The Evansville and Crawfordsville R. R. Co. v. Beard. as those which were considered and decided by this court, at this term, in the case of The Evansville and Crawfordsville R. R. Co. v. Snapp, 61 Ind. 303. Upon the authority of the case cited, the judgment in this cause is affirmed, at the appellant's costs. THE AMERICAN INS. Co. OF CHICAGO v. CHARLES ET AL. From the Wayne Circuit Court. F. V. Anderson and T. J. Study, for appellant. PERKINS, J.-The questions presented in this case are the same as those presented in the case of The American Ins. Co. v. Henley, 60 Ind. 515, decided at this term; and, on the authority of that case, this is reversed, with costs, and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. PRITCHETT V. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN CO. From the Morgan Circuit Court. G. W. Grubbs and M. H. Parks, for appellant. J. C. Robinson, W. S. Shiveley and F. P. A. Phelps, for appellee. PERKINS, J.-Suit by the appellant, against the Board of Commissioners of Morgan county, to recover damages sustained by the appellant, on account of an injury occasioned by a fall, without fault on his part, through a defective bridge, which the appellee was bound, but neglected, to repair. Demurrer to the complaint sustained, and final judgment for the appellee. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. The question in this case was involved in the case of House v. The Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County, 60 Ind. 580, and was decided against the appellee. We adhere to that decision. Counties are liable for damages occasioned by their neglect to repair bridges. The judgment below is reversed, with costs. THE EVANSVILLE AND CRAWFORDSVILLE R. R. Co. v. BEARD. From the Knox Circuit Court. F. W. Viehe and R. G. Evans, for appellant. Howk, J.-In this cause, the same questions, upon the same evidence, are Edwards v. The Town of Columbia City. presented for decision, as were presented in the case of The Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad Company v. Snapp, 61 Ind. 303. For the reasons given in the case cited, the judgment in this cause is affirmed, at the appellant's costs. SPECKELMIRE ET AL. V. THE FIRST NATIONAL Bank of DANVILLE. From the Hendricks Circuit Court. C. Foley, for appellants. J. V. Hadley, for appellee. PERKINS, J.-The questions in this cause are decided in the case of Johnson v. Meier, ante, p. 98. For the reasons there given, the judgment in this case must be affirmed. Affirmed, with costs. THE AMERICAN INSURANCE Co. v. ELLIOTT. From the Wayne Circuit Court. T. J. Study and F. V. Anderson, for appellant. PERKINS, J.-The questions presented for decision in this case are the same as those presented in the case of The American Ins. Co. v. Henley, 60 Ind. 515; and, on the authority of that case, this is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. EDWARDS V. THE TOWN OF COLUMBIA CITY. From the Whitley Circuit Court. W. Olds and M. Sickafoose, for appellant. C. B. Tulley and J. Krider, for appellee. Howk, J.-The questions presented for decision by the record of this cause, and the errors assigned thereon, are precisely the same as those which Phillips et al. v. Cox. were considered and decided in the case of Walter v. The Town of Columbia City, 61 Ind. 24. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment in this case must be reversed. The judgment is reversed, at the appellee's costs, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to sustain the appellant's demurrer to appellee's complaint. TARLTON V. THE CITY OF FRANKLIN ET AL. From the Johnson Circuit Court. T. W. Woollen and S. P. Oyler, for appellant. R. M. Miller, G. M. Overstreet and A. B. Hunter, for appellees. PERKINS, J.-Suit to enjoin the collection of a tax assessed by the city of Franklin upon lands within the corporate limits of said city, used for agricultural purposes. Injunction refused. Appeal. The questions in this case, legal and constitutional, are decided in the case of The City of Logansport v. Seybold, 59 Ind. 225. The judgment is affirmed, with costs. HALFMAN ET UX. v. FRANK ET AL. From the Boone Circuit Court. O. S. Hamilton and F. M. Charlton, for appellants. BIDDLE, J.-Complaint by the appellees, against the appellants, to recover judgment on two promissory notes, and to subject certain real estate, alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed, to sale, for the purpose of paying the judgment. Trial by the court; finding and judgment for the appellees. The appellants introduced no evidence at the trial, but have here presented two questions: First, the insufficiency of the complaint; second, the insufficiency of evidence. The complaint is good, and the evidence is sufficient. The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellants, and ten per cent. damages. PHILLIPS ET AL. v. Cox. From the Kosciusko Circuit Court. J. H. Carpenter and S. J. North, for appellants. W. S. Marshall, for appellee. PERKINS, J.-This suit was between the same parties, and involved the Fager v. The State. same questions of fact and law, as did the case of Phillips v. Cox, 61 Ind. 345, appealed from the same court. The rulings during the progress and the results of the trials in both cases were the same. The assignment of alleged error in both cases is the same in this court, and the conclusion here is alike in both cases. The judgment is affirmed, with costs. FAGER V. THE STATE. From the Fayette Circuit Court. W. C. Forrey, for appellant. C. A. Buskirk, Attorney General, and O. B. Scobey, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State. BIDDLE, J.-The question of law involved in this case is the same as that decided in the case of Ready v. The State, ante, p. 1. Upon the authority of that case the judgment in this case is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant. END OF MAY TERM, 1878. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, NOVEMBER TERM, 1878, IN THE HUTTS v. HUTTS. SUPREME COURT.-Ruling on Demurrer.-Failure to Except.-Practice.Where no exception is taken to the ruling on a demurrer, no question as to such ruling can be presented to the Supreme Court on appeal. SAME.-Sufficiency of Complaint.-The sufficiency of a complaint may be questioned in the first instance in the Supreme Court, on appeal. SLANDER.-Perjury Committed in Testifying in an Inquest of Lunacy.A proceeding to test the sanity of a person alleged to be insane is a judicial proceeding; and perjury imputed to a witness, as to testimony given therein by him, is slanderous. SAME.-Notice.-Producing Party in Court.-Notice of such proceeding to the person alleged to be insane is not required by the statute authorizing such inquest, and the court trying the same may, on being satisfied that such person can not be produced in court without injury to his health, dispense with his personal appearance. SAME.-Actionable Words.—It is competent for the court to inform itself as to the health of such person by the testimony of a witness, and perjury imputed to a witness in testifying as to such matter is actionable. SAME.-Hearsay.-Statements made by the person alleged to be insane, concerning her health, are not competent evidence for the defendant in such action. |