The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-08
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1882. Van Busklrk ct al VS. slower.
Madison c. c. Affirmed. Monks, il.
Causes for a new trial cannot be effectively
assigned as error. 2. In partition SUIT,
that the court erred in refusing trial or
the issues, or in deciding the case without
hearing evidence, are causes for new
trial 3. motion for new trial on ac-
count of errors committed when an inter-
locutory order for partition was made must
be presented at that term or court. Such
errors cannot be reached by a motion fled
at the second succeeding term when the
report of the commissioners to make partl-
ton is approved
2OO7O. Boyce VS. Tuhey. Delaware c. c.
Affirmed. Jordan, IA City Council has
power to construct as necessary appurten-
ances TO a public sewer, house connections
extending inside the curb line, at intervals,
If il determines them to be such, and may
assess the cost of both sewer and connec-
lions on the property benefited. If the
council had jurisdiction to make given inn
provement and 10 levy an assessment for
the cost thereof. such assessment is not
open to collateral attack by way of de-
Tense to an action to foreclose it.
2OO94 Brown ct al. VS. Central Bermudez
Company Cass c. c. Petition for
hearing overruled.
(43O55 Geiser Manufacturing Company vs.
Lee ct al Clay c. c. Petition to transfer
denied.
2O2o5. Moses Fowler Chase VS.. Frederick
S. Chase. Benton c. C. Rule TO show cause
extended to April q, 1904, at II a. m.
2oS29. Knickerbocker Ice Company VS.
reply brief Cd
2O2lS b. s. Conirs Hardware Company VS..
Milton Garrigus. Hamilton c. c. Appel
| lant's additional authorities 81
2026S Louisa Burck VS.. Eugene Davis. La
grange c. C. Appellants reply brief 81
| Rulings
| 1882 Frank Van Buskirk ct al VS.. Lydia
| Slower Madison C. c. Affirmed. Monks, j.
| 2O070. James Boyce VS.. Edward Tuhey.
Delaware G. c Affirmed Jordan. j.
2Ocsi Lizzie W. Brown ct al VS.. Sentrai
BermudeZ Company. Cass c. c. Petition
| for rehearing overruled
APPELLATE COURT.
Ass Carr VS.. Huntington L. e. f. Com
pany. Grant S. c. Affirmed. Henley, c. J.
The fact that the holder of gas and oil
lease refuses to develop the land for OIL
although wells are being operated within
short distance all sides of it does not
| give the lessor right to cancel the lease
and maintain a suit TO quiet title. where
| the lease provides that well shall be
| drilled within one year, and the lessee has
| bored three gas wells from which he is
and is still paying the lessor $500 per year
as stipulated in the lease in case gas is
| produced.
1857. Atkinson VS.. State. Jay c. c. At
firmed. Black, il An indictment is not
! insufficient to withstand an attack after
| verdict II 1t charges a public offense so as
| TO bar another prosecution for the same
| cause and enable the court to pronounce
judgment according to the right of the case,
though ii may contain defects and uncer-
| talntleS that would be fatal motion
! to quash 2. A defendant who has part of
his saloon room divided off by lattice par
| titiOn and uses Ii as a pool room in con-
| nectionj with the bar is liable to conviction
for permitting persons in his saloon on Sun
| day If he admits them to the pool room be-
hind the partition on that day, although
| the doors in the lattice partition are closed
and locked. 8. The fact that defendant S
| application and license unnecessarily de-
| scribe his saloon room by metes and bounds
so as to embrace only what is in front of
| ha Int arfit rrhn ha har ic ln-
| Gated does not affect his guilt.
4455. b. o. d s. w. Railroad Company
VS.; Hunsucker;. Jackson c. c. Reversed.
Wiley, il. Specific allegations showing
that if he used his senses plaintiff must
have known of certain dangers attendant
upon his work and the defects, in what he
was called to work with will control a
| general allegation that he was ignorant
of them. 2. A master is not bound to
who possesses his faculties where nothing
prevents the servant from using his own.
! 3. Under Paragraph of Section 1888 Burns
employers liability law it is only neces-
sary to show that plaintiff was injured by
the negligence of common servant of
the same master to whose orders plaintiff
was bound to conform and was at the time
conforming and that he was himself exer-
cising due care and diligence, in order to
make out a cause of action against the
master.
1855 Bell ct al VS. Bitner Howard c. c.
Reversed. Robinson, il Rents due the
heirs of decedent for the use of his land
| after MS Qeatn cannot De retained TO pay
a claim against the estate 2. In an action
for the rent of land inherited by plaintiffs
and which they have since sold. the fact
that plaintiffs ancestor. ten years before
his death and fifteen before suit, agreed
with defendant that if defendant would
make certain improvements he should be
paid for them when his tenancy ceased
! and should be secured by the accruns
| rents, and that the sum due defendant foI
improvements equals plaintiffs claim, is
no defense.
1883. Westewelt ct al. VS.. National Manu-.
featuring Company. Elkhart C. c. Re
hearing denied.
1924. Smith VS.. Peters ct al. Madison c
c. Order transferring to Supreme Cour
rescinded.
AGO. Fire Association of Philadelphia VS.
Yeagley. Miami c. C. Oral argument Sc
for May u.
50S7. New American o. G. Nj. Compan,
| ct al. US. Trayer ct al Grant c. c. APP
pellee's motion to dismiss postponed til
final hearing.
5O3S New American o. & Nj. Company g
| al. VS.. Wolff ct nj. Grant c. G. Same entry
1896 First National Bank of Peterbur,
VS. Beach. Pike c. C. Motion to transfe
oVerruled.
APPELLATE COURT.
Minutes
1905. Geiser Manufacturing Company VS.
Fred Lee ct al Clay c. G. Petition I,
| transfer denied.