Volume 230 — Indiana Reports

1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Appeal — Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency —</italic> <italic>Supreme Court Will Not Weigh the Evidence — Supreme Court Will</italic> <italic>Determine If Verdict Is Supported by Any Evidence or Proper</italic> <italic>Inferences.</italic> — The Supreme Court will not weigh the evidence when its sufficiency is questioned on appeal, but will examine the record to see if there is any evidence, or any reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence, which would sustain the verdict of the jury or the decision of the trial court. p. 87. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency — Must Be</italic> <italic>Some Substantial Evidence — Verdict May Not Be Based Upon</italic> <italic>Suspicion, Possibility, Guess or Conjecture.</italic> — There must be some substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable inference of guilt may be drawn to sustain a conviction, since a verdict may not be based upon mere suspicion, possibility, guess or conjecture. p. 90. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Evidence — Weight and Sufficiency —</italic> <italic>Circumstantial Evidence — Degree of Proof Required.</italic> — In a criminal case, where there is no direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence, in order to establish the guilt of the defendant the circumstances must be such that a reasonable inference, which establishes such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, may be drawn therefrom. p. 91. 4. AUTOMOBILES — <italic>Offenses — Automobile Banditry — Evidence —</italic> <italic>Weight and Sufficiency — Insufficient To Support Conviction.</italic> — In a prosecution for automobile banditry, the evidence which showed that a woman passed a forged check to buy some groceries, that an unidentified man waited outside the store for her, that later the defendant was found driving a car in which the same woman was an occupant and two sacks of unidentified groceries were found in the car, and that the defendant had participated in a similar offense, was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty, as it failed to establish that at the time the woman was passing the forged check, the defendant had on or near the premises an automobile which he intended to use or did use in an attempt to escape or in which they did escape. Burns' 1942 Replacement, § 10-4710. p. 92.

1. DRAINS — <italic>Maintenance and Repair — Action — Should Be Entitled</italic> <italic>in Names of Petitioners — Entitled in Names of Original</italic> <italic>Petitioners for Establishment — Not Reversible Error.</italic> — Though a petition to clean and repair public drain should be entitled in the names of the present petitioners, it is not reversible error to entitle the petition in the names of the original petitioners for the establishment of such drains. Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 27-120. p. 168. 2. DRAINS — <italic>Maintenance and Repair — Action — Motion To Amend</italic> <italic>Petition Should Be in Writing — Matters Stricken by Parol</italic> <italic>Motion Restored to Petition — Allowing Parol Motion Not</italic> <italic>Harmful.</italic> — In a proceeding to clean and repair public drains, the trial court's action in sustaining an oral motion of the petitioner to amend their petition by striking out one rhetorical paragraph thereof, while technically erroneous since such motions should be in writing, where the paragraph so stricken was later restored to the petition and there was no showing that the remonstrators were harmed in any manner by this ruling, such a ruling could not have been injurious to the remonstrators and violated none of their substantial rights. Burns' 1946 Replacement, § 2-1071. p. 169. 3. DRAINS — <italic>Establishment — Action — Petition May Be Amended Any</italic> <italic>Time Before Final Judgment.</italic> — In a petition for the original construction of a drain commenced in or appealed to a circuit court, amendments are allowed at any time before final judgment. Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 27-120. p. 171. 4. DRAINS — <italic>Maintenance and Repair — Action — Petition May Be</italic> <italic>Amended at Any Time Before Final Judgment.</italic> — In a proceeding<page_number>Page 166</page_number> to clean and repair public drains, the petition may be amended at any time before final judgment, therefore the trial court did not err in allowing the amendments to the petition before the final judgment was entered. Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 27-120. p. 171. 5. DRAINS — <italic>Maintenance and Repair — Action — Extent of Court's</italic> <italic>Power — Jurisdiction Limited by Empowering Statute.</italic> — In a proceeding to clean and repair public drains, a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter within the limits fixed by the empowering statute which allows the repair of the drain described in the petition to an additional extent of 10% of that petitioned for; therefore the trial court was without jurisdiction as to the extent of the drain which it ordered repaired which exceeds this statutory limitation. Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 27-120(b) (2). p. 173. 6. COURTS — <italic>Extent of Jurisdiction — In General.</italic> — A court has no power to do anything which is not authorized by law and where its procedure is defined by a special statute, its judicial functions are essentially controlled thereby, and the remedy is confined to the mode prescribed, and the procedure so provided excludes resort to another or different procedure. p. 173. 7. JUDGMENT — <italic>Nature and Essentials — May Be Void in Part and</italic> <italic>Valid in Part.</italic> — A judgment may be valid in part because within the jurisdiction of the court and void in part for want of jurisdiction. p. 173.