The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-27
HIGH COURTS BUSY DAY
IN l. THIRTY-THREE OPINIONS
WERE HANDED DOWN.
The Opening Day of the November
Term - Excerpts of the
Many Decisions.

At the opening of the November term of
the Supreme and Appellate Courts yes
terday each judge of the two courts handed
down three opinions, making thirty-three
in the two courts. The courts then adj
journed for two weeks. Upon the call for
motions. William a. Ketcham suggested
that a case relating to the foreclosure of a
mortgage given TO secure funds of the
State University, which he had believed
presented a Constitutional question. APP
peared to have been transferred from the
Appellate Court. He asked what could be
done to present the question of whether
the action of the court in making the trans
fer was correct. Chief Justice Jordan re-
piled that he should file a petition asking
the Supreme Court to set aside the order
for transferring the case and give his rea-
sons for asking such action.
BY an affirmation of the Judgment of a
lower court by the Supreme Court. Tolbert
H.. Sudberry, who was a former treasurer
of Monroe county, will nave to pay back
1899 of the salary he received from the
county. Sudberry was elected treasurer
after the fee and salary law of 1891 was
enacted, and did not take his office until
after the amendment of 1898 had been
passed, which made valid the provisions
OF the first law as TO county treasurers.
The first year he was in office he settled
with the county under the provisions of this
law, drawing a salary which it allowed
him.. But the second year he demanded
and received pay under the law of 1879.
and at the close of his term he presented a
bill for the additional sum he would have
received the first year II he had been paid
according to that law. and the commission
ers paid it. The new Board of Commission
ers demanded that he paw back all the
money he had received in excess of his sal
airy under the new law and upon his re-
fUsal the board brought suit and a. judg-
ment was recovered against him.
y REQUEST OVERRULED.
The Supreme Court refused to overrule
a line of it's earlier decisions as recon-
mended by a majority of the Appellate
Court. In doing 50 it held that the mere
fact that a witness living in this State is
temporarily outside the State, and that his
exact address is not known, no special eff
fort having been made TO find him, or take
his deposition, is not sufficient cause for
reading his testimony in a former trial. as
evidence in a case. The decision was given
in reversing the case OF the Wabash Rail
road Company VS.. Sebastian Miller. which
was transferred from the Appellate Court.
with a recommendation that the rule re-
stricting the use of evidence given in a
former trial in cases where the witness
has died, as declared by some of the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court. should be
modified or overruled. The court held
that such evidence was not admissible i'm
this instance because diligence had not
been exercised to obtain the deposition of
the absent witness.
The Supreme Court reversed a case he
cause the appelle failed TO file a brief. 1t
Was in the case of Charles H. New vs.
Town of Bourbon, and was on appeal from
a Judgment denying an injunction against
the issue Of bonds by the town TO paw for
a new system of water works. The attor-
news for the town failed to file their
briefs.
Mrs. Helen Huntington recently sued
Rufus *. Syfers ct al. for s25 900 on the
ground tina a sale of property made to
them was invalid because of the circum-
stances of the sale Syfers bought from
the Keelv cure in this State, paving g. 900
for the privilege. The court was asked to
annuI the sale on the ground that the prom
ertv was really worth $500. The Supreme
Court rendered a decision for the defend
ant. holding that there was no fraud.
APPELLATE COURT RULINGS.
The Appellate Cour yesterday affirmed q
judgment declaring Lewis Lee the owner of
a house and lot in Evansville left by the
man who ne had always considered TO be
his father. The story of the case reads
like a romance. Lees mother. as stated I'm
the brief. was married four times. Her
second husband was Lees father. whom
she married without discovering what had
become of the first husband, who had dis