The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-27
laa,s IrnIted states Express COMPANY vs..

1906. United States Express Company VS..
The state Jackson G C. Ahrmed, - Ro No
1894 decided at this term.
1896. Adams Express Company vs. The
State. Jackson c. G. Affirmed. Downing
1.-THE questions in this case being the
term. this case is affirmed upon the author
ity Of that case.
1897. Adams Express Company VS. the
J.-Affirmed upon the authority Of 1884 de-
cided at this term.
1889. whistler VS.. Whistler. Grant C. c.
Appellants motion and brief to reinstate
filed in open court
Minutes
1883. Whistler VS.. Whistler Grant c. C.
Appellants petition to reinstate and
2OlO7. Terry VS.. Byers. Clark c. C. Appel
lees brief @)
APPELLATE COURT.
1885, Payne VS.. Moore. Putnam C. C. Pc
tition for rehearing overruled. Comstock
p. il The purpose OF a party in doing a
particular thing is not material If he has
a right TO do il, and In complaining OF the
wrongful act of another II must be shown
that the acts complained of were wrong
fully or unlawfully done. 2. Where ques-
tons are proper on cross-examination IL is
error to exclude them.
1894 Brewer VS.. Locke. Marion G. G. At
firmed. Comstock =. il The failure to
do an act commanded or the doing of an
Violating a statute in assigning a young
and inexperienced person to work upon
machinery, without instruction, as to the
dangers attending such work, justifies a
jury in finding the employer guilty of neg
ligence in action by such person for in
juries received while working upon such
machinery. 3. In action for personal
injuries the burden of proving negligence
on the part of the injured party is upon
the defendant. 4. Machinery is parts Of a
machine considered collectively 5. A ma
$ motion performing
function for which II is designed. g. An
employer cannot put upon an employe the
risks that arise from his, the employers,
violation Of a statute. Z. A jury has the
right to draw reasonable differences from
the facts proven.
1890 Field VS. Campbell. Washington c.
c. Affirmed. Roby il. special finding
that a married woman executed a note and
mortgage in suit as principal and not as
surety and that she received the entire con-
sideration therefor is the finding of an ul-
innate fact. 2. married woman who ex-
ecutes a mortgage 10 secure the release of
a valid lien upon her land cannot escape
the consequences of her act upon the
ground that the mortgage was executed
to secure the debt of her husband, because
the benefit moved to her in the release of
her property from lien.
1886. Newman VS.. Gates. Marion s. c.
Motion to modify mandate overruled.
Minutes
4741. Frank H. Wilkinson VS.. Samuel r.
Wilkinson. Jay c. G.. Appellee's petition
LOT dQultlOndl tlme 1nlrty DAYS granted.
442O. Frances NJ. Howe VS.. Edward White
ct al. Allen S. c.. Appellees' petition and
brief 90 for rehearing.
4769. James Z. Stafford ct al. VS.. Cyrus
3. St. John. Delaware G. c. Appellants
petition and notice to amend. Assignment OF
errors. Appellee's brief (6.)
1913 Union Traction Company of Indiana
VS.. Josephine Barnett. Henry c. G. Appel
lant's petition and brief (9 for rehearing.
4755. John Dit VS.. Daniel w. Marmon.
Marion S. G. Appellees petition for addi-
RI
New Suits.
1874. Indiana Natural Gas and Oil Com
pany VS.. Charles Leer. Delaware c. c.
Record. Assignment of errors. In term
Bond.
4S75. Hoosier Contraction Company VS.
National Bank of Commerce of Seattle
Marion 8. c. Record. Assignment of errors.
in term. Bond.
1876. Laporte Carriage Company vs. John
H. Sullender, minor. Laport c. c. Record
Assignment of errors. In term.