Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Heller

• Decision Date: 15 October 1909
• Docket Number: No. 6,680.,6,680.
• Citation: Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Heller, 44 Ind.App. 385, 89 N.E. 419 (Ind. App. 1909)
• Parties: INDIANA UNION TRACTION CO. v. HELLER.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

44 Ind.App. 385

89 N.E. 419

INDIANA UNION TRACTION CO.

v.HELLER.

No. 6,680.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Oct. 15, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Henry C. Allen, Judge.

Action by Henry Heller against the Indiana Union Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.James A. Van Osdol, W. A. Kittinger, and J. R. Morgan, for appellant. Jno. M. Bailey, for appellee.

ROBY, P. J.

Appellee, with 10 other persons having tickets which entitled them to transportation, went upon a platform provided for the purpose, with the intention of taking passage upon one of appellant's cars, which was scheduled to make a flag stop at said place. The time was about midnight. The car approached rapidly, was signaled and stopped, but overran the platform 150 to 200 feet. The conductor, standing on the rear platform, almost immediately gave the signal to go ahead, and the car proceeded on its way, without returning to the platform or otherwise giving the appellee an opportunity to board it. Appellant does not dispute its liability, but has addressed itself in this court to the amount of damages awarded, which was $100.

Appellee's first point is that appellant's brief should not be considered because of noncompliance with section 5 of rule 22 (55 N. E. vi), requiring a concise statement of so much of the record as is necessary to present the error complained of. The Constitution of Indiana recites, among other things, that it is adopted “to the end that justice be established.” The highest conception of justice has to do only with verities. The Searcher of Human Hearts could not be imagined as hampered by forms. Human justice is, of necessity, subject to human limitations, but society demands that the courts shall in their procedure and judgments approximate toward the ideal, and do justice to its members according to their deserts, exhausting all reasonable means of ascertaining what that truth is, and rejecting whatever obscures it. The rules of the Supreme Court, which are by statute made obligatory upon this court (section 1419, Burns' Ann. St. 1908), are designed to advance justice, and not to defeat it. They could be lawfully made to no other end, since to do so would be but an indirect method of doing that which done directly would be maladministration of office. These rules indicate an orderly and uniform method of presenting the conflicting of litigants. That they should be observed goes without saying. The only difficulties connected with their observance have had to do with the interpretation given to and placed upon them by the bar and the courts. The conclusions reached by the courts are quickly adopted by the bar when it learns them. Those considerations above mentioned which apply to the making of rules apply with equal force to their interpretation and application. If a rule shall ever be interpreted or applied to the end that truth be obscured, such fact will be a public misfortune. By a rigid interpretation of these very reasonable rules it would be possible to preserve the form of judicial consideration and abandon the substance thereof in any given case wherein partiality or interest might operate. Such a state of affairs would be unendurable. It follows, therefore, in determining whether the appellant's brief shall be rejected for noncompliance with rule, that an important consideration is the fact that if so rejected it will thereby be deprived of its appeal without any fault, solely because of alleged literary shortcomings on the part of its representatives. A liberal construction must always be made to avoid such a result. Appellant's brief is sufficient to advise this court, without delay or difficulty, of the questions involved in this appeal and of the facts out of which such questions arose. It is...