Trial of criminal prosecutions.

*In passing on a motion for directed verdict.
See "Criminal Law," 88 6–12; "Homicide,” 8 the court cannot weigh the evidence, but must
2; "Receiving Stolen Goods.”

concede the truth of that in favor of the party
For offenses relating to trade marks, see "Trade against whom the motion is made.-B. Shon-
Marks and Trade-Names," $ 1.

inger Co. v. Mann (I11.) 354.
Summary trial, see “Criminal Law," $ 3.

Where, in an action on a building contract,

the evidence as to the date of the completion of
§ 1. Course and conduct of trial in gen- the work was conflicting, the question was for
eral.

the jury.-Fitzgerald v. Benner (III.) 709.
Certain remarks of the court hold not preju-
dicial as intimating to the jury that defendant's

Where the court could set aside a verdict for
witness had willfully suppressed a letter in his plaintiff as not sustained by sufficient evidence,
possession while on the witness stand. Fitz- the court may direct a verdict for defendant. ---
gerald v. Benner (Ill.) 709.

Green v. Macy (Ind. App.) 264.

*In considering a motion for peremptory in-
§ 2. Reception of evidence.

struction, the court must accept as true all the
*Where testatrix' testamentary capacity was facts and inferences against the party asking a
not in issue in a will contest, contestants held not protection of the verdict, and in case of con-
entitled to introduce evidence for the purpose of ficting evidence, excluding that favorable to
showing her mental condition.—Compher v. him.-Hall v. Terre Haute Electric Co. (Ind.
Browning (Ill.) 678.

App.) 334.
Rule as to the order of proof of the genuine- *On a motion for a peremptory instruction,
ness of a disputed written instrument stated.- the court is bound to accept as true all the
Baum v. Palmer (Ind. Sup.) 108.

farts the evidence tends to prove, and draw
*Where a party offers to prove a number of whom the motion is made, and reject all eri-

all inferences favorable to the party against
facts by a witness, as to a large portion of which dence favorable to the other.-Roberts v. Terre
facts the witness is incompetent to testify, it is Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.
not error to exclude all the evidence.-Indian-
apolis & M. Rapid Transit Co. v. Hall (Ind.

What is a reasonable time within which to
Sup.) 242.

perform an act is usually a question of fact,
*An objection to a question made after the tablished it may be a question of law.-Ameri-

though if the facts are undisputed or clearly ps.
same has been answered is too late to be avail- | can Window Glass Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas
ing.–Swygart v. Willard (Ind. Sup.) 755.

& Oil Co. (Ind. App.) 1006.
Where witness was asked as to conversation
with K. as to furnishing men

Affirmance by Appellate Division of judgment

to machinist,
objection to conversation with machinist held matter of law held too broad.—Levy v. James

on verdict dismissing complaint as based on a
properly overruled.- Diamond Block Coal Co. McCreery Realty Corp. (N. Y.) 1079.
v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.
* Where an answer was not responsive to a

85. Instructions to jury-Province of
question, the party objecting should move to

court and jury in general.
strike it out.--Diamond Block Coal Co. v.

An instruction that denunciation of witnesses
Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

by counsel should not influence the jury to dis-

regard the testimony if unimpeached is errone
On an issue of contributory negligence, de ous.—Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien
fendant is entitled to the benefit of such evi- | (I11.) 341.
dence as is relevant thereto which has been
introduced by plaintitf.-Roberts Terre

Instruction that the law presumed an unim-
Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

peached witness had testified truly held errone-

ous.—Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien
In an action for injuries to a child 12 years (Ill.) 341.
of age, plaintiff held entitled to prove the

Where in a will contest there was no claim of
child's mental capacity in rebuttal.-Roberts testamentary incapacity, it was not error for
v. Terre Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

the court to charge that testatrix' capacity was
*An offer of evidence held insufficient to ren- / admitted, etc.—Compher v. Browning (It.) 678.
der the exclusion of the evidence erroneous.- In an action to recover on a building contract,
Hart v. Brierley (Mass.) 280.

an instruction held not subject to criticism as
*An objection to evidence as irrelevant held embodying the assumption of a fact in issue. -
improperly overruled where its incompetency Fitzgerald v. Benner (111.) 709.
was manifest.–Gearty v. City of New York On the issue of mental capacity, an instruc-
(N. Y.) 12.

tion held not to invade the province of the jury
Where plaintiff offers at the same time testi- by the assumption that drunkenness was some
mony in chief and also in rebuttal, held error

evidence of insanity.-Swygart v. Willard (Ind.
to exclude the same and dismiss the complaint.

