Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 28, Number 34, Indianapolis, Marion County, 20 August 1879 — Page 3

THE INDIANA STATE SENTIKEL,' WEDNESDAY MORNING, AUGUST 20 1879.

THB LAW OF THE FARM.

Bights In the Boad. IV. t If the farm, as deeded, is bounded by, tn, or upon a road it - usually extends to the middle of the roadway. The farmer owns the soil" of half the road, and may use the grass, trees, stones, gravel sand or anything of value to him, either on the land or beneath the surface subject only to the superior rights of the public to travel over the road, and that of the road supervisor to use such materials for the repair of the road; and these materials he may cart away and. UBe elsewhere on the road. No other man has a right to feed his cattle there, or cut the grass or trees, much less deposit his wood, old carts, wagons or other things therein, see Cox vs. The Louisville New Albany and Chicago Railroad Company, 48 Ind., page 178; 3 Kent Comm., page 432 and authorities; 8 Met., 576; 8 Allen, 473 and 1 Penn. St, 336. The owner of a drove of cattle which stops to feed in front of your land, or a drove of pigs which root up the soil, is responsible to you at law as much as if they did the same things inside the fence. Nobody's children have a right to pick up the apples under your tress, although the same stand wholly outside of your fence, (we do not advise invoking the aid of the law in the latter case, so say "God bless ' the children" let them fill their baskets and pockets as full as they wish to when on their way to and from school). No person has a right to cut or lop off the limbs of your trees in order to move his old barn or other buildings along the highway, (4 Cash., 437j, and no traveller can hitch his horse to the tree in the sidewalk without being liable if he gnaws the bark or otherwise injures them. So decided in 54 Me., page 460 upon the authority in Kent's Commentaries. (This independent of municipal regulations in towns and cities.) If your well stands partly on your land and partly outside the fence no neighbor can use it except by your permission. Nay, more; no man has a right to stand in front of your land and insult you with abusive language without being liable to you for tresspassing on yonr land (11 Barb., 390), in addition to his liability for an attempt to provoke etc He has a right to pass and repass in an orderly and becoming manner; a right to use the road, but not to abuse it. But notwithstanding the farmer owns the soil of the road, even he can not use it for any purpose which interferes with the use of it by the public for travel. He can not put his pig pen, wagon, wood or other things there and thus obstruct public travel or endanger it in the least and this whether the road supervisor has or has not ordered them removed. . If he leaves such things outside his fence, and within the limits of the highway as actually laid out, though some distance from the travelled path, and a traveller runs into them in the night and is injured the owner is not only liable to him for damages in a civil action, (see Woods vs. Mears. 12 Ind., page 515; Newhouse vs. Miller and wile, 35 Ind., page 463 and authorities cited, also 15 Conn., 225) but may also be indicted and fined or imprisoned for obstructing a public highway, Revised Statutes 1876, Vol. II., page 479 sec. 66. And if he built a fence or wall along the highway he must place it all on his own land and not half on the road as in case of division fence between neighbors (4 Gray, 215.) But as he owns the soil, if the road be discontinued, or located elsewhere, the land reverts to him, and he may enclose it to the center of the road and use it as a part of his farm. AS TO FARM FENCES. V. The subject of farm fences is an important one to farmers- It was necessary at common law that every man should keep a personal watch over his animals, or surround his land with a fence. This fence was primarily, therefore, not to keep other people's cattle out, but to keep his own in; and so each owner, if he kept cattle, was bound to erect the entire fence around his close, whether his neighbor kept any cattle or not, and if the Tatter also owned any he must do the same, or keep his beasts at home in some other way and such is the law in Indiana between adjoining landowners. But as two parallel fences would be attended with useless expense, and as one and the same fence would answer for two adjoining proprietors, in was long since provided by statute in this state how partition fences might be maitained. The legal obligations of the owners of adjoining lands to make and maintain partition fences, when no prescription exists, and no agreement has been made, rests entirely on the positive provisions of statute and at common law trespass will lie against the owner of cattle entering on the grounds of another, though there be no fence to obstruct them, unless he can protect himself by statute, or prescription, or agreement, Kent's Comm., Vol. III., page 438. After the admission of Indiana as a State into the Union the Legislature passed an act regulating enclosures, see chap 59, page 347, Laws of Indiana, act approved January 27, 1818. By this act all fields kept for enclosures were to be well enclosed with a fence composed of sutTcient posts and rails, posts and palings, palisadoes or rails alone laid up in the manner which is commonly called a worm fence; then after detailing the manner in which each kind of fence should be built it enacts that the fence should be at least five feet high, or if a worm fence it should be at least five feet six inches in height; the act also specified that the apertures a certain distance, from the ground (two feet) should not be more than four inches and not more than six inches above that; the act also described how a worm fence should be built. Sec. 2. provided that if any cattle, etc., shall break into any person's enclosure, the fence conforming to the statute and proved to be such as is re- . quired, ' the owner of such creature or creatures shall be liable to make good all damages to the owner of the enclosure, for the first otience, single damages; ever - afterwards, double the damages sustained. Division fences by bee 3 of said act were also provided for, the charge' to be borne equally and maintained by both parties. Three fence viewers were also provided - for by the same section, to be appointed by the County Commissioners, the fence viewers were sole judges of the sufficiency of the fences and of the i amount an adjoining land owner ought to pay as his share of the ex oense of a partition fence: further provision was also made for a neg lect to pay by suit before a justice of ttie peace. Parties were at liberty to con struct dykes, hedges or ditches and these also to be of a prescribed height in cat-e of hedges and depth and width in case of dykes or ditches. The act of 1818 was superseded by the act of 1824 upon the same subject, the latter act differing but f slightly from its predecessor. The subject received tne attention ot the legislature ' 1 in iR'Ai aiA an ant ntti"i'

