The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1908-06-06
Higher Courts Record.
SUPREME COURT.
Hotel Act-Eraud-A


21200. George W. Clark VS.. State
of Indiana. Huntington c. c. Affirmed.
Montgomery, j.
% Section 1854 a, Burns, 1901, for
bidding any one TO obtain food or other
accommodations at any hotel, boarding
house, etc, with intent to defraud the
owned or keeper thereof. was not re-
pealed by the criminal code of 1905,
as being within the purview of said
act. (2) The section in question is
constitutional, and does not provide for
impris onment for debt. CD It is not
too indefinite on the subject of what
constitutes the intent to defraud,"
which is forbidden. ca An affidavit
charging that defendant did unlawfully
obtain food and lodging, to-wit, of
the value of s12 at the Union House,
hotel then and there kept by E.,
without having paid for the same, and
with intent then and there to defraud
the said E" was sufficient.
APPELLATE COURT.
Conditional Observation-Disclosures
6132. James B. Strange VS.. Hunt
ington Light and Fuel Company. Grant
c. G. Mandate modified. Hadley, j.
(DWhere the uncontradicted evil
dence in an action on an old account
on which partial payments had been
made before the oldest items were
barred by the statutes of limitations
showed that the payments received,
were applied to his charge of the oldest
items, and by mathematical calculation
1t can be determined exactly how much
remained due on the account which
was not barred by the statute of limi-
tations, a judgment for that amount
will be affirmed on remittitur. of any
excess above this amount for which
judgment was awarded below. (2) In
deciding a case the Appellate Court
does not examine into matters not sug-
gested by the briefs of counsel to find
out whether a conditional Judgment
of affirmance is desirable.
JaiI-InjunctiOn-Da mages-Inisance.
6614. Ella A Pritchett VS.. Board of
Commissioners. Sullivan c. c. Re
versed. Comstock, J. Roby, J., absent
(1) A county Jail is matter of
public necessity, required by law, and
is not a nuisance per Sc, and the erec-
ton or maintenance of such jail on
land adjoining a private residence can
not be enjoined because of any in
furious effect 1t may have on such prop
erty, the discretion of board of COM
missioners in fixing the location of a
Jail not being subject to equitable re-
view CD But the keeping of such a
jail in a manner to invade the privacy
of an adjoining owner, and to cause
unnecessary annoyance. as by suffer
ing the Jail windows overlooking his
premises to be open and the prisoners
to stand thereat and make insulting re-
marks to and about such owner, his
family and guests may be enjoined
(3) A board of commissioners is not
liable in damages for past annoy
ance by reason Of the jail having been
so conducted as to constitute nuis-
ance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6462. Louisa F. Bell ct al VS.. Thorn
as f. Randolph ct al. Hancock C. c..
Affirmed. Rabb, C. ]. Roby, J., alb
sent.
% Where the record recites the
making of issues on two paragraphs of
complaint and two paragraphs of cross
complaint, and states that the issues
in the case were submitted to the jury
for trial, and a general verdict was re-
turned with answers to interrogatories,
transcript which contains only the
second paragraph Of the complaint and
the second paragraph of the cross-com-
plant pres no question as to the