The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-13
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COuRT.

1865. Diehl VS.. State of Indiana Henry
G. G. Reversed. Jordan. G. il. Where
the state institutes a prosecution by af
fidavit and information, IL may. both in
the affidavit and information. charge the
offense in question to have been committed
by the accused by different means or i'm
different ways. Under such circumstances
each count of the affidavit will be nothing
more than separate affidavit and the
several counts considered together as in
tegral parts will constitute one particular
pleading, and, like each count of an indict-
ment must be sufficient within itself i'm
respect to the Offense sought therein to be
charged against the accused person Under
such circumstances. in order to render all
OF the several counts of the affidavit avail
able TO the State on the trial, the infor
nation must, by separate counts, substan-
TALLY correspond to or cover each count of
the afndaV1t. . If the proposed evidence
TO De introduced by a party in an action
is relevant and admissible for any purpose.
1t must be received. and the court shall
advise or instruct the Jury i'm regard to the
purpose for which 1t is admitted and con-
hne them in its application to that par
tcular purpose. j. ,, here a witness in a
case gives or details a conversation in part
the party against whom it is introduced
as evidence is entitled to the whole con-
versatiOn. at least so far as il may ma
terfally tend To impeach. rebut, explain or
qualify the portion introduced by his adver-
sary. 4. witness must be confined to the
statement of facts and cannot be per-
mitted to indulge in or give in evidence
his mere conclusions, opinions or under
standings.
1855 Barnett VS.. Bryce. etc. Co. Fulton
{. Z. Transfer 10 A. G. denied Baker,
1.-THE purpose of Subdivision 10 of the
Appellate Court act of 1901 was not to give
this court jurisdiction TO determine whether
the facts in cases which ,are not appeal
able here as a matter of right have been
Appellate Court, but TO authorize this court
to control the declaration of legal prin-
ciples.
1922. Citizens Bank VS. Trust Company.
Floyd c. c. Dismissed.
Minutes
1910 Catherine Schaefer VS.. David A.
Purviance ct al. Huntington c. c. Appel
1920. Cynthia Ann Whittenberger ct al.
VS.. William Bower ct al. Huntington c. c.
Appellants brief 90
APPELLATE COURT.
1921 Tretheway VS.. Peek. Vanderburg
the question TO be determined depends
upon the evidence which is not in the
record, the question cannot be considered.
1923 Tritipo VS.. Tritipo. Hamilton c. c.
Affirmed. Henry. J.-Mere compliance with
the act OF 1899 acts 1899 Il. $50 does not
get the evidence into the record. in the alb
sence of a proper bill of exceptions.
+O4i DIETRICH VS.. Board. Parke G. G.
Affirmed. Wiley, il. The board of COM
missioners. while acting upon a petition for
a free gravel road. and in making all orders
agent of the taxpayers within the taxing
district. and the bonds issued to create
funds out OF which the costs of construc-
ton are paid do not constitute a debt
against the county. ?. Where free gravel
road is constructed under the act of 1898
and the amendatory acts thereto. bonds is
sued constitute a debt against the taxpay-
ers. for which their property is only liable
1878. McNally VS.. White. Hamilton c. G.
Affirmed. Henley. "A joint assignment
of errors must be good as TO all the APP
pellants who join therein or IL will be good
To none.
1888 sohl VS.. Evans. Hamilton C. C.
peal is taken by a part Of several CO.
parties the statutory requirement of serv-
ice of notice of the appeal upon all the
other parties is imperative
$3.50 Pepin vs.. Lauhnan. Porter c. c.
t-ffirmed Robinson. Il. il. Courts of
equity have inherent power TO annul judg-
ments and DEGREES attained by any means
statute. 2 Where il is made TO appear
that the successful party TO a suit did
something. or caused something 10 be done
which prevented real contest in the trial
OF hearing of the case. a court viii not
hesitate To open the case for new hear
iEg upon its merits. but a judgment will
not be set aside when IL Il only shown that
1t rests upon false testimony when IL
appears that both parties We're before the
court and testified.
iZl5 Haugh vs. Smelser. Rush G. G
Ceruorari granted
Minutes
1896 WOodford T.. Woods vs. Indiana
Mutual h. and l.. Association. No 8. Knox
&. {. Appellee's brief on petition. etc. 60
fli6 The Wabash Railroad Company vs.
Marquis l.. Engleman. Wabash c. c. Ap-
pellant's brief 90
$3.50 Aaron y. Dupes ". Charles : Bash
ct al Allen ). c. Appellants additional
authorities (SD
4l47 Chicago. Indianapolis ~ Louisville
Railway Company ". Lucinda Barnes adj
ministratrix. Montgomery G. c. Appel
lant's brief 81
New Cases
l276 The Baltimore q Ohio Railroad
comnanv ~. The Wabash Railroad Com