proved February 7, 1831, Laws of Indiana, chapter 34, page 224. where the statute of 1818 as to the first section was substantially re-enacted with tne proviso that a fence of full height and strength as re quired by this act Bhall be a lawful fence against horses, mules, asses and neat cattle but unless otherwise constructed agreeable to the provisions of this act (as to aperatures etc.), shall not be a lawful fence as regards sheep, goats and hogs. Sec 2 provided for partition fences and how the expense should be borne and defined the duty of fence viewers, etc, almost as the act of 1818. Further legislation was had February 17, 1838. See an act concerning enclosures and tresspassing animals, Laws of Indiana, chapter 37, page 262; sec 1 provided what constituted a lawful fence against all kinds of cattle; sec 2 provided for partition fences by whom to be made and how maintained; duties of fence viewers; notice of insufficiency of fence ; order to repair division fences, how enforced by justices; expenses, etc., to be levied on delinquent's goods ending with a proviso as to other modes of enclosing. By an act regulating the mode of doing county business, etc., approved Feb. 17, 1838, county commissioners were charged by law with the duty of appointing two fence viewers (Sec. 20 page 154). The subject again demanded the attention of the legislature in 1843, see chap. 22, page 374, statutes of 1S43, of enclosures, tresspassing animals aad partition fences. By sec 1 of this act, all fences consisting of rails, boards, timber, stone walls, or other' materials, or ditches or hedges, which are such as good husbandmen generally keep, and which shall be held sufficient in the just judgment of the fence viewers within whose jurisdiction they lie, shall be deemed lawful fences. Sec. 2 provided that the lawfulness of fences was to be determined according to the kind of animals tresspassing. Sec. 30 to 43 provided for partition fences and how the expenses should be borne and the duty of fence viewers. By the Act of 1843, Art. 4, page 100, fence viewers were to be elected. It will be observed that under the acts referred to, if the parties should be unable to agree, as to how the cost of the fence should be divided, either party might apply to the fence viewers nnder the statute. And if, after the decision of the fence viewers, either party refused or neglected to pay his share the ether could recover the amount by a suit at law. After the adoption of the constitution of 1852 the duties of the office of fence viewer were thrust upon the township trustee who is ex-officio fence viewer, and by an "act concerning inclosures, trespassing animals, and partition fences," approved June 4, 1852. it was provided by section 1. that any structure, hedge or ditdh in the nature of a fence, used for the purpose of inclosure, which is such as good husbandmen generally keep, and as shall on the testimony of skillful men, appear to be sufficient, shall be deemed a lawful fence. By section 15 ol said act, a lawful partition fence shall in all cases be such as to inclose snd restrain sheep, unless by mutual consent of the parties interested they agree to build a fence only to restrain or inclose horses, mules or cattle; except

