The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-12

inal cases. as in civil. all reasonable pre-
sumptiOns are made in favor OF the regu-
larity OF the proceedings Of the court, and
where there Is nothing in the record show
ing them to be invalid they will generally
be held valid. 3. Where an Indictment,
regular on its face, is returned into open
court, and Is received and acted upon by
the court without objection, 1t will, IN the
absence OF anything 10 the contrary upon
the record, be presumed that the grand
jury returning IL was duly impaneled,
charged and sworn. 4. If any objections
exist to the organization of the grand
jury or TO the regularity OF the proceed
ings Of the court in receiving a indict-
ment, they should be presented 10 the
trial court by motion or plea in abatement.
.. Where newly discovered evidence Is
merely cumulative a judgment will not be
set aside on account thereof O. other
things being equal, testimony proving, or
tending 10 prove sanity, Is entitled 10 as
much respect testimony Of the same
kind proving or tending TO prove insanity.
T. The question Of the weight and value
of evidence and the credibility OF the wit
nesses is exclusively for the jury.
1891. Isenhour va. State. Marion Grim.
G. Reversed. Hadley, il II Is not es-
sential 10 good title that the subject OF
the act shall be expressed in exact terms;
IL is sufficient if the subject is fairly de-
ducible from the language employed
The act OF 1899. commonly known as the
pure food law, is not in conflict with con-
stitutional requirements. 8 Al afhdavit
under the pure food law charging that the
defendant had in his possession, with in
tent to sell the same, one pint of milk.
then and there aduiterated with a certain
substance injurious 10 health, to-wit: for
maldehyde,' is sufficient TO charge an Of
Tense under the statute. 4. Any person
entitled TO the laws protection may In
stitute an enforcement OF the pure food
law. g. When person has In his pos
session adulterated milk II is not necessary
that an affidavit charging him with the
offense should show that the State Board
of Health had prepared rules and ordi-
nances and standards, and that the milk I'm
possession violated some rule, ordinance
standard. s. Where a witness exhibits
such a degree Of knowledge, gained from
experfments observation, standard books
or other reliable sources, as to make IL
appear that his opinion is of some value,
he Is entitled 70 testify, leaving TO the
trial court in the exercise Of a sound dis
erection the right to say when such knowl-
edge is shown. and TO the jury the right
to say what the opinion is worth Z. Where
a statute makes 1t an Offense for knowingly
having an article in his possession. and a
person is charged Hereunder. it is suffi-
cient If the State has proven a state of
facts from which knowledge may be reas-
onably and naturally inferred. And where
a person was found in exclusive possession
of milk recently adulterated it is incum-
bent upon him to show that it was not
adulterated by him. Such person may
testify, however, that he put some sub
stance in the milk, and that ii was rep
resented to him to be harmless. s. The
law will not permit the State TO construct
about the defendant circumstantial case
and then deny him an opportunity to ex-
plain the circumstances consistently with
his innocence.
1858. TiIden vs.. Louisville etc, Co. Clark
c. c. Affirmed. Monks, il. II a COM
plant is shown 20 be false by the answers
of plaintiff to special interrOgatories it is
proper to reject the same on motion. 2.
Written instruments do not constitute
part of a bill of exceptions, unless copied
into il at full length before ii is signed
or are appropriately referred to and the
proper place for insertion designated by the
words here insert
1874 Haugh VS.. Smelser. Rush c. C.
Transferred to Appellate Court
1927. c., /. q l.. Ry. Co. VS.. Brown.
Jasper c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled
Minutes
1918. Henry p. Schwartz VS.. the Board
of Commissioners of Lake County. Lake
c. c. Appellants points for oral argu-
ment (6) Appellants supplemental
1878 Mary A Osborn VS.. John T.
Hooker. Hendricks c. c. Appellee's
1922 In re, receivership w. c. De PAW,
etc, the Citizens Bank vs.. the Union Trust
Company ct al Floyd c. c. Dismissed.
New Case
1854. Robert F. Catterson ct al. execu-
tors, VS.. Harry Bradley ct al. Bartholomew
{. {. Record. Assignment OF errors. In
term.
APPELLATE COURT.
40lS Cloyd VS.. Cloyd Tippecanoe G. c.
Affirmed. No opinion per curian.
1910 Baughman VS.. Arnold. Dearborn
G. G. Dismissed.
419S Shrum VS.. c., c., c. & st. L. Ry
Co. Montgomery c. c. Motion to rein
state overruled
35H South Chicago, etc, Ry. Co. VS..
Zerles. Laporte c. c. Petition for certio-
1926. GormIey VS. Kirkland. Martin C.
c. Appellants petition for rehearing.
Minutes
1865. The City of Hammond VS. Bridget
Maher. LapOrte S. c. Appellees appear
ance.
1889 The Board of Commissioners of
bray. Miami c. c. Petition and argument
10 extend time for fling brief of appellant
Couny Commissioners. Petition granted to
Jan. 1, 1902.
1854 Jennie Y Van Hook VS.. Estate of
Harriet b. Young. Clark G. c. Appellants
additional authorities 80
1863 James W. Smith. administrator, VS.
Edna d. Hutsed ct al. Hamilton c. c.
Appellees brief 50
3714 Alpheus w. Moon ct al. VS. Pitts
burg Plate Glass Company. Howard c. c.
Appellees brief 90 on motion to dismiss
application etc.
1926 Thomas Gormley VS. James j.
ton for rehearing.
1895. Woodford f. Wood VS.. Indiana
Mutual Building and Loan Association No
g. Knox c. c. Appellees brief on petition
for rehearing 81
New Case
4275. Mary H. Haugh ct al. VS.. Maria P.
Smelser ct al. Rush g. G. Transferred
from Supreme Court, 1874.