Sup.) 755.
-Auten v. Bennett (N. Y.) 609.

*An instruction which assumes the truth of

controverted facts is erroneous as invading the
§ 3. Arguments and conduct of counsel. province of the jury.-Beery v. Driver (Ind.

*Counsel in argument can attack witnesses, Sup.) 967.
though unimpeached.-Chicago Union Traction
Co. v. O'Brien (Ill.) 341.

An instruction on the weight to be given the

testimony of witnesses held reversible error. -
The court having indicated an intention to Muncie Pulp Co. v. Keesling (Ind. Sup.) 1002
submit interrogatories requested by defendant,

An instruction as to what might be considered
it was not error to permit plaintiff's counsel to in weighing the testimony of different witnesses
read a comment thereon to the jury.--McIntyre held proper.-Indianapolis Northern Traction
v. Orner (Ind. Sup.) 750.

Co. v. Dunn (Ind. App.) 269.
$ 4. Taking case or question from jury. An instruction in an action on a policy in-

*The question of the credibility of witness tes-suring a building against loss by fire and
tifying in contradiction of the others is for the lightning held properly refused because invading
jury. —Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien the province of the jury.-Home Ins. Co. F.
(IN.) 341.

Gagen (Ind. App.) 927.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

V.

$ 6. Form, requisites, and suffi- i --Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Pritchard (Ind.
ciency.

App.) 1070.
Instruction held not erroneous as submitting
a question of law to the jury: --Chicago & J. quest that under all the evidence F. was not a

In an action for injuries to a servant, a re-
Electric Ry. Co. v. Patton (I11.) 381.

superintendent within Employer's Liability Act
Alleged error in an instruction by excluding (Rev. Laws, c. 106) held properly refused. -
from the consideration of the jury, by the use Peterson v. Morgan Spring Co. (Mass.) 220.
of the word "testimony," documentary evidence
in the case, held harmless, the concluding

In an action for injuries to a servant, a re-
sentence of the instruction using the word "evi- quest that there was no evidence that defendant
dence" in place of "testimony". - Fitzgerald v. negligently failed to supply a suitable appliance
Benner (111.) 709.

for the prosecution of the work by plaintiff held

properly refused.-Peterson v. Morgan Spring
An instruction on weight of the testimony of Co. (Mass.) 220.
plaintiff held proper.-Hancheft v. Haas (111.)
845.

$ 8.

Requests or prayers.
*An instruction on the right of the jury to

Where one asks several instructions on
disregard the testimony of a witness held not particular subject held that he cannot com-
misleading.--Hancheft v. Haas (Ill.) 815.

plain that the least favorable one only is given.

- National Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Me-
*An instruction on the preponderance of evi- | Corkle (Ill.) 813.
dence held proper.-Hancheft v. Haas (III.)
845,

*It is not error to refuse instructions covered

by those given.-Hancheft v. Haas (II.) 815.
Where, in an action on a note, the court in-
structed fully as to the issue of estoppel raised

It is not error for the court to refuse to
by the reply, plaintiff could not complain be- give an instruction substantially covered by the
cause that issue was not referred to in all the charge.—Springer v. Bricker (Ind. Sup.) 114.
other instructions.-Baum Palmer (Ind.
Sup.) 108.

A requested instruction relating to the jury,

determining the credibility of witnesses, held
Instruction on burden of proof held not bad properly refused in view of the charge given
for failing to refer to the sufficiency of circum- on the subject.—Home Ins. Co. v. Gagen (Ind.
stantial evidence to discharge the burden.- App.) 927.
New Castle Bridge Co. v. Doty (Ind. App.)
557.

*Superior court rule 48 does not prevent the

presiding justice from receiving and passing on
*Instruction that, as a general rule, witness the requests for instructions presented for the
interested in result will not be as fair in testi- | first time after the closing argument, and allow-
mony as one not interested, held erroneous.- ing an exception to the party aggrieved.—Rob-
Muncie, H. & Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) ertson v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 513.
790.
*Instruction that, when witnesses are other- sented after argument held in effect the giving

The receiving and refusing of instructions pre-
wise equally credible, greater weight should be of special leare to present the instructions at
given to those whose means of information that time.-Robertson v. Boston & N. St.
are superior, held erroneous.-Muncie. II. & Ry. Co. (Jass.) 513.
Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) 790.