where otherwise specially agreed, partition fences dividing lands occupied on both sides, shall be maintained throughout the year, equally by both parties. Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 make ample provisions for obtaining from either party failing to bear his share of the expense of maintaining the partition fence, the amount necessary to put the fence in repair as assessed by two disinterested freeholders with 10 per cent, damages thereon. Section 22 forbids any person inclosing lands that have been lying open to join bis fence to another except by consent. Section 23 requires six months notice of an intention to remove part of a partition fence by an adjoining owner who has no further use for it. Notice must be given to all persons interested in the removing of said fence, see case of Haines v. Kent and others, 11 Ind., page 126. By act of March 12, 1877, section 2 of the act of 1852 was amended to read as follows: If any domestic animal break into an inclosure or wander upon the lands of another, the person injured thereby shall recover the amount of damage done: Provided, that in townships where, by order of the board of county commissioners, said domestic animals are permitted to run at large, it shall appear that the fence through which said animals broke, was lawful; but where such animal is not permitted to graze upon the uninclosed commons, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove the existence of a lawful fence in order to recover for the damage done. By an examination of all the foregoing acts of the legislature it will be seen that so far as regards outside fences the farmer has always been obliged by the laws of Indiana to fence his neighbors' cattle, and such is the law to-day except in townships where animals are not permitted to run at large and graze upon the uninclosed commons- Prior to the passage of the act of 1877 (March 12, 1877), the supreme court of Indiana ruled as follows upon the subject of outside fences: In the case of Myers vs. Dodd, 9 Ind. page 290, the court says, after quoting the act of Jan. 4, 1852, and also the act of 1852 authorizing county commissioners to direct what kind ot cattle may run at large: "A question has been raised whether the legislature has any power to grant the privilege of pasturing cattle upon uninclosed lands, without the consent of the owner; and this inquiry mightbeextended to commons and highways, as well as to other lands, the fee of which generally remains in the owner of the adjoining close, subject to the public easement. We do not think it necessary to decide this question at the present, because, admitting the non-existence of the power in question, there certain purposes for which cattle may go at large, as when driven in teams or droves, and in view of this fact, it is competent for the legislature to declare that au action shall not be maintained for a trespass committed by them, in favor of the owner of lands not securely fenced. It may be regarded as a kind of police regulation in respect to cattle, founded on their well-kndwn propensity to rove (citing Page v. Hollingaworth, 7 and. page 317). We have had statutes of this kind at least since 1824 and perhaps longer. These considerations are sufficient to give an effective operation to the section of tne statute above quoted, when applied to outside fences, and we are of the opioion that H applies solely to them. In Brady and others vs. Ball, 14 Ind. page 317, it was decided again, that 'The second eection of the act concerning inclosures etc. (stat 1S52), prohibiting a recovery for animals breaking iuto an inclosure, unless the fence is lawful, applies only to outside fences." Again, in Blizzard vs. Walker, 32 ind. page 437, tne court say: "The rule ot common law concerning trespassing ani mals is superseded by the act concerning inclosures," etc., and decide that the fence must be proved to De a lawiul lence. in Cook- vs. Mores, 33 Ind. page 497,- which w a suit r " "llee -!ut v

the defendant's cattle ur-on the plaintiff's cornfield, the court decided that the statute defining a lawful fence applied only to outside fen'jes. We have quoted the above decisions 'to show that the common law rule doea not prevail in Indiana, being superseded by the statute referred to, but that the statute refers to outside fences solely. But if by an order of the board of county commissioners properly made, cattle of all kinds are prohibited from running at large in any township in the county, then in that township the common law heretofore alluded to prevails, which is that a man must keep his beasts upon his own land at his peril. It would follow then, that the farmer need not fence his neighbor's cattle out, but if they stray and enter upon his land and do him damage, the owner would be liable, and the question of lawful and unlawful fence could not be raised. It would also follow, during the existence of the order, that if A turn his cattle into the highway and.they come on your land from the road, either because your front fence was defective or altogether gone, you would have a remedy against A for all the damages you would sustain, for you would not be obliged to have any fence on the road, except to keep your own cattle in, and A would thus pay the penalty for not keeping his cattle at home. This is a rule of the common law, and so stringent is it, that, under the same circumstances (said order of the commissioners being in existence), if other people in roaming over your grounds hunting, fishing or berrying, leave your bars down by which your cattle escape into the highway and thence come into my cornfield, you are responsible to me for all damages, although not actually in fault, if vou kept all your fences p (30 N. H., page 143). On the other hand, even with said order in force, if you are carefully driving your cattle along the highway and without your fault they break away from your control and run into any adjoining land, and you drive them out as soon as you reasonably can, you are not responsible for the damage done, for you had a right to drive them along the highway, with proper care and attention, (114 Mass. 466), while in the other case they would not be lawfully in the highway at all, although the owner was not personally at fault. In regard to partition fences the common law rule prevails and the rights and the liabilities of the parties must be determined thereby. The section of the act of 1852 (15) has been heretofore alluded to. The duty, however, of maintaining partition fences, by statute, would seem to exist only when both parties improve their lands. It would not be just to make a man whose lands are wild, or not improved, and on which neither has cattle to stray away and injure others, or growing crops which can be injured by other people's animals, to pay the expense of building or maintaining a fence which can be of no advantage to him. Accordingly if one of the adjoining owners improve his land, he has no right to compel the other to pay any part of the expense of a fence, whose lands are wild and uninclosed, and if he needs a fence to keep his own animals at home, or for any other purpose, he must build it himself. But if the one whose lands are wild and

