The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-30

not only upheld as strictly within the con-
stitutional power of the Legislature, but
as necessary 10 carry out the express pur-
poses of the Constitution itself. 6. In an
affldaVft where a person is charged with
having neglected, omitted and refused TO
send his child TO school i'm violation of the
compulsory education law il is not neces-
sary TO carry out the express purposes OF
the Constitution itself. 6. In an affidavit
where a person is charged with having
neglected, omitted and refused to send his
child to school in violation of the compul-
sorry education law it is not necessary 10
allege that the defendant "~unlawfully" neg
lected, etc, when all the exceptions of the
statute are negatived by proper
1853 Southern Indiana Railway Co. VS..
Peyton. Martin G. c. Affirmed. Hadley, j
l. The act of 1899 (Acts. 1899. p. So, which
shifts the burden of proving contributory
negligence TO the defendant, in personal
injury cases. where the injury was caused
by the negligence Of the defendant, applies
where the cause of action accrued prior,
but was in fact commenced subsequent 10
the taking effect of said act. ?. Remedial
statutes which affect only the procedure and
practice of the courts i'm the enforcement of
a right, and which do not impair the right
itself. or wholly destroy a pre-existing
remedy, are retroactive in the sense that
they must be applied TO causes of action
existing at the time of their passage in all
cases where the suit is subsequently com
menced. 5. Litigants must prosecute or de-
fend in the manner prescribed at the time
the suit Is entered. without reference TO
when the cause of action accrued, or the
character of previously existing forms OF
procedure. though it may turn out that
present modes are less advantageous TO one
of the parties. 4. No adverse inference will
arise upon "A pleading from the absence of
unnecessary aVerments. ;. All reasonable
p-resumptions must be INDUCED against the
special answers. and in support OF the gen
eral verdict. and IL the general verdict thus
aided is not i'm irreconcilable conflict with
the answers ii must stand. 6. 1t is the
right of each ltigant to have the law de-
clared TO the jury upon the issuable facts
supportive of his theory which the evil
dence tends to prove. and If such facts are
round to be established, and are sufficient
in law to constitute a cause of action or de-
tense. In such presentation ii is not neces-
sary to embody all minor and unfavorable
fact or facts in support of the adversary's
theory. If the latter desires a counter pre-
se1tation from his standpoint he must re-
quest ii.
1869. Dawson VS.. Campbell. Delaware C..
c. Transferred to Appellate Court.
1866. Churchman VS.. Insurance Co. Bar
tholomew G. G. Same.
APPELLATE COURT.
3694. Felt VS.. East Chicago, etc, Co.
Lake c. c.. Affirmed. Robinson, il. If G
party is not satisfied with the form of the
Judgment as entered he should present his
objections TO the trial court in a motion to
modify, as objection TO a judgment cannot
be successfully made. for the first time. on
appeal. 2. \ motion for a new trial because
Of the admission or exclusion Of evidence
must point out with reasonable certainty
the evidence admitted or excluded of which
complaint is made. 3. A motion for a new
trial presents no question when, as cause
therefor, 1T assigns that the Judgment" Is
contrary to the law and the evidence.
$t6G, p c., {; q St l, Ry. 90: vs.
i. The presumption of negligence, which
arises against the carrier when injury is
suffered by one passively relying upon 1t
TO transport him to his destination, does
not exist when the voluntary movement or
the passenger contributed to the injury
complained of ?. A railroad company is
not responsible for damages caused 10y rain
| aud until n condition has
been created and reasonable time given to
rectify ii. 3. 1t is a question of fact wheth-
er ice had been allowed TO remain an I'M
reasonable time upon the platform or a
railroad car. 4. Where the facts are undis-
puted and but one conclusion can be drawn
therefrom the question of contributory neg
ligence becomes one for the court. D
Where a person of mature years and IN
possession of his faculties deliberately
walks into a place which upon his own
knowledge is one of danger. which ne
could not only have avoided but which ne
refused to avoid when requested 10 DO So
he must suffer the loss If any occurs.
1863. Welch W. Collier. Marion {. =;
Affirmed. Wiley. =. J.-When a husband
dies. leaving by will all his personal prop
erty to his wife and his real estate TO ner
for life, and after his death and before the
probation of his will the wife dies without
receiving any part Of the $500 statutory al
lowance, her administrator Is entltleo 10
prosecute against any receiving from heT
husbands estate said allowance. unless
such claim is barred by the provisions OF
the will.
s244. Johnson ". Johnson. Huntington
! c. c. Affirmed. No opinion per curiam.
404I. Kuhner ". Kuhner. Howard Z. Z.
Affirmed. No opinion per curtain.
1896. Florea vs.. Miller. Fayette = :.
seia. C.. I. & f. Ry. co. vs.. Little. Del
aware c. c. Leave granted clerk to aftx
seal.
4l9O. Wink ". Work. Marshall c {. Pc
tition for leave 10 file brief overruled.
1876. PAYNE vs.. T. H.. & J. r. r. Co. Clay
c. c. Petition for rehearing overruied.
Minutes
3992. Enos T. Taylor ct al. vs.. Sarah 6.
Geiger ct al. Huntington {. {. Appellants
reply brief 81
1907. old Wayne Mutual Life Association
vs.. Enos Flynn. Marion ;. {. Appellee :
brief 81
S5i4. South Chicago City Railway Com
many W. Charles Zerles, ST. Laporte ;. &.
Appellants motion for continuance or near
ing Of appellee's petition for certiorarl- APP
pellant's cross-petitiOn for certiorarl. with
notice and afidaVits 90 in support or mo-
ton. Appellants brief in opposition 10 APP
pellee's application for writ of certiorari.
1911. Charles r. Flutter ". y. Y. &. &
ST. l.. r.. r. Co. Allen :. &. Stipulation of
parties as TO ruling on petition for rehear-
ing and dismissal OF cause.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John l.. McMaster. Judge.
Hiram Bacon vs.. indianapolis Street
railway Company; damages. On trial by
jury