The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-11

ton to make more specific is the proper
course 2 In an action to quiet the title
TO an easement in an alley where the YER
dict of the jury read: I'VE. the jury. find
for the plaintiff against the defendants,
that they have INSTRUCTED the alley de-
scribed in the complaint, that said obstruc-
ton should be abated and removed there
from. and that plaintiffs easement in said
alley should be Qufeted thereto, and we
find for plaintiff against defendant on the
cross-complaint." Held that the verdict
was general one determining all material
issues in favor of the plaintiff. 3. Where
parties, by their acts and conduct, have
given their contract a certain construction
the same construction will be adopted by
the courts. 4. 1t is within the discretion
of the court to admit original testimony
after the evidence and argument has closed
and cause will not be reversed for that
reason unless IL clearly appears that such
discretion was abused. 5. A cause will not
be reversed for failure to give certain in
structions when IL appears that the COM
planning party was not injured by such re-
fusal.
1873 White VS.. State. Tippecanoe C. C.
Petition for rehearing overruled-
1929 Wickly VS.. National Bank. Lake
c. c.. Supersedeas granted and issued.
APPELLATE COURT.
1926. Sutton VS.. Todd. Jay C. c.. Re-
versed. Henley, IA complaint should
contain succinct and definite statement of
the facts relied upon to constitute cause
of action, and they should be stated by
direct averment and not by way of recital,
so. that the defendant may be apprised by
the complaint itself of the facts upon
which the plaintiff expects to rely.
1887. Hatfield VS.. Cheneweth. Hunting
ton c. c. Affirmed. Wiley, c. il. An
attorney may perform professional services
for his client gratuitously. 2. Where a
jury returned, as answers to certain inter-
rogatories submitted, mo evidence, and
litigant moved the court that the jury
be required TO return to their room and
S,rcb inf w motion
the court sustained and orally stated TO the
jury, in substance, that if there was any
evidence relating to the facts sought to
be elected by the questions they should
answer them; but II there was no evidence,
then they might return as their answer
that there was no evidence. Held That
such statement to the jury was not an m
struction within the meaning OF the stat
ute. s. Where a series of instructions are
assailed collectively in motion for a new
trial, all the instructions in the group must
be had or the assignment will not pre-
vail.
1854 Parrill VS.. c., c., c. & st. L. hail-
way Company. Grant >. c. Af1rmed.
Black. il. Where there is no legal duty
except that arising from a contract, there
cannot be an election between an action
on contract and in tort, for there is
no tort and the action must be upon con-
tract 2. The existence of a contract does
not divest a common carrier for hire of
his responsibility as such in respect TO any
excepted cause of loss where in fact the
loss was due to his own negligence, the ex-
ception being understood to be conditioned
upon due care on the part of the carrier.
g. Where live stock is shipped under an
express contract which relieves the carrier
cific cause. the carrier is not liable for loss
occasioned by such cause If the carrier
was itself without fault or negligence, and
the burden of showing negligence is on the
shipper.
32S7. Board of Commissioners vs. Bader.
Perry c. G.. Dismissed
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 1-John L. McMaster Judge.
Charles Becker VS. Harmon ]. Everett.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment against appel
liant for costs.
Room flames NJ. feathers, Judge.
Emily A. league VS.. Citizens Street.
railway Company; damages. On trial by
jury. Further evidence heard and con-
tinued.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Laurinda Whitehead VS.. Sophia w. Dit
man ct al; partition. Dismissed and costs
paid.
John n. Carey ct al. VS.. w. III. Scott
| note. Evidence heard. Finding and judg-
ment against defendant for S572.14.
John c. Dunn VS.. VIM. Z. Lamhertal;
mechanics lien. Submitted to court. Evil
| dence heard. Finding due plaintiff and
certain defendants various amounts. Find
| ing and judgment for plaintiff and certain
defendants for various amounts. Foreclcs-
James b. Coy VS.. Indianapolis Gas Com
| pany; damages. Jury out.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Flavius ]. Peck VS.. Bertha NJ. Peck ct
| al. partition. Circuit Court
Lulu +. Schonaker VS. Edwin w. Schon-
aker; suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Room 3.
Anna Smith VS.. William Z. Smith; di-
vorce. Superior Court Room 2.
Valentine w. Horning VS.. Anna Horn
| ing; divorce. Circuit Court.