uninclosed afterwards incloses them, and, by so doing, the fence already erected by his neighbor becomes a partition fence, then he must pay his neighbor the value of one-half of the same as estimated by the owner, (statute 1852, Rev. Stat. vol. 1, page 497, sec. 20; see also the case of Bartlett vs. Adams, 43 Inl. page 447.) Sec 21 provides the penalty of a suit at law against the party by the owner of the fence. By section 22, "No person inclosing land that has heretofore laid open shall join his fence to that of another ex cept by consent. If no consent be given, each shall give one-half the width of a lane, or a reasonable distance for the erection of a second fence." If, therefore, A owns a pasture lot along side of B's open DiacK acK commons, the latter is not bound by statute to help maintain a fence between them, but if A puts cattle into his Easture he must keep them there as best e can, either by watching them, or, if he thinks it cheaper, by building a fence himself around his entire lot. So if both are wood lots, the owners are not obliged to erect a fence, but if either allows his cattle to range the woods, he must take care they do not browse through his neighbor's 'noods, or he will be responsible. After the fence has been erected and each has paid his half of the cost thereof. the statute says it must be maintained equally by both parties. In Rhodes vs. Mummery, 48 Ind page 216, it was decided that the statute providing that partition fences shall be maintained through out the year, equally ty both parties, is rtt 1imitAl ranaira oimnlo Knf onnliaa as well to the rebuilding of a fence destroyed by fire. It would seem to follow, therefore, that if any adjoining owner does not keep up his half of the fence, and my cattle get through and injure his crops he has no redress against me, since his own neglect was, in part at least, the cause of ms injury. This, however, when the par ties had agreed between themselves to keep up certain designated parts of the partition fence, but in this case comes in a very important addition to this rule: and this is, if my cattle stray beyond the immediately adjoining land, into the farm of a third person, through a division fence, and there injure his crops, I am liable for the damage to him, although my own half of my fence is good and my animals escaped through my immediate neighbor's defective fence; because as to all persons . so far as division fences are concerned, I am still bound to keep my cattle on my own land, and it is no excuse for me that my neighbor neglected his half of our division fence. Nay, so far can this rule, in such cases be carried, that although such third person did not keep np his division fence, and the cattle got into his land through his own fault, he can still make me pay the damages, because he is not bound by law to keep up any division fence at all, except as between his nearest neighbor, and is not obliged to maintain a partition fence as against my cattle further off. In other words, if A, B and O own three adjoining lots, and A's cattle stray into B's land through B's neglect, he has no remedy against A; but if they stray still further on, to the land of C also, and then do mischief, C has a claim for the damages against a, even though the animals went through his own broken down fence. A must keep, his animals at home at his peril. C's was not an outside lence. The sum of the whole matter is this: By the common law every man is bound to keep his own cattle on his own land at his peril. The duty ot aoing this by a fence is created wholly by statute, and need not be made except where the statute clearly requiresit; that in Indiana the common law rule prevails as regards partition or division fences. We quote in support here ,f the following: In Williams vs. The New Albany and Salem Railroad Company, 5 Ind. page 111, the court say: "At common law. proprie tors of land are not bound to fence against s "- bt each i8 bAind to keo b 1 .

ette and Indianapolis R. R. Company vs. Shriner. 6 Ind. page 141, it is decided that "The common law imposes on the owner of domestic animals the duty of keeping them on his own land or within inclosures, and he becomes a wrongdoer if any of them escape or stray off upon the lands of another person. This, as a general rule, is the law in this state." Substantially the same point was passed upon in Page vs. Hollingsworth, 7 Ind, page 317. In the Indianapolis and Cincinnati R. R. Co. vs. Kinney, 8 Ind. page 402. The court again say that "At common law proprietors of land are hot bound to fence against each other, each being bound to keep his cattle on his own land," citing all the foregoing authorities. In Myers vs. Dodd, 9 Ind. page 280, the court after deciding that section 1, of the statute of 1852 applies only to outside fences, say further, "The parties to a partition fence, are equally bound to maintain such fence; either may repair it, and enforce contribution under the statute; and where neither does so, the common law rule, that

