McCarty v. State ex rel. Boone
| Citation | 70 N.E. 131, 162 Ind. 218 |
| Case Date | February 24, 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
162 Ind. 218
70 N.E. 131
McCARTY et al.
v.
STATE ex rel. BOONE et al.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 24, 1904.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grant County; R. T. St. John, Special Judge.
Action by the state, on the relation of Rosella Boone and others, against James M. McCarty and others. From the judgment defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, whence it is transferred under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 1337u. Affirmed.
[70 N.E. 132]
Henry & Elliott, for appellants. Elias Bundy, for appellees.
GILLETT, C. J.
Action on a saloon keeper's bond to recover under the statute for loss of support by the death of one John R. Boone, caused by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to him. The suit was brought on the relation of the widow and children of said decedent. The issue was formed by a general denial addressed to the complaint. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee. Appellants unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, and the refusal to grant such motion has been made the basis of this appeal. It is urged that there was no evidence showing an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to said John R. Boone, and that the jury was not justified in inferring that his death was caused thereby. There was evidence to the following effect: Boone, who was a periodical drinker, left his home on the morning of November 27, 1900, and did not return thereto. About 3 o'clock of the afternoon of the next day he was found lying in the yard back of the saloon of appellant McCarty. He was brought into said saloon in such a condition of intoxication that he fell to the floor. He drank intoxicating liquor in said saloon a number of times that afternoon and evening. The latter part of said evening he spent in sleep in the back room of said saloon. When the time came to close, he went out, and the other persons who had been in said saloon left him sitting on the porch thereof. He was not thereafter seen in life, so far as the evidence shows. The temperature that night was below freezing. Twelve days later the body of said Boone was found in the vault of an outhouse immediately back of said saloon. There was water in said vault, which entirely covered the body. The seat of said outhouse was so constructed that it might be possible to fall in the vault, as there was an open space 16 inches wide between the rear wall and said seat, extending the whole length of said outhouse, or about 4 1/2 feet. A post mortem was held. There was no external mark of violence upon the body. The physicians who conducted the post mortem testified that an examination of the vital organs disclosed no cause of death. The brain and its membranes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Sur. Co. of New York v. Souers, No. 7,624.
...v. Givens, 115 Ind. 286, 17 N. E. 598; Homire v. Halfman, supra; Nelson v. State ex rel., supra; McCarty et al. v. State ex rel., 162 Ind. 218-222, 70 N. E. 131;State ex rel. Roe et al. v. Dudley et al., 45 Ind. App. 674, 91 N. E. 605, 606. In this case the direct injury to, or cause of, ap......
-
American Surety Company of New York v. State ex rel. Souers, 7,624
...v. Givens (1888), 115 Ind. 286, 17 N.E. 598; Homire v. Halfman, supra; Nelson v. State, ex rel., supra; McCarty v. State, ex rel. (1904), 162 Ind. 218, 222, 70 N.E. 131; State, ex rel., v. Dudley (1910), 45 Ind.App. 674, 91 N.E. 605, 606. In this case the direct cause of the injury to appel......
-
Chicago, I.&L. Ry. Co. v. Pritchard, No. 20,945.
...We are of opinion that in the free logic; which we have had occasion to observe that a jury may exercise (McCarty v. State ex rel., 162 Ind. 218, 70 N. E. 131), it was competent for the jury to conclude that decedent was moved to go where he did in part at least, out of a prompting of duty.......
-
Thiede v. State, No. 21819.
...of manslaughter, under provisions of a statute similar to the statute of our state. The court in that case said (162 Ind. on page 217, 70 N. E. 131 [64 L. R. A. 942, 102 Am. St. Rep. 198, 1 Ann. Cas. 32]): “As a general rule, the law has such a high regard for human life that it considers a......
-
American Sur. Co. of New York v. Souers, No. 7,624.
...v. Givens, 115 Ind. 286, 17 N. E. 598; Homire v. Halfman, supra; Nelson v. State ex rel., supra; McCarty et al. v. State ex rel., 162 Ind. 218-222, 70 N. E. 131;State ex rel. Roe et al. v. Dudley et al., 45 Ind. App. 674, 91 N. E. 605, 606. In this case the direct injury to, or cause of, ap......
-
American Surety Company of New York v. State ex rel. Souers, 7,624
...v. Givens (1888), 115 Ind. 286, 17 N.E. 598; Homire v. Halfman, supra; Nelson v. State, ex rel., supra; McCarty v. State, ex rel. (1904), 162 Ind. 218, 222, 70 N.E. 131; State, ex rel., v. Dudley (1910), 45 Ind.App. 674, 91 N.E. 605, 606. In this case the direct cause of the injury to appel......
-
Chicago, I.&L. Ry. Co. v. Pritchard, No. 20,945.
...We are of opinion that in the free logic; which we have had occasion to observe that a jury may exercise (McCarty v. State ex rel., 162 Ind. 218, 70 N. E. 131), it was competent for the jury to conclude that decedent was moved to go where he did in part at least, out of a prompting of duty.......
-
Thiede v. State, No. 21819.
...of manslaughter, under provisions of a statute similar to the statute of our state. The court in that case said (162 Ind. on page 217, 70 N. E. 131 [64 L. R. A. 942, 102 Am. St. Rep. 198, 1 Ann. Cas. 32]): “As a general rule, the law has such a high regard for human life that it considers a......