Superior court rule 48, requiring instructions
In an action against railway company for
injuries received by a passenger on a train of requested to be presented before argument only.

means that requests presented after argument
another company, an instruction held not open
to the objection that it gave undue prominence Robertson v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)

cannot be entertained without leave of court.--
to one feature of the case.—Baltimore & 0. S.

513.
W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.
$ 7.

8 9. Construction and operation.
Applicability to pleadings and
evidence.

In an action on a building contract, an al-
*Where an instruction states a rule of law leged error in an instruction regarding the con-
which, though not incorrect, does not relate to struction of the contract held harmless, where
any fact in the case, it is improper - Chicago nounced the construction contended for by the

four other instructions given for defendant an-
Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien (Ill.) 341.

latter.--Fitzgerald v. Benner (111.) 709.
In an action to recover on a building contract,

*Where the instructions as a whole were cor-
an instruction omitting the question of defend-
ant's damages, by way of set-off, resulting from rect it was immaterial that some particular in-
plaintiff's failure to complete the work within struction or detached portion thereof was ob-
the specified time, held not erroneous.-Fitz-jectionable.-Springer v. Bricker (Ind. Sup.)
gerald v. Benner (Ill.) 709.

114.
*A requested instruction held properly re-

*In charging a jury, the court is not required
fused, unless there is some evidence to which it to cover all questions in any one instruction.-
was pertinent.---- Allyn v. Burns (Ind. App.) 636. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Higgs

(Ind. Sup.) 299.
In an action on a policy insuring a build-
ing against loss by fire and lightning, a request-

In action for injuries owing to plaintiff's
ed instruction held properly refused because horses having been frightened by defendant's
ignoring the facts.—Home Ins. Co. v. Gagen automobile, an instruction defining negligence
(Ind. App.) 927.

held not erroneous.—McIntyre v. Orner (Ind.
An instruction in an action against two rail-

Sup.) 750.
roads for injuries received by a passenger of

Instructions should be considered with ref-
one in a collision at crossing held not objection erence

to the charge as a whole.—Allyn v.
able as eliminating the question of proximate Burns (Ind. App.) 636.
cause.- Baltimore & 0. S. W. R. Co. v. Klees-
pies (Ind. App.) 1015.

Instruction that credit to be given witnesses

is a question for the jury held not to render
In an action against a carrier for ejection of harmless previous instruction as to credibility
a passenger, instructions held not objectionable of witness interested in suit.- Muncie, H. & Ft.
as not applicable to the pleadings and evidence. 'W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) 790.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

-

§ 10. Custody, conduct, and deliberations | $ 1. Actions.
of jury.

*The measure of damages for the conversion
* Error in permitting the jury to take the dec- of goods is the fair market value thereof at the
laration into the jury room on their retire- date of the conversion.—Hart V. Brierley
ment is not reversible.—Hancheft v. Haas (Mass.) 286.
(III.) 845.

*In an action for conversion, evidence that
$11. Verdict.

plaintiff could buy the goods for less than the
Where a motion for a venire de novo only ap- market price held incompetent to reduce the
plied to the general verdict, no question was

amount of defendant's liability.—Hart v. Brier-
raised concerning the finding of the jury in an- ley (Mass.) 286.
swer to a special interrogatory.-Spaulding v.
Mott (Ind. Sup.) 620.

TRUSTEE PROCESS.
*A motion for a venire de novo will not be
sustained unless the verdict, whether general or

See “Garnishment.”
special, is so defective and uncertain that no
judgment can be rendered on it.—Spaulding v.

TRUSTS.
Mott (Ind. Sup.) 620.

Administration of trust funds by municipality,
*A general verdict in favor of plaintiff is a
finding against defendant upon the issuable Charitable trusts, see “Charities."

see "Municipal Corporations," $ 13.
facts, and is supported, as against special find- Creation by will, 'see "Wills," 5.
ings,' by every inference which may be drawn Right of beneficiary to maintain bill for parti-
from the evidence.-Union Traction Co. v. Sul-

tion, see “Partition," $ 1.
livan (Ind. App.) 116.