the owner of cattle is bound to confine them upon his own land, applies between them." And again, in Brady et al. vs. Bail. 14 Ind. rage 317. as follows: "At common law, and in the absence of any controlling statute, the owner of cattle is bound to confine them upon his own land. The second section of the act concerning inclosures, etc., (act 1852), prohibiting a recovery for animals breaking into an enclosure, unless the fence is lawful, applies only to outside fences. Thus in an action for damages for a trespass by animals breaking through a partition fence. it is no defense that the fence was insuffi cient." The same in Cook vs. Morea, 33 Ind. page 407. What we have said as to expense of erecting and maintaining partition fences relates only to . partition fences between farmers. As to fences along a railroads the law is quit? different. The general railroad law of this state requires the company to have their road se curely fenced in, and such fence properly maintainee by such company, lessee, assigned, receiver or other person running the same. See vol. 1, Rev. Statutes 1876, page 753, sec. 7. If such a fence is erected and maintained by such company, they are relieved from responsibility for the killing of cattle if they, notwithstanding such fence, get upon the track and are run over by the cars. The company are not responsible except for gross negligence, however, at points where they are not obliged to fence, such as in front of mills where material or produce is shipped and reshipped; in the streets of a city or town. etc. We will close the subject ot farm fences by merely quoting some of the supreme court decisions in regard to railroad fences, etc As to the duty of railroad companies to maintain fences, cattle guards, etc., 44 Ind., page 444; 45 Ind. page 90; 46 Ind. page 215;. That the company can not fence its road in a town or city, 34 Ind. page 501. But the com pany is only bound to keep up a legal fence, 18 Ind. page 215. See authorities in Burns' Index, title, Railroads. Also page 754, vol. 1 Rev. Statutes 1876, and notes. We should not suffer from a cough, when a few doses of Ayer's Cherry Pectoral will cure. Time, aonev, comfort, health all are saved by it A Rare Opportunity for Profit. Trie stock marcel snows positive indications ot strength, and remarkable fluctuations are occurring every day, wblcli bring large profits to tuoae who avau memseivea oi tne aa van tages thus opened. The new mutual capitalization system originated by Messrs. Adams. Brown A Co., bankers and brokers, 26 and 2s Broad street, New York, a firm noted for its honorable and prompt dealings, Is the safest and surest plan of operating in stocks, as it is batted upon correct rules ot finance, and secures to every patron, whether the investment Is (25 or 5,000. the full benefit of unlimited capital united with experienced skill, making steady gains from dally fluctuations, Broflts being divided pro rata every SO days, ne capitalization last month paid each loOO shareholder fl.iH6.lli net profit. New circular, "Rules for Success," and Invaluable lmforma tlon to every investor mailed free. All kinds of stocks and bonds bought and sold bv Adams. Hniwn ox u)., oaniters ana DroKers, ana is Broad street, ew lork city. Dr. John Ball's 5 in i n I 5 FOR THE CURE OF Fever Ague OR CHILLS & FEVER The proprietor of this celebrated medlclBe justly claims lor it a superiority over an reiirliMPviwnirtnxllA thi nuhlio for the KAsEa CERTAIN and PEKlHANEJiT cure of Ague and Fever, or Chills and Fever, whether of snort or long standing. He refers to the entire Western and Southern country to bear him testimony to the truth of the assertion that in no case whattver will it fail to cure if the directions are strictly followed and carried out. In a great many cases a single dose bas been sufficient tor a cure, and whole families have been cured by a single bottle, with a perfect restoration ot the general neaitn. it is nowever pruueui, nuu iu every case more certain to cure, if its use is continued in smaller doses for a week or two after thnrliaesjia lias been checked, more especially in difficult and long-standing cases. Usually this medicine will not require any aid to keep the bowels in good order. Should the patient, however, require a cathartic medicine, after having taken three or four doses of the Tonic, a single dose of BULL'S VEGETABLE FAM1LV PILLS will be sufficient. . The Irene me SMITH'S TONIC STHVP must have 1)11. JOHN BULL'S private stamp on each bottle. DR. JOHN BULL only has the right to manufacture and sell the original joint j. smith's tomc urn vP, ot Louisville, Ey. Examine well the label on each bottle. If my private stamp is not on each bottle do sot puxcuatM? or you win ue aecuivvu. manufacturer and Tender of SMITH'S TONIC SYRUP, BULL'S SARSAPARILLA, BULL'S WORM DESTROYER, The Popular Jttmtdlea of the Day. PRNCIPAL OFFICE 319, MAIN SL, LOUISVILLE, KT PETROLEUM JELLY. VASELINE. Grand Medal at tie PMladelpMa Eijosi to. Mlver Medal at tbe Paris Ex peal Uma. Th J. miwt ntnahl. A. ml,.. . ... '-. K.i.lllJ iDllinj KIIUWU VI the treatment of wounds, burns, sores, cuts, kin disease, rheumatism, chilblains, catarrh, hemorrhoids, etc. Also, for coughs, colds, sore , v.-,. " 1 1TJ1 bllUI in, Used and approved by the leading physicians i The toilet articles made from Dure Vaselln knch as DO&lada. rwltl Rrauam. umnhnr 1am. anrl

lollet soaps ue superior to any similar ones. V ,c m V T" 1HEM. .f sotsuoor fnodn. PM by

