The Indianapolis journal., 1904-01-13

makes will the presumption is that
ne intends 10 dispose OF all OF his property.
unless IT is rebutted by the terms OF the
VIII or other evidence TO the contrary. 3. IL
Is only where, after the admission of all
evidence which the law allows 10 be ad-
mitted. the court is unable from the face
OF the VIII and the consideration or Such
evidence To determine the testat0r's inten-
ton, that IL will adjudge that the will IN
whole or in part is void and unenforceable
FOR uncertainty
2G22s. Oil, etc. Company VS.. Stranahan
Grant ;. c. Affirmed Jordan J.-Where
person who furnishes material and machin-
wells when the companies purchasing such
material We're insolvent, ne cannot have
his claim for said materials declared pre-
ferred debts against such companies with
out hlins a notice Of his intention To do so
as required by Section 7257 Burns, 1901.
2Oll2 Selby VS.. State OF Indiana. Knox
I. . Affirmed. Hadley il In criminal
prosecutions for forgery the name charged
TO be forged must be proved as alleged In
the indictment or information; and when
based on an affidavit and information the
name alleged in the information as forged
should accord with and be the same as that
charged in the affidavit 1t is not essential,
however, that the names be spelled in the
same way or that they be correctly spelled.
If substantially the same sound is pre-
served a variant photography will make no
difference. The test being, do the names
sound. 2. The names "Veike" and 'Vieke"
are idem sOnaus. 3. The essence of the
crime of forgery is the intent to defraud.
T. Repugnancy does not make a criminal
charge bad when there is sufficient matter
alleged to indicate the crime and person
charged.
19946. Tucker VS. Ex rel Comrs. Marion
G. g. Oral argument postponed to Wednes-
day, Jan. q, 1904.
2O2OO. Fort Wayne Transfer Company VS..
Sebler. Whitney c. C. Appellees granted
forty-five days time.
APPELLATE COURT.
Neil. Marion S. c. Affirmed. Wiley p. j.
Il Where the evidence upon fact is con-
iiicting the finding of the jury thereon is
binding. 2 Where a railroad train at a
street crossing is cut in two, leaving one
section on either sice of the crossing wide
enough for persons 10 pass between, IL is
an invitation to the public to pass through.
10 assume that they can pass over the
tracks in safety. 8. A person about to
cross a railway at a street crossing may
assume that the company will give the
proper warning when il attempts TO run
its trains backward, in whole in part,
over such crossing, and not violate an ordi-
nance requiring that warning be given at
such times.
1862. Bertram VS. State ex rel. Fulton
G. G. Affirmed. Black jim an applca-
covered evidence it is not enough to allege
diligence TO procure the evidence at the
original trial or to seek TO show proper
diligence by loose and general allegations
tended diligence must be set forth with
such particularly, definiteness and clear
ness that the cours may itself see on the
face Of the pleading that there was in fact
proper diligence.
5OOS Graham VS.. Lob. Jennings c. c..
Affirmed. Roby, J.-1. When a judgment
has been procured by fraud a proceeding 10
vacate it upon that ground is a direct and
not a collateral attack. 2 A judgment
cannot be collaterally attacked for lack Of
jurisdiction when the infirmity does not ap-
pear upon the face of the record.
1885 CLANCY VS.. Ohio, etc, Co. Wells
G. G. Affirmed. Henley, G. 1.-THE as
signee of lessee is not liable to the lessor
for rents when under the terms of the lease
it had expired prior to the assignment.
1884. Republic, etc. Co. Jones. Clay
c. G. Appellee's petition to modify mandate
overruled.
1876. Carriage Co. VS.. Sullender. Laporte
G. G. Appellant granted additional time to
file brief.
5OSs. Tolin VS.. Jones. Newton c. G. Peti-
tion to advance overruled.