Trust deeds, see "Chattel Mortgages" ; "Mort-
Where special findings followed the theory of gages.'
the complaint, and substantially found all the
material facts disclosed by the evidence, defend- & l.. Creation, existence, and validity.
ants held not entitled to a venire de novo for in question under a resulting trust in favor of

Defendant held the owner of certain property
alleged indefiniteness of such findings.—Case v.
Collins (Ind. App.) 781.

complainants, as provided by Burns' Ann. St.

1901, 8 3398.-Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.)
*A general verdict will not be overthrown 889.
by special findings, unless they are so antago-
nistic that both cannot stand. -Lindley v. Kemptention of insured to create a trust in the pro-

*Parol evidence held admissible to show the in-
(Ind. App.) 798.

ceeds of the certificate.- Mee v. Fay (Jlass.)
*Facts which might have been proven under 229.
the issues will be regarded as proven, if neces-
sary to avoid a conflict between the special find- $ 2. Construction and operation.
ings and general verdict.—Lindley v. Kemp

Certain will and deed held to create an active
(Ind. App.) 798.

trust which was not executed under the statue
In an action on a note executed by husband of uses, and under which the beneficiary took no
and wife, who were partners, prior to the hus- legal estate.—Mason v. Mason (111.) 692.
band's death, answers to interrogatories held $ 3. Management and disposal of trust
not in irreconcilable conflict with the general

property.
verdict against her.-Anderson v. Citizens' Nat. Beneficiary under trust held not entitled to
Bank (Ind. App.) 811.

have a sale made by his trustee.--- Jason F.
Answers to special interrogatories held not Mason (111.) 692.
to conflict with the general verdict on favor In determining whether majority of testator's
of plaintiff, so as to require judgment for de children signed request for trustee to sell
fendant.-Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.) 889. land, neither the trustee nor the purchaser.

*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 556, all the though, both children, should be counted. -
facts specially found pertinent to the issue Fredrick v. Fredrick (I11.) 856.
must be construed as a whole to be incon- *Where a large number of beneficiaries are
sistent with the general verdict in order to interested in trust property, the trustee should
control it.--Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.) 889. not sell the same without notice to all the par-

*As concerns general verdicts, a venire de ties in interest.-Fredrick v. Fredrick (III.) S.
novo reaches only such defects as are apparent Where the proceeds of a certificate of insurance
on the face of the record.--Douglas v. Indianap- is held under a valid trust, the beneficiaries are
olis & N. W. Traction Co. (Ind. App.) 892. not entitled to the possession thereof.-liee .
In an action for injuries to a passenger,

Fay (Mass.) 229.
general verdict held not necessarily inconsistent 8 4. Accounting and compensation of
with answers to interrogatories, nor outside

trustee.
the issues.--Cincinnati, 1. & W. Ry. Co. v.

*Trustees under a will held only entitled to
Bravard (Ind. App.) 899.

such compensacion as the law itself would
It is within the discretionary power of the allow or the court should determine to be rea-
trial court to question the jury as to the grounds sonable.-Compler v. Browning (III.) 678.
of their general verdict, and to inquire if they
had determined certain issues in the case.-Hart 5. Establishment and enforcement of

trust.
v. Brierley (Mass.) 286.

A family settlement held to create a trust of
$ 12. Trial by court.

the surplus income of certain land, which plain.
*A judgment unsupported by any finding of tiffs were entitled to enforce against the trus.
fact must be reversed.--Dougherty v. Lion tee's wife, who took such income with notie.
Fire Ins. Co., Limited, of London (N. Y.) 4. and repudiated the trust.-Case v. Collins (Ind.

App.) 781.
TROVER AND CONVERSION.

*Plaintiffs held entitled to follow the proceeds

of a bank deposit left by their mother on her
Conclusiveness of verdict, see "Judgment," $ 7. death, and received and invested in real estate
Conversion by broker, see "Brokers," $ 1. by their father in his own name in violation
Conversion by warehousemen, see "Warehouse- of plaintiffs' rights.-Case v. Collins (Il.d.
men."

App.) 781.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

In a suit to enforce an alleged trust, a decree suit which may affect real estate, within Chan-
that the title to certain property be vested in a cery Act (Hurd's Rer. $t. 1903, c. 22) § 3,
new trustee appointed held not within the is- and must be brought in the county where the
sues.—Case v. Collins (Ind. App.) 781.

courthouse is located.-Munger v. Crowe (Ill.)

50.
ULTRA VIRES.

8 2. Change of venue or place of trial.