0mm

COKE AND CHEAPEST HAIR DRESSING H IN THE J WORLD FOR THE HAIR It softkxs tbb haib webs harsh ako bbt. It soothes the ibeitated scaxp. Iv AFFORDS THB E1CHBST LUSTRE. IT PHETBSTS THE HAIR FROM PAIilXO OFF. It rromotes its healthy, viookous growth. It u hot orkaby xob sticky. It leaves SO DISAGREEABLE ODOR. It ittt.t g DAICOBOFF. Ayer's Hair Yigor, , FOR RESTORING GRAY HAIR . TO ITS NATURAL VITALITY d- COLOR Advancing years, sickness, care, disappointment and hereditary predisposition, all tnrn the hair gray, and either of them incline it to shed prematurely. Ayer's Haib Vigor. bv"-lonz and ex tensive if, has proven that it stops the faying of the hair Un ify V-e"ri .vmeilMtely; often re---. t K-iJ ", 'irWl news the growth,and ' rIwbv-h lurelv . re stores its color, when faded of gray. K stimulates the nutritive organs to healthy activity, and preserves both the hair and its beauty. Thus brashy, weak or sickly hair becomes glossy, pliable and strengthened ; lost hair regrows with lively expression; falling hair is checked and established; thin hair thickens, and faded or gray hairs resume their original color. Its operation is sure and harmless. It cures dandruff, heals all humors, and keeps the scalp cool, clean and soft, under which conditions, diseases of the scalp are impossible. ai a dressing ior laaies' nair, tne v igor w praised for Its grateful and agreeable perfume, and valued for the soft lustre and richness of tone it imparts. PREPARED BY DR. J. C. ATER A l'0 Lowell, Mam., Practical and Analytical ChemlHl. - Sold by al Druggists and dealers In Medicine. If yon are a ruin of bnsineto, weakened by the strain of yonr duties, avoid stimulants and take HOP BITTERS;'If yon are a man of letters, toiling over yonr midnight work, to restore brain and nerve waste, take HOP BITTERS. If yon are yonng, and irafferiner from any indie, crction or dissipation, take HOP BITTERS; If yon are married or single, old or yonng, suffering from poor health or languishing on a bed of sickness, take HOP BITTERS. Whoever yon are.wherever yon are, whenever yo feel that your system needs cleansing, toning or stimulating, without intoxicating, take HOP BITTERS. Have yon dytptpHa, Hdnm or urinary complaint, disease of the ttanvuh, bowels, blood, liver, or nerves f You will be cured if you take . - HOP BITTERS. If yon are simply ailing, are weak and low spin, ited, trv HI Buy it.' Insist upon it, ' : Tour druggist keep it. HOP BITTERS. It may save yonr life. It has saved hundreds. BLOOMINGTON, MONROE CO., INDIANA. Three Colloctato OnnrK 1. The Course in Ancient Classics. .- , 2. The lourse in Modern Classics. 3. The Coarse in General Science. Also, a treparalor7 Conine. - Tbe Fall Term begins with the opening of the college Year, Thursday morning, September 6, 1879! Students to be examined should present themselves two days earlier. Tuition Free. Contingent Fee, f3 per Term, Library Fee required of all, 50 cents. Fees must be paid strictly In advance. women AamitiM to an courses on same conditions as men. For catalogues and other In formation address . lfcJdUKL. MOSS, Robert C. Foster, President, Secretary. July i, 1ST9. HIGHER EDUCATION FOE LADIES. PITTSBURGH WE COLLEGE. Elegant Buildings. Twenty-three Teachers. Seven Distinct Schoo s. Ten Teachers In tbe Conservatory of Music connected with the College, t'hsntn letas maa nny CrCbooi in tne Ua-itra ataies ar fording eqnal advantages and accommodations. Fall term oDens (Sept. 3. Send to Rev, I. C. PERdHINU. D. D . Pittsburgh. Pa., for a catalogue. WESTKBH FEMALE SiMINARY Oxford U . fit Helvoke Plan. The 25th year will commence Septembers. 1879. Board. Tuliion, Fuel and Lights, S170 per annum, oet a ior catalogue to oi ims neben raouui, mnpipai, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. Session beirlnB on the First of October, and continues nine months. Apply for catalogues to the secretarv oi tne racuuv. f.u univer sity of Virginia, .aioemarie CO., Virginia. Chairman of tne Faculty. J. L. Mitchell, Attorney. STATE OF INDIANA, Marion county, as: In the Superior Court of Marion county, in the State of diana. No. 24,99. Room 2. ComplaU t, to enforce a lien. Bridget Connor vs. Mary Crosby and Marks crosoy. Be It known, that on the 1st day of August. 1879, the above named plaintiff, by her attorney, filed in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Marlon county. In tne State of Indiana, her comolaint against the above named defendants, and the atiid plain tin hav ing also filed In said clerk's office the affidavit of a competent person, showing that Raid defendant, Marks Crosby, u not a resldentf.f the state oi inuiana; ana mat a cause oi aciion exists against him, said action being in relation to real estate, and for the puoose o enforcing a lien on real estate in Marion ceunty. Now, therefore, by order of said court, said defendant last above named, is hereby notified of the filing and nendency of said complaint against him, and that unless he appears and answers or demurs thereto, at the callinf of said cause, on the 7th day ot October, 1879, the same being the second judicial day of a term of said court, to be begun and held at the court house in the city of Indianapolis on the first Monday in October, 1879, said complaint, ana tne matters ana things tnerein conuuucu and aliased, will be heard and determinea in his acie..ee.

