Pittsburgh, etc., R, Co. v. McIntosh-187 Ind. 728. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.) Affirmed. Major A. Downing, for appellant. Phil J. Pharis and Joseph A. Roberts, for appellee. TOWNSEND, J.-Relator obtained judgment against appellant as surety on the bond of the relator's depository of public funds. The questions raised by appellant are the same as those decided in Equitable Surety Co. v. Board, etc. (1917), 186 Ind. 650, 117 N. E. 860. The judgment is therefore affirmed. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY V. KOEHLER. [No. 23,200. Filed December 11, 1918.] From Marion Superior Court (99,871); John J. Rochford, Judge. Action by George W. Koehler against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant. appeals. Reversed. Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, R. F. Davidson and Owen Pickens, for appellant. Pliny W. Bartholomew, for appellee. SPENCER, J.—The issues presented by this appeal are identical with those which were considered in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Miller (1918), ante 684, 119 N. E. 801, and, on the authority of that decision, we hold in this case that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's fifth paragraph of answer. Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to said fifth paragraph of answer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. MCINTOSH. [No. 23,201. Filed December 17, 1918.] From Marion Superior Court (99,116); John J. Rochford, Judge. Action by William B. McIntosh against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Campfield-187 Ind. 729, Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, R. F. Davidson, Owen Pickens, C. B. Heiserman and E. H. Seneff, for appellant. Pliny W. Bartholomew, for appellee. SPENCER, J.-The issues presented by this appeal are identical with those which were considered in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Miller (1918), ante 684, 119 N. E. 801, and, on the authority of that decision, we hold in this case that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's fifth paragraph of answer. Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to said fifth paragraph of answer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY V. CAMPFIELD. [No. 23,202. Filed December 19, 1918.] From Marion Superior Court (99,866); John J. Rochford, Judge. Action by Charles W. Campfield against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed. Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, R. F. Davidson, Owen Pickens, C. B. Heiserman, and E. H. Seneff, for appellant. Pliny W. Bartholomew, for appellee. SPENCER, J.-The issues presented by this appeal are identical with those which were considered in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Miller (1918), ante 684, 119 N. E. 801, and, on the authority of that decision, we hold in this case that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's fifth paragraph of answer. Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to said fifth paragraph of answer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. State v. Dausman-187 Ind. 730. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. STAGG. [No. 23,203. Filed December 20, 1918.] From Marion Superior Court (100,721); John J. Rochford, Judge. Action by Emmet Stagg against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Reversed. Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, R. F. Davidson, Owen Pickens, C. B. Heiserman and E. H. Seneff, for appellant. Pliny W. Bartholomew, for appellee. SPENCER, J.-The issues presented by this appeal are identical with those which were considered in Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Miller (1918), ante 684, 119 N. E. 801, and, on the authority of that decision, we hold in this case that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's fifth paragraph of answer. Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to said fifth paragraph of answer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. STATE OF INDIANA v. DAUSMAN. [No. 23,023. Filed June 1, 1917. Rehearing denied December 20, 1918.] From Sullivan Circuit Court; William H. Bridwell, Judge. Prosecution by the State of Indiana against G. Michael Dausman. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Reversed. Evan B. Stotsenberg, Attorney-General, and Martin L. Pigg, for the state. Cunningham & Ortmeyer and Hunt & Gambill, for appellee. HARVEY, J.-The same questions are presented by this appeal that were decided in State v. Fairbanks (1918), ante 648, 115 N. E. 769. On authority of said decision the judgment herein is reversed. INDEX [NOTE.-The citation Murray v. City of Huntingburg, 504, 506 (2), indicates that the opinion begins on page 504, that the point cited is on page 506, and that the point is numbered 2 in the margin -REPORTER.] ABATEMENT Plea in, procedure to question irregularity in organizing grand jury, see CRIMINAL LAW 5, 33; GRAND JURY 2. Burden of proof, see CRIMINAL LAW 18. "ACCIDENTAL MEANS" Definition, see INSURANCE. ACCIDENT INSURANCE See INSURANCE. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Articles of association, validity, see DRAINS. ADMISSIONS See EVIDENCE 1, 2. ADULTERY See LEWDNESS. ADVERSE POSSESSION 1. Dedication.-Town Plats.-Prescriptive Rights.-The making and recording of a statutory plat and its acceptance by the designated public authorities is a grant of title to an easement for a street, and the public cannot be deprived of its rights by prescription nor by the carelessness of its officers. Murray v. City of Huntingburg, 504, 506 (2). 2. Highways.-Encroachments.-One encroaching on a highway dedicated to the public use acquires no rights by prescription or adverse user. City of Princeton v. Hanna, 582, 587 (4). 3. Possession.-Evidence.-The fact that the owner of a city lot had enclosed within a fence a five-foot strip lying along one side of the lot for only ten years before an adjoining plat was laid out indicating a street covering such strip, and only thirteen years before the acceptance by the city of such plat, is not sufficient to show a prescriptive right to the strip in an action to quiet title thereto. AFFIDAVITS Murray v. City of Huntingburg, 504, 505 (1). In criminal prosecutions, see CRIMINAL LAW 24, 32; ELECTIONS 12; INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. ALIBI- Burden of proof, see CRIMINAL LAW 9. ALIENATION— Of affections, action, see HUSBAND AND WIFE. AMENDMENT- Presumption of, see APPEAL 40. Report of viewers, power of commissioners, see HIGHWAYS 5. Appeal in criminal cases, see CRIMINAL LAW. Perfection of appeal, see TIME. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. In case transferred from Appellate Court under Disparity Act, 1. Void Judgment.-Where a court enters a judgment which is See also Courts 1. Cushman v. Hussey, 228, 235 (4). II. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. 2. Right of Appeal.-Special Proceedings.-The general right of Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 235, 237 (2). |