The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-05
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT

versed-
Common Council OF city has the power 10
enact ordnaces for the protection of life, health
and property. and may declare by ordinance what
and remove the same, and enact ordinaces for
the preservation Of the public health and carry
out and enforce all sanitary regulations. 2. But
a city cannot declare that to be nuisance which
is not in fact. ;. A municipal corporation may.
by ordinance. require owners Of dogs to securely
muzzle the same, or keep them on their premises
SO that they cannot escape, and direct an Of
fcer TO kill all dogs found running ut large in
violation of such ordinance, and no action can
be maintained against such officer for such act.
4. A city, by ordinance may make IL the duty
Of the mayor to ascertain whether or not there
is an existence danger of spread of hydropho-
ba in near the city. and IL he finds there is
such danger, IL may make ii his duty to issue
a proclamation, provided for, stating the time
which such ordinance will be enforced BY muz-
zlirg all dogs securely combining them, or
direct the killing Of all dogs running at large
1882 Peters VS.. Koepke. vanderburg c. c..
Affirmed Bowling, c. il The records OF a
court of inferior and limited jurisdiction where
it is afirmatively shown, upon their face, that
the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter
OF the action ard of the person Of the defendant.
entitled TO the same respect aud are equally
invunerable to collateral attack those OF
courts of genera! jurisdiction. 3. The tendency
Of criminal action against defendant, for the
same offense, in another court, where jeopardy
] as not attached is not available TO defeat n
prosecution In a court Of competent jurisdiction.
4. Where q person who has committed A crime
or n1isdeneanor procures an a'fidavit 10 be hied
against himself. suit to be instituted by "A
for the purpose OF defeating prosecution against
him already commenced in good faith, or anti
cipated, a judgment so procured in such case
affords no protection to the defendant .. III a
defendant enters plea of guilt TO criminal
charge, he cannot afterwards withdraw IL with
cut the leave of the court; after such plea no
finding is necessary and the judgment follows
the plea. G. The Police Court of the city of
Evansville has stated terms. or hours. for
business but Is open. and competent to receive
complaints and to try causes within its juris-
diction daily, Sunday excepted, at all reasonable
hours when the judge is present 4 A bill OF
exceptions containing the evidence should state
that it contains all the evidence given in the
cause.
Minutes
1928 August c. Stout ct al. vs. Gaar-Scott
Company. Hendricks e. {. Transferred from
Appellate Court
issso. Home Electric Light and Power Com
pany VS. Carol Collins Elkhart c. =. Appel
liant points appellants additional briefs.
1922. Walter j. Dixon ct al William III.
Eikenberry. Howard C. c. Appellants ad-
1926 Clarence Fifer ct al. VS. Olive Jane
Raehels. Posey c. c. Appellants additional
1886. The American Credits Indemnity Com
pany John L. Ellis ct al. Elkhart c. C.
Appellants points.
1929. State of Indiana VS.. David Flynn. Tip
pecanoe c. -. Appellee's brief G).
APPELLATE COURT.
33es. Supreme Court of Honor VS.. Sullivan.
yanderburg S. c. Affirmed. Comstock. il.
The duties of an officer of an insurance COM
forfeiture may be waived for the benefit Of the
Insured on the part of the insurer. by an of
ficer authorized TO accept payments, when he
accepts payments OF dues and assessments with
knowledge OF facts which would amount to
forfeiture.
1888 Pritchett vs. Ahrens Tippecanoe s. c.
Affirmed. Henley. c. ]. The maker of note,
given as the consideration for money on the
result of q wager. may by admission by con-
duct be estopped from pleading that the con-
tract Is void where such admission or conduct
leads an innocent third party 20 act to his
ss7s. Chicago s& Southeastern Railroad Com
pany VS.. Fifth National Rank. Madison c. c.
Affirmed. Wiley, Ill. The notice of loss to be
given to a carrier of freight as provided i'm the
usual bill of ladng is reasonable one, but re-
lates to loss by damage in transitu and does not
relate tc where there has been CONVEX
sion. e. Where bill of ladng is issued TO
B. and p. assignees of carload of hay and
ping or way bill for the same in the name OF
]. n. W. Co., designating them as the con-
signees and fails to notify the connecting car
riers that the hay is covered by bill of ladins
and consigned to b. and p. and the hay is lost
to the owner. the act of the carrier causing the
loss is tortious and amounts to a conversion.
g. The delivery OF goods by common carrier
to third or wrong person amounts TO con-
version. 4. In the absence of abuse OF
discretion on the part Of the court. in setting
aside the submission of a cause, and hearing
further evidence therein before the court has
made two special findings Of facts and stated
it's conclusions Of law thereon. such action OF
the court will not be reviewed.
1925. Irwin VS.. Marquett Bartholomew c. c,
Affirmed Robinson. Under Section 6G75
Burns 1894. commercial paper in the hands of a
bona fide holder. for value, is subject to the de-
tense that 1t was given upon gaming considera-
tion.
$3.50 Hunt VS. Conner Wells c. c. Affirmed
Black, i'll. The act known as the Employers
Liability Act" applies In cases where railroad
is being operated by a receiver under appoint.
ment OF the court. 2. A receiver of a railroad
company is in general bound to perform such
public duties connected with the operation of the
road the company was obliged to perform
and he is in general held liable for torts which
the corporation would be liable under like cir
cumgtances. .. In an action to recover under tn.
employers liability act, when the benefciarie.
are the wife and children of the deceased tn,
damages are not restricted to the probable earn
ings OF the deceased. but there may be addeS
thereto the value OF his personal services in tn.
superintendence and care of his family and tn,
education of his children and the performance,
Of acts of paternal assistance to which h.
would be legally obliged and which might reason
ably be expected. And any circumstance Which
renders it reasonably probable that materia
benefit would have been enjoyed through tn.
continuance OF the life OF the decedent may q,
to the jury to aid II IT. reaching a verdict What
ever material need Of surviving minor child
1t may reasonably be presumed would have beer
through his death must be provided for from
seine other source, Is Decuniary loss II IL be
Is not beyond the discretion of the Jury to deter
mine that the father, IL he had survived, woils
have continued during its life to provide for 4
| as he woald have continued to provide for tn.
| wife during the joint lives Of the husband anC
| wife,
Minutes
| s51s David F. Highley VS.. Marion Ruther
| ford ct al. Howard c. c. AppelIee's brief 81
5Ss5. William Blakely New York Lift
| Insurance Company. Vanderburg c. C. AID
| pellant's brief cd
| ss5s. Chicago & Erie Railroad Company vs
| Joseph Lesh ct al. Miami c. c. Appellees
brief (S)
| s6i7. Vincent Case ct al. VS.. Martha Bennett
Hamilton c. c. Supersedeas brief Supersedeas
$500. James Halstead Viola Gray. Marion
| S. c. Appelee's special appearance and mo
| ton to strike from record her joinder ETC.
1886. John Stelwagen ct al William +
Hoyle. Lake S. c. Bond.
SUPERIOR COURT.
| Room 1-Jehn L. McMaster. Judge.
Albert Vann We. Mahfon Woody and Indanap
/ oils cold Storage Company; damages. Plaintiff
| disnisses; judgment against plaintiff for costs
| Room S-Charles A. Dryer, Judge pro TEN.
Myrtle Mitchell, by next friend. vs. Indianap
| oils Street-railway Company: damages. Dismisse
and costs paid.
| Van Camp Packing Company VS.. William n
wishard; account. on trial by jury.