C0C0Aft$

fil J J 6

OIL BICE

37 CuUTt Race, LOUISVILLE, KV csT nil i ii. ms am pncwB wu prove Cure all forsm of PR3 YATjK CHRONIC mnd SEXPAJu SprmmtOTThmm and Jxn potency . uttxrmU cf eir-taM ta ytmtSk, wmml eiM lr e. twr Tn, or pUmc cmns, and pro4wi&f mnw a ; ir 'it icvicf eflci : StrrmiKiMay Sa&iiMl Xului'u r.-Li n jrsVn. t:j drvam). Duutxa fet!, ttttzvt iliirrf !itf !.: Dwaf. Kmi-lMoa Vm: A Trtu v S.r;rt- ol r lvuMn. CoaftoMM. or Idem, Un cf Vurr. Me., rer.jer.ty ufrtiy tnaprcpCT of nphfcpT,jt r timwrliii pxtr wUy SYlMAil IS "'tm-.j rarM mu, -r F?Jy-r .Gonorrh-a rw ul outer prirkle iiwyii qvickl; Corel. Him Mlf-eTUebt that phy atetea wbo nan peete M a Jal tofcoanAtQelaMorduaur, tivl tiuii tbac&it. ir 1)7, aoqutrw treat atm. PwciaM kbcwife ii tact . V raoommend fwranna to mv care. W bea it I ta,euica- at Wait tfceafr lor tmlmt, nadielnre cu U. ami uiTaxl fid tmMT b7 null or cxteaa asrabara. Cores GnaraaUed in all Cass, undertakon. CorauiaUuoa paraooaDr or b tour frea au-1 iltvv OBrtaa naaouaK aad aomapoadeM auicCr aooiiaafca. PRIVATE COUNSELOR. t W !. T addreaa. arcarcrr aaalrd. tur -Aav ;! aaala. Sboold bo irad hi all. AM- jn OOaa aoaia tnmi A. M. to a P. M- Samara. Inr PRESCRIPTION FREES . ESy J"? cuts of seminal Weatena loet Manboort, and all disorders brought oa cy indiscretion or excess. Any Drng-'l. hm tii ingredient. Andrea DR. JAQCTIS A CO IK) West Sixth St Cincinnati, OhJ a , aaaaaaamaiaaaMa i III , Aa Agreeable Aperient ct Uefritrerant T.J"!,"-J"."'00,r" Pfparaltoa h klrhlr rror.m-r,!'d f r BYSPEPMA. HEADACHE. Htrkaraa al tbc S,ml h. HVora, aad all complaints armec from ArUIHr, BUtoc, and aialartl Irrrn. It cool, tkr blood ami regaUtai tae kra-rh. It la a faronta OMdiciae lor rhildrca, and iia acidity and aw-aa Ut:e maaraitcooliar and rrlmbin. pat ap In dot bo:tlra. Freparad tjr A. R0UER9' SNi, Cbemi-u, S. T. Superior to Mineral Waters, 8eidlitj Powders, &c. For Sale by all Druggists. M0ER,Sw8ECGn-LIVFRni antborittoa in tW world. Gmabirhrt aard nt IS World's W. 11. EfhleffgUw fc Ch W. Ta RUPTURE PR. J. A. SHERMAN, is now at Ills braich office 5 South Fifth Street. St. loui&, X'.o. where his patients and those wishing bis treatment may consult him till July 1st. His book with photographic likenesses of bad caes before and after cure: mailed for ten cents. Will be at Principal Office, 351 Broadway, New York, July & August. BEFORE BUYING OR RENTING A CABINET ORGAN Ee ure to send for our LATEST Catalocck end CifcuLAKswith ewstyibS. fkdit, d tricks. M. 66, $7S, 4, fM, tS9, $105. 10s, J114. 1 120, and upwards), and much information. Sent fret. MASON & HAMLIN ORGAN CO, Boatoo, New York or Chicago. FREEMASONS as agents to solicit subscriptions for The PAPER, maraihrent illtMtntf p , ful oil chroma. THE ROCK OF MASONRY, free ta subscribers. Terms, $1.25 per annum iu advance. Larrje coimnissions. Outfit, including chroma, by mail, $1. R. MALCOLM, 49 Cedar St., P. O. Boa S399, New Yorlc CintnCIRfin Invested in Wall St. Ptoclcs make $1U IU J)1UUU fortanes every month. I'-ooksent free explaining everything. Ad--dress BAXTER A CO, Bankers, j all t-,N. Y. 0500,000 TO LOAN I am prepared to make loans to an nnllmitedamount on bouds and real eatate mortgage, on time from one