record shows exception in Indiana

1936So the evidence of appellant in support of the charge against deceased was such an attack upon his character for peace as to authorize the State to introduce his good character as a substantive fact, involved in the transaction, in disproof of the charge, without appellant’s consent.” The court further said (p. 385) : “However, in the case of Fields v. State (1892), 134 Ind. 46 , the record shows that the defense offered no impeaching testimony to attack the character of the deceased for peacableness.

1899However, in the case of Fields v. State, 134 Ind. 46 , the record shows that the defense offered no impeaching testimony to attack the. character of the deceased for peaceableness.

1982Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f), which is similar to Ind.R.Tr.P. 30(F)(1), “The failure to promptly file is harmless where the adverse party saw the deposition prior to trial.” McVay v. Cincinnati Union Terminal Co., (6th Cir. 1969) 416 F.2d 853, 856 .

1974It bears repeating, however, that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. . . .” In Green v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 244 , 274 N.E.2d 267 , our Supreme Court decided a case with a very similar factual situation to the case at bar adversely to the appellant.

1974It bears repeating, however, that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. . . .” In Green v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 244 , 274 N.E.2d 267 , our Supreme Court decided a case with a very similar factual situation to the case at bar adversely to the appellant.

1923In making this contention appellee is in error, as the record shows an exception to each instruction given by the court on its own motion, which we assume were taken orally, in compliance with said §561 Burns 1914, supra. Roach v. Cumberland Bank (1916), 60 Ind. App. 547 , 111 N. E. 320 ; Miller, Exr. v. Kifer (1921), 75 Ind. App. 198 , 130 N. E. 278 .

1923In making this contention appellee is in error, as the record shows an exception to each instruction given by the court on its own motion, which we assume were taken orally, in compliance with said §561 Burns 1914, supra. Roach v. Cumberland Bank (1916), 60 Ind. App. 547 , 111 N. E. 320 ; Miller, Exr. v. Kifer (1921), 75 Ind. App. 198 , 130 N. E. 278 .

1923In making this contention appellee is in error, as the record shows an exception to each instruction given by the court on its own motion, which we assume were taken orally, in compliance with said §561 Burns 1914, supra. Roach v. Cumberland Bank (1916), 60 Ind. App. 547 , 111 N. E. 320 ; Miller, Exr. v. Kifer (1921), 75 Ind. App. 198 , 130 N. E. 278 .

1923In making this contention appellee is in error, as the record shows an exception to each instruction given by the court on its own motion, which we assume were taken orally, in compliance with said §561 Burns 1914, supra. Roach v. Cumberland Bank (1916), 60 Ind. App. 547 , 111 N. E. 320 ; Miller, Exr. v. Kifer (1921), 75 Ind. App. 198 , 130 N. E. 278 .

1917Domestic Block Coal Co. v. DeArmey (1913), 179 Ind. 592 , 100 N. E. 675 , 102 N. E. 99 . 3.

1917Domestic Block Coal Co. v. DeArmey (1913), 179 Ind. 592 , 100 N. E. 675 , 102 N. E. 99 . 3.

1900We.adhere to the construction then given, regarding it still as more in accordance with reason and justice, and with the probable intention of the legislature in enacting the section, than a more strictly liberal construction would be.” The record shows that the standard laid down in the case of Leeper v. City of South Bend, 106 Ind. 375 , and followed in later cases was observed by the trial court in the case at bar.

1893Appellee’s proposition is supported by counsel by reference to Patrick v. Jones, 21 Ind. 249 , and De Armond v. Stoneman, 63 Ind. 386 , which hold, as do many other cases, that where a party files an amended pleading, he thereby waives the sustaining of a demurrer to the original pleading.

1893Appellee’s proposition is supported by counsel by reference to Patrick v. Jones, 21 Ind. 249 , and De Armond v. Stoneman, 63 Ind. 386 , which hold, as do many other cases, that where a party files an amended pleading, he thereby waives the sustaining of a demurrer to the original pleading.

1883In Mitchell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 , this court said: “ Where, as in this case, the record shows only that certain questions were propounded to certain witnesses, and does not show the par ticular evidence which it was expected would be elicited by the answers to such questions, we can not say from the record that the court below erred in sustaining the objections to such questions.” Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Cole v. Kidd, 80 Ind. 563 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 .

1883In Mitchell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 , this court said: “ Where, as in this case, the record shows only that certain questions were propounded to certain witnesses, and does not show the par ticular evidence which it was expected would be elicited by the answers to such questions, we can not say from the record that the court below erred in sustaining the objections to such questions.” Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Cole v. Kidd, 80 Ind. 563 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 .

1883In Mitchell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 , this court said: “ Where, as in this case, the record shows only that certain questions were propounded to certain witnesses, and does not show the par ticular evidence which it was expected would be elicited by the answers to such questions, we can not say from the record that the court below erred in sustaining the objections to such questions.” Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Cole v. Kidd, 80 Ind. 563 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 .

1883In Mitchell v. Chambers, 55 Ind. 289 , this court said: “ Where, as in this case, the record shows only that certain questions were propounded to certain witnesses, and does not show the par ticular evidence which it was expected would be elicited by the answers to such questions, we can not say from the record that the court below erred in sustaining the objections to such questions.” Graeter v. Williams, 55 Ind. 461 ; Cole v. Kidd, 80 Ind. 563 ; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212 .