note. Dismissed as to William F.
and August Buschman. Finding and judy
ment against Charles L. and Harry c.
Buschman for $532.4o without relief and
costs.
Room 3-vincent Carter. Judge.
Guy v. Grover VS.. Louis Schmoe ct al:
mechanics lien. Finding for defendant
Judgment against plaintiff for costs.
August w. Althoff ct al. VS.. Dennis Bryan
ct al; mechanics lien. Finding and judg-
ment against defendants for $1s1.62 and
costs. Decree OF foreclosure.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Henry Clay Allen. Judge
Bernhard Waller VS.. Mary N Waller:
divorce. Defendant defaulted. Submitted
to court Evidence heard. Finding for
against plaintiff for costs.
In re Request Of Insanity Of Charles Day.