*Obligation of judge to amend a change of
Acts of corporation, see "Corporations," $ 5. venue in a proper case is imperative; but as to

whether the notice of application is sufficient
UNDUE INFLUENCE.

the judge has a discretion in determining.-

Glos v. Garrett (I11.) 373.
Procuring making of will, see "Wills.” § 3.

VERDICT.
UNFAIR COMPETITION.

Directing verdict in civil actions, see “Trial,”
See “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," $ 2.

4.
In civil actions, see “Trial," § 11.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,”
UNIONS.

$ 12.

Operation and effect as curing defects in plead-
Validity in general of contract with labor union, ings, see "Pleading," $ 7.
see “Contracts," $ 1.

Review on appeal or writ of error, see “Appeal

and Error," $ 21.
UNITED STATES.

VESTED REMAINDERS.
Courts, see "Courts," $ 4; "Removal of Cau-
ses."

Creation, see "Wills," $ 5.
USE AND OCCUPATION.

VESTED RIGHTS.
See “Tenancy in Common," $ 1.

Protection, see "Constitutional Law," $ 3.
Declarations as evidence, see "Evidence," $ 6.
VALUE.

VIADUCTS.
Limits of jurisdiction, see "Removal of Cau-See “Municipal Corporations," $ 5.
ses," 8 2.

VICE PRINCIPALS.
VARIANCE.

See "Master and Servant," $$ 3-9.
Between notice and delinquent list on assess-

ment for public improvements, see "Municipal
Corporations," $ 9.

VILLAGES.
Between pleading and proof in civil actions, see
“Equity,” & 2; "Pleading," $ 6.

See "Municipal Corporations."

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

WAGERS.
See "Exchange of Property"; "Sales."

See "Gaming," $ 1.
Election of remedies on breach of contract, see
“Election of Remedies."

WAGES.
Parol or extrinsic evidence of contract for sale
of land, see “Evidence," $ 9.

See "Master and Servant," $ 2.
Purchasers at foreclosure sale, see “Chattel

Mortgages," $ 4.
Sales of trust property, see "Trusts," $ 3.

WAIVER.
Specific performance of contract, see "Specific See "Estoppel.”
Performance."

Of objections to particular acts or proceedings.
f 1. Requisites and validity of contract.

Contract for sale of land, legal title to which See "Pleading," $ 7.
is in another, held not void for want of mu- Assignment of errors, see "Appeal and Error,"
tuality.-Kuhn v. Eppstein (Ill.) 145.

$ 12,
§ 2. Performance of contract.

Error waived in appellate court, see "Appeal
*Lease for term of years held

and Error," § 26.

an incum- Right to recover benefits, see “Beneficial Asso-
brance within a contract for sale of land, -

ciations."
Kuhn v. Eppstein (I11.) 145.

Sufficiency of service in election contest, see

"Elections," $ 2.
VENIRE DE NOVO.

Taking private property for public use,

"Eminent Domain," $ 3.
See “Trial," § 11.

Tender back of goods sold on breach of war-

ranty, see "Sales," 4.
VENUE.

Wrongful acts of agent, see “Principal and

Agent," $ 1.
Of criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"

Of rights or remedics.
1.

Conditions in gas lease, see “Mines and Min-
§ 1. Nature or subject of action.

erals," $ 2.
A proceeding to remove a wing of a court. Forfeiture of railroad right of way, see "Rail-
house to another part of the grounds held a roads," $ 3.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

Limitations contained in insurance policy, see to show a continued nuisance rather than a
"Insurance," 8 10.

permanent injury to plaintiff's lands.- Muncie
Objections not presented in record, see "Appeal Pulp Co. v. Keesling (Ind. Sup.) 1002.

and Error," $ 11.
Proof of loss insured against, see “Insurance," of a stream held that a paragraph of the com:

In an action for damages from the pollution
$ 8.
Rights under contract for municipal improve-Co. v. Keesling (Ind. Sup.) 1002.

plaint stated a cause of action.-Muncie Pulp
ments, see "Municipal Corporations," $ 7.
Right to appeal, see "Appeal and Error," $ 3.

*A riparian owner has no right to divert
Right to compensation for injuries from ex- water from the stream for manufacturing pur-

ercise of power of eminent domain, see "Emi- poses to such an extent as to deprive a lower
nent Domain," § 2.

riparian proprietor of the natural flow of the
Right to deny will, see “Wills," § 4.

stream.—New England Cotton Yarn Co. v.
Right to forfeit insurance, see "Insurance," Laurel Lake Mills (Mass.) 231.

