The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-31
R~E0UESTFOR MANDAMUS
UNUSUAL ACTION TAKEN AGAINST A
CIRCUIT JUDGE.
supreme Court Decision i'm the starr
Case-HiCh Court Rulings
other Court Cases.

In order TO be 'in the fashion attorneys
from Steuben county filed in the Appellate
Court yesterday an original application for
a mandamus against Judge Joseph A.
woodruff. Of the steuben Circuit Court,
commanding him to sign a bill of exceptions
stating explicitly whether he did or did not
give certain oral Instructions to the jury in
a suit in his court. The attorneys say that
they have no personal feeling against Judge
woodruff. but merely wish the Appellate
Court to decide as a bald legal proposition
whether a trial judge. when a bill of ex-
c~eptions raising points on certain action Of
his in a case. may mutilate the bill and
render il as valueless as "A sheet OF blank
paper.
The woodruff case is not at all similar to
the mandamus action brought in the Su-
preme Court a few days ago on the relation
of Dick Starr. of Button. Ind. Starr
sought to have the Supreme Court COM
mand Judge Vaughn. Of the Wells Circuit
Court, to order the official stenographer of
that court 10 furnish him Starr with a
transcript Of the evidence. the cost Of
which was TO be paid by the county.
The Starr mandamus case was decided
late yesterday afternoon by the Supreme
Court through Judge Monks. STAIRS con-
tention was denied. The ruling of the court
was the sustaining Of Judge Vaughn's de-
murrer to Starts complaint for mandamus.
Judge Vaughn acted as his own attorney.
both in preparing his demurrer and the
accompanying brief and in appearing before
the Supreme Court. In his brief the judge
showed that an appeal lies only from a
final decision or judgment Of a court, and
that efUro Gfarr had ozEaG for a frapc1rfpf
before ne had filed either a motion for a
new trial or a motion in arrest of judg-
ment. he had no use for a transcript.
Suppose his request had been granted, ="
said the brief, and the transcript had been
written out, and then Starr had Med his
motion for "A new trial and il had been
granted. Then the county would have been
put TO needless expense, for the transcript
would have been utterly worthless
II the Supreme Court had failed to agree
with Judge NaUghn's contention he had
still another card up his sleeve" i'm the
shape or an answer TO Starr complaint,
setting up the fact that the young mans
father has agreed 10 stand good for the
transcript, which is now, as a matter of
stenOgrapher Of the Wells Circuit Court.
The attempt OF attorneys IN the case of
Flutter against the n. y. c.. e. st. l.. X. Il.
Co. To keep the opinion of the supreme
COurt in that case out of the printed re-
ports by agreeing 10 the granting OF the
companys petition for rehearing on the un-
Outstanding that Immediately thereafter the
case would be dismissed was promptly
sduelched by the court yesterday when 1t
overruled the petition for rehearing. The
details of the case were published eXclu-
sively i'm yesterdays Journal.
The big suit OF W. $. Ralya against Il. G.
Atkins * Co.. for $4,000 i'm royalties on
patents for saws was decided by the Su-
preme Court yesterday in favor of Atkins *
CO.. The suit was based on a written con-
tract between John J.. Ralya and r.. G..
Atkins e. Co. made before the first of the
patents had been taken out, and the de-
Tense was that this agreement was sub
stituted by another which carried with 1T
life employment Of Ralya by the Atkins
company.