The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-16
THE GUARANTY Is UPHELD
DECISION OF SUPREME OUR IN
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CASE.
A Blow struck at the Authority of
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES in the
County Courts.

A legal question that was new in this
State was decided by the Supreme Court
yesterday in affirming the case of Clara l.
shank and others against William c..
Smith, appealed from this county. Mrs.
Shank and her coappellants are owners Of
property in IrvingtOn which was assessed
for its proportion of the cost Of a new
brick pavement. the contract for laying
which was let by the Town Board TO
Smith. The new question raised by the
appellants was whether a town board has
the power to insert in a paving contract
a guaranty clause insuring that the pave
ment shall be i'm good condition at the end
OF seven years. and also TO retain twenty
per cent of the contract price Of the pave
ment to make certain that all needed re-
pair work on the pavement will be done.
The Supreme Court in uphOlding the
guaranty clause and the provision for the
retention OF a portion OF the contract price
said that these were provisions necessary
TO insure a good job of work. The opinion
declared that town boards should exer-
else great caution in the matter Of levyins
such assessments and should see to IL THAT
the work for which the assessment is lev
led is as good as possible. Answering the
contention that a town board has no power
10 make present levies 10 provide for future
repairs, the court said that the per cent
of the contract price retained in the case
at bar was not for general repairs but only
for such repairs as might be necessary TO
keep the pavement in the condition which
those who paid for it had a right to ex-
pect.
An attack was made on the constitution
ality of the Barrett improvement law in the
case. but the Supreme Court held that that
question had already been settled and did
not come In for discussion now.
In UNFOLDING the Judgment for $2,OO6 re-
covered by Edith freshman. OF Tippecanoe
county. against her stepmOther for injuries
inflicted on her by the cruelty of the lat
ter. the Appellate Court delivered an in
teresting opinion. Edith was a child thtr-
teen years old and the injuries complained
of were caused by her stepmother taking
her by both ears and knocking her head
against the wall with such violence that
when released the child fell 10 the floor
unconscious and afterwards developed. con-
cussiOn Of the brain and defective vision
Judge Robinson, speaking for the Appel
late Court. said that while a stepmother
s%ustains TO a certain degree the relation
of parent TO her husbands child by a for
mer marriage. she does not acquire the
right To support by the child nor a k upon
herself the legal obligation TO support IT,
Continuing the opinion said.
We quite agree with appellants cOun-
sci that courts should hesitate to invade
AAA NlAN IL VI INK A0AA1 VI ~ ~
that mutual confidence which should OBJ
tain In the household. But this privacy
and mutual confidence should not be per-
mitted TO shield an evil-dOer from the con-
sequences flowing from a palpable wrong.
. . . We are not here concerned with the
rIgnt of an adult child to sue a parent fOc
tort committed during infancy. There may
be good reasons for denying this right
where the minor child. after the injury,
continues possibly for many years at home
and unemancipated and upon arriving at
majority seeks to recover damages Tor
such injury. : = . But we are not pre-
pared To say that in no case should such
an action be allowed
The opinion held that these reasons did
rot apply To Edith's case since her father
and stepmOther had separated after the
cruelty inflicted by the latter upon the
child. and also because a grlevous injury
was maliciOUsly done the child.
Ida @. MitChelis tudgmen of 5000 re-
covered against the city of indianapolis in
the local Superior Court for an injury re-
on a defective sidewalk at Highland place
and Twenty-frst street was yesterday af-
frmed by the Appellate Court. The judg-
ment as originally fixed by the jury was for
SI.0o0, but the trial court gave the plaintiff
the alternative Of RENTING 5000 of the
amount or submitting 10 a new trial of
the case.
on petition of the p. G. G. & st. L. Rail-
road Company the Appellate Court decided
yesterday To grant a rehearIug or Its re-
cent opinion affirming a Judgment recovered
by Samuel Gray against the railroad. Gray
is an aged man that was injured in Cass
county while getting off a passenger train
by the train starting as he was cautiously
StoppiuC off