§ 6.
Right to have appeal dismissed, see "Appeal

$ 2. Natural lakes and ponds.

*Under the Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47
and Error," § 14.

the commonwealth held 'to have title to an
Right to jury trial, see "Jury," $ 1.
Right to object to competency of witness, see which had neither been conveyed by the town,

island in a great pond located within a town,
"Witnesses,” $ 1.

the colony, province, or commonwealth.–Attor-

ney General v. Herrick (Mass.) 1043.
WARDS.

$ 3. Conveyances and contracts.
See "Guardian and Ward."

Contract between upper and lower riparian
owners as to the right of the former to discharge

water drawn from the stream by it into a pond
WAREHOUSEMEN.

below the mill of the latter construed.-New

England Cotton Yarn Co. v. Laurel Lake Mills
*The warehouseman held not in fault for fail- (Mass.) 231.
ing to deliver to the depositor on demand arti-
cles exempt from attachment; all the articles $ 4. Artificial ponds, reservoirs, and
deposited having been attached.-Cornell v. Ma-

channels, dams, and flowage.
honey (Mass.) 664.

Defendants, having the right by grant to flood

their cranberry bog to the injury of plaintiff's
*Where a warehouseman refused to deliver land, held not to have the right to use plaintiff's
goods to the depositor because they had been at land as a reservoir, pumping water onto it from
tached by a third person, it was a good defense their bog, and then, when needed, pumping it
to an action for conversion, and not merely a back.--Nye v. Swift' (Mass.) 652.
ground for a continuance of the action for con-
version.—Cornell v. Mahoney (Mass.) 664.

An action at law held the proper remedy for
impounding water on plaintiff's land, for use

of defendants' cranberry bog.-Nye v. Swift
WARRANT.

(Mass.) 652.
Arrest without warrant, see “Arrest," $ 1.

§ 5. Public water supply.
County warrants, see “Counties," $ 3.

Acts 1899, p. 568, c. 254, authorizing towns
For collection of assessment for public improve to purchase waterworks, held not to apply to
ments, see "Municipal Corporations," § 9.

purchases made antecedent to the passage of
Orders for payment from public funds, 'see®“Mu- the statute.-Eddy Valve Co. v. *Town of
nicipal Corporations," § 13.

Crown Point (Ind. Sup.) 536.
Search warrant, see "Searches and Seizures." Contract of water company with incorporated

village to furnish water at certain rates held
WARRANTY.

enforceable by resident of the village.--Pond v.

New Rochelle Water Co. (N. Y.) 211.
By insured, see "Insurance," $8 4, 5.
Covenant of in lease, see "Landlord and Ten-

WAYS.
ant." $ 1.
Covenants of, see "Covenants," $ 2.

Private rights of way, see "Easements."
In application for insurance, see "Insurance," Public ways, see "Highways"; "Municipal Cor-
§ 2.

porations," 88 11, 12.
On sale of goods, see “Sales," $8 4, 6.

WELLS.
WATERS AND WATER COURSES.

Oil or gas wells, see "Mines and Minerals,"
See "Drains" ; "Levees."

88 1, 2.
Dedication of easement to maintain water pipes,
see "Dedication," 88 1, 2.

WIDOWS,
Insurance against loss from sprinkler system, Dower, see “Dower."

see "Insurance,' $ 7.
Prescriptive right to take water, see. "Ease-
ments," $ 1.

WILLS.
Purchase of waterworks by municipality, see
"Municipal Corporations," § 13.

See “Descent and Distribution"; "Executors
Water courses in cities, see “Municipal Corpo- and Administrators."
rations," 8 12.

Admissions by legatees as evidence, see "Evi-
8 1. Natural water courses.

dence," $ 5.
In an action for damages to plaintiff's land Assignment of errors in will contest, see "Ap-
from a continued nuisance, consisting of the Charitable bequests and devises, see “Chari-

peal and Error," § 12.
pollution of a stream flowing through the land,
the measure of damages stated.-Muncie Pulp Competency of witnesses in will proceedings.

ties."
Co. v. Keesling (Ind. Sup.) 1002.

see "Witnesses," $ 1.
In an action for damages from the pollution Construction and execution of trusts, see
of a stream, a paragraph of the complaint held “Trusts."

* Point annotated. See syllabus.