to twenty years, to uit borrow- -era. On strictly first-class clly property, willv good margin, my rates are 8 per cent, interest and 4 per cent, to coyer all other ezpennes. Oa larm property wen locatea, wit. a good margin , my rates are 7 per cent, interest ana 5 per cent to coyer all other expenses. No delay or red tape. A ppllcations by mail promptly answer ed. Address or call on WM HEN DERtON', Office in jEtna Building, Indianapolis, We will Lav Agent a femlarv of i(J per mouth and xpnea, or allow a large commianon, to ocll our new and wonderful inventions. We wm what we - ay. 8ue pfree. Addretw gidLEHM CO., Marshall. Mich. $100.00 REWARD. After 15 years' experience In the treatment. of Hemorrhoids or Piles Wltliont a single fail ure in enecung a permanent care, lam readyto make this statement: That I will forfeit f 100 for any case of Piles that I can not care, ne maiwr oi now long sianaing. my treatment is mild and dimple. I nse no knife nor ligatures. Address me for olrcuiar. Consultation and examination free. Office 135 South Illinois street. A. P. TIMBER, H. D. A GOOD PLAN Anybody can learn to make money rapidly operating in Btocks by the "Two Unerring times ior succem," in memrs. iawrence A lo. 9 new circular. The combination method, whicii this firm has made so auoeeKgful, enables people with large or small means to reap all the benefits of largeatcapltaland best skill. Thousands of orders, la various sums, are pooled into oce vast amount ana co-operative as a rolehtv whole, thus securing to each aharehol. der all the advantages of the largeKt operator. Immense profits are divided monthly. Any amount, from (5 to tb,0 0, ar more, can be used uceesafnlly. N. 1 Baptist Weekly. September 26. 1878, says: Ry theeombination system 115 would make 75, or t per cent ; sau pays f350, ar 7 per cent.; 1100 aiakes ar lu per wuuuu iue biucs. uunsg uit) monin, according to the market." Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, June 29: "The combination meat), od of opera' lng stocks Is Ue most soccessfuv. ever adopted." New York Independent. Hept. 12: "The combination system is lonnded npon correct business principles, and no person needj be without an income while it is kept working by Messrs. Lawrene 4 Co" Br oklyn Journal, April 29: "Oo realtor made a net profit of (101.25 from CM In one of Messrs. LawrenceCO "s combinations." New circular (mailed free) explains everything. Stocks and bonda wanted. Government bonds supplied. Lawrence A Co., Bankers, 67 Exchange Place, N. T AiSIIUALJECTIOIT. There will be a meeting of the S'ocholdersrof the Indianapolis and Bpiingfleld IU II road Company held at the ttrand Hotel Indianapolis, on the 5th day of September, at 1 --TO o'clock, p. m., for tbe purpose of electing thirteen I1 rectors toservefor the enuing year. JOHN LEE, President. John It. Gomjoh, Secretary. NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT Nolle is hereby given that tbe undersigned has been appointed executor of tbe lat 1U antU testament of Alice Perkins, late of Marlon-, county, Indiana, deceased. Baid estate la sup. -posed "to be solvent. WILLIAM MCGREGOR. Executor. ( prv A MONTH AGENT WANTTI ' VlOV b art c-i 1 t -

SZS. TBCTH lllflesTTI xv