The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-15
HIGHER COUNTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.
Public Work-wages of Lab

Public Work-Wages of Laborer.-
1857. Bell VS.. Town OF Sullivan. Sulli-
can C. c Affirmed Bowling, j. (Gnlett
J.. doubts) l. Notwithstanding acts 1899
Page SIS. a town may lawfully employ by
special contract unskilled labor on public
work at less than - cents an hour, and a
person who voluntarily enters into such a
contract and performs labor and receives
the agreed wages under it cannot recover
an additional compensation from the town.
? Said act applies only IN cases where no
special contract has been made fixing. the
rate of compensation Of the labOrer on pub
lie work.
Criminal Pleading-Altering Record
1923. State VS.. Henning. Perry c. c. AZ
frmed. Hadley, il. An indictment Charg-
ing that defendant did "felOniOusly and
fraudulently alter, deface and mutiiate a
certain record authorized BY the laws OF
this State 10 be made, To Wit, the indOrse-
ment OF payment and satisfaction of a GER
tain judgment of $1,000 against e in favor
of on the records of the =. Circuit Court
manning IL and setting out such indOrse-
ment by scratching out etc. contrary,
etc, but containing no allegation as to
who made the entry alleged to have been
altered nor 10 his authority 10 make
IL nor of the official authority of the per-
son who attested IL did not state a public
offense > An Endorsement of satisfa ction
Of a judgment duly made by the attorney
for the judgment plaintiff is record au-
thorized by law within the meaning of Sec
tion 20i6. Burnss r. s. and unlawfully al
terfng such a record is a felony.
1854 Chicago. l. & L. Railway Company
vs.. state ex rel Montgomery G g. AZ
firmed. Monks, il Where a railroad
company had built its track on a high en-
bankment across public highway and had
constructed such poor approaches and such
bad crossing at grade as 10 seriously in
terfere with the use of the highway the
court properly directed il by writ of man
damus to construct a crossing under the
track at che original level Of the highway.
2 MandaInus will not lie TO compel a rail-
UQ a 10
where IL has already constructed and main
tanned such a crossing as TO restore the
highway intersected 10 its former state
or in sufficient manner, not TO unnecessar-
lily impair its usefulness, but where this
has not been done the court may properly
direct not only that Sufficient and proper
crossing shall be put in. but may also pre-
scribe the kind of crossing that shall be
constructed. 3. An assignment of errors
which jointly assails five conclusions Of
law raises no available question If any one
OF such conclusions is correct.
1854. Stewart vs.. Adam Meldrum and An
derSOn Company. Huntington &. G. Re
versed OF confession of errors.
1854 GoOdwine vs. CaGwallader. Warren
c. c. Petition for reheartng overruled.
1864 Hibben VS. Smith ct al Petition
for rehearing overruled.
l92oS O'Brieu vs.. Lauer ct al. Madison
c. G. Petition for rehearing overruleu.
1913. p, c. &. * ST L. Railroad Com
pany vs.. Iddings. Lake &. G.. Petition TO
transfer 10 Supreme Court denied.
Minutes
1854 Thomas Stewart et al. VS. Adam
Medium and Anderson Company. Con
fessiOn OF errors
l9773 Emma Wohnton. Administrative.
VS.. John X. Ritter. etc. Delaware G. g.
Brief on appellant motion TO dismiss
1875 James NJ. BolstOn vs. William
Clark. Parke G. c. Proof OF notice OF mo-
zion TO make ballots part OF record.
1882 Frank l.. Sheets vs.. the Narney
Electricai Supply Company Wayne G. g
Record. Assignment OF errors. Notice 10
Marion county.
APPELLATE COURT.
-Complaint-Co Construction OF WILL
soo1 Hughes ct al VS.. Hughes q al.
Marion e. g. Reversed Roby j. Dissent
Ing opinion. Wiley. il. Tho question
whether or not a complaint for the con-
struction Of a viii is sufii cicnt does not de-
pend In anywiso upon the correctness of a
construction which the court afterward
gave 20 the will. 2. person asserting the
tors real estate and claiming absolute title
10 such real estate rs heir-at-law has no
right such % join iu q suit 20 Obtain
q construction OF the Will . A comDlafnt
b. an executor TO obtain the construction
CT a will must show that he is under a
present Necessity or acting has reason
20 believe that ne will soon De called upon
20 proceed under the doubtful provisions
and will require instruction. IN Is n0t
enough merely 20 show possible contin-
Rency which may never arise. T. An execu-
tor has authority such 90 Join with
the hcir-at-iaW OF the decedeut in an action
10 quiet the title OF such heir 20 the dece-
dents land. 9 4 complaint bv a person
as an individual and by the same person
demurrer fer want OF facts unless IL states