The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-05

Affirmed In part and reversed In part. Rob
iDson, il. Where a complaint does not
state sufficient facts against one of the APP
pellants the judgment will be reversed as 10
him. , II a party thinks the conclusions
of law are wrong he may except. but IL the
judgment does not conform TO the conclu-
slons OF law a motion to modify Is the
proper procedure. 3. If the judgment cor
forms to the conclusions of law a motion to
modify the judgment presents no question.
I Where the record recites that the de
PENDANTS separately except to the conciu-
sl0ns OF law, which exceptions are by the
court overruled and defendants except"
such exception presents no question unless
all the conclusions or law are bad. D. where
the objection or exception in the court be-
low or assignment of errors in this court
are joint as to several rulings or acts Of
the court the same will fail unless valid as
to all of such rulings or acts.
3447. Binford VS.. Grimes. Montgomery
c. c. Affirmed. Henley. c. il. Attorneys
fees are recoverable as damages in an ac-
ton upon an injunction bond. 2. Questions
arising upon the admissibility of evidence
will not be considered when counsel fail
TO call the attention OF the court 10 the
place in the transcript where the evidence
objected to may be found.
1923. Barnhill vs.. Sare. Monroe c. C.
Affirmed. Comstock. il. The Board or
County Commissioners has the power TO
contract for insurance upon county build
ings. AND the power carries with Ii the in
cidental one to make an allowance for the
performance of the contract by way of
paying premiums for the insurance. 2. IL
a Board of Commissioners makes an al
lowance when 1t would have no power to
make a contract for the services or things
for which the allowance is made the al
lowance is Illegal. and any taXDaver feeling
the board may make an allowance for such
things as IL has the power to contract, and
in the absence of fraud from such allow
ance there is no appeal.
363S. Light, etc. Company VS.. Burk.
Clark c. c. Application for certiorari post
poned until final hearing.
Minutes
1897. White River School Township VS..
William Dorrell. sr. Johnson c. {. APP
S7n. Anna Z. Wood VS.. William I. Rip
ley. Marion C. c. Appellee's additional
citation of authorities.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room FLAMES NJ. Leathers, Judge.
Henry Fink VS.. Lorenz Schmidt: dam
ages. On trial by jury.
Room 3-yinson Carter, Judge.
Anna M. Gillette VS.. Julius Matzke ct al;
damages. Plaintiff dismisses cause. Judg-
ment against plaintiff for costs.
Della Stats. administrator of estate OF
Arthur q. Stats, deceased, vs.. the L.. f.. *
w. Railroad Company ct al; damages. On
trial by jury.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Sadie f. Leacock ct al. VS.. Anna b. Knee
ct al; partition. Defendants defaulted.
Submitted to court. Finding for petitioners
and that property Is not Invisible. Sale or
dered. Allen w. Conduit appointed COM
missioner to sell.
August Althoff VS.. George G. Brinkmeyer
ct al: mechanics lien. Dismissed by agree
ment. Costs paid.
Harriet Westfall VS.. Joseph Wait ct al;
to set aside will. Trial resumed. Additional
evidence heard.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Fremont Afford. Judge.
Frank NJ. Hay; assault and battery. APP
peal from Police Court. Jury returns YER
dict of guilty. Fined 81.
Grand jury reports. Returns five lndict-
ments.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Louise Leibold VS.. Frank J. Leibold:
habeas corpus. Superior Court. Room 2.
Emma F. Duckworth VS.. John w. Duck
worth; divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
William p. French vs.. Albertine French;
divorce. Superior Court, Room l.
Joseph Turner VS.. W. II. Isham; attach
ment and garnishment. Superior Court,
Room 3.
John Williams VS.. the Columbia Club;
damages. Demand, $1,000. Superior Court
Room l.
The Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Company
VS.. Daugherty & Gundrum; on account.
Circuit Court.
]. c. Perry & Co. VS.. Daugherty q Gum
drum: on account. Circuit Court.
Charles NJ. Clark vs.. German American
Building and Loan Association Ell all on
account. Superior Court. Room 2.
Parry Manufacturing Company VS. MIL
lard F. Cox; on note. Superior Court
Room 2.