Jasper County Democrat, Volume 15, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 June 1912 — COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF

Interesting Paragraphs from the Various Departments OF JASPER COUNTY CAPITOL The Legal News Epitomized—To'"geflier with Other Notea Gathered from the Several County Offices. Marriage licenses issued: June 26, John Obed Hurley of Rensselaer. aged 22, occupation farmer, to Irena Jenkins, also of Rensselaer, aged 21, occupation housekeeper. First marriage for each. The appellate court has denied a re-hearing in the Pancoast ditch case from Newton tp., taken up on appeal from the Jasper circuit court by Almira XI. Stockton e * al. remonstrators, and decided becently in favor of appellants. This means that the petitioners must begin over again and follow the statute if they wish the proposed ditch.

The costs in this case were quite heavy, reaching perhaps sl,000, which the petitioners, Abner C. Pancoast, et al. must pay. i Another ditch case from Newton county, William H. Kessler, appellant, vs. State of Indiana, taken up from the Newton circuit court. : ,has been affirmed by the supreme court, the court holding: (If Where the comity surveyor as drainage commissioner was supervising the improvement of a drain under the board of commissioners, he could be mandated to certify the cost of the improvement (it being in excess of $5,000) for the purpose of issuing bonds for its construction. (2) The legislature never intended to compel the payment of a drain within one year if before the board and allow bonds to be issued and ten years for payment when in the circuit or superior court. (3) Where the plain and evident intent of the law is to reach a certain result it is allowable to read a reference to Section 6 as being Section 5%, or other necessary transposition which plainly results in construing as intended by the legislature. (4) A review of the ditching laws and amendments and the jurisdictions of the board and circuit court regard them The case of Wm. P Galfieid of! Milroy tp., vs. James T. Morton, wherein Gaffield sued and obtained judgment for commission on a real estate deal, appealed to the appellate court by Morton, where it has lain for a long time, was also decided Wednesday and the judgment affirmed, the court holding: (1) A contract for commission for the sale of real estate need not particularly describe the real estate to be sold, the following: “November I, 1907, listed my farm of 120 acres at $35 per acre on •» commission of $1 per acre to be cash. James T. Morton,” together with a letter relative to the management of the farm and authorizing a sale at ‘‘the price is between 30 and 35.00” was sufficient to authorize recovery of the commission on a sale at S2O per acre. The description need only be such that It may be definitely identified by other evidence. (2) “The statute was enacted to protect the owners of real estate against the imposition and fraud of real estate agents, not to enable them to commit fraud and imposition against agents.” (3) The evidence not being in the record, the motion for a new trial can not be considered.