More later on his civic services.
From:
Standard history of Adams and Wells counties, Indiana: Volume 2 By John Wilson Tyndall, Orlo Ervin Lesh
John O. Fisher. A widely-known and prosperous dealer in staple and fancy groceries, John O. Fisher is numbered among the prominent business men of Decatur, Adams County, where, in 1915, the firm of Fisher & Harris, of which he is senior member, established a business that is constantly growing in extent and value, its volume of trade being large, and eminently satisfactory. He was born in 1878 in Indianapolis, Indiana, of Irish ancestry.
His father, Frank Fisher, was born and educated in Ireland. Coming to this country when young, he subsequently met and married Bridget Carr, also a native of the Emerald Isle. He settled first in Indianapolis, where he worked as a contractor for a number of years, from there going to Peru, Indiana, where he continued at his occupation until his death, in 1897, at the age of fifty-two years. His wife survived him, dying at the same age, in 1900. The father was a democrat and both were members of the Catholic Church. They reared seven sons and one daughter, and of these children one son is dead.
His parents having removed from Indianapolis to Peru, Indiana, when he was but six months old, John O. Fisher was there brought up, and in the parochial schools obtained his education. Soon after leaving school, he entered the employ of McCaffrey & Company, the leading grocers of Peru, and remained with the firm many years, and serving in all the positions from errand boy to manager of the concern. Forming a partnership with Mathew F. Harris in 1909, Mr. Fisher embarked in the furniture business in Peru, a corporation being formed with Mr. Fisher as president; Mr. Harris, vice president; P. J. Burke, secretary; and Hugh McCaffrey, treasurer. Starting with a capital of $25,000, a large stock of furniture was put in, and a successful business was established, and has since been carried on, the concern being one of the largest of its kind in that locality. In 1915 Mr. Fisher was made its vice president, Mr. Harris assuming the secretaryship, and the entire business was placed under the supervision of a competent manager. On April 10, 1915, Messrs. Harris and Fisher, under their present firm name, established themselves in Decatur, opening a cash grocery store on Second Street, near Court Street, and have here built up a substantial trade in staple and fancy groceries. The building which the firm occupies is well adapted for the business, the store being 22 by 100 feet, with two large basements for storage.
Mr. Fisher married, in Peru, Indiana, Margaret Hartman, whose father, a contractor in Peru, was of German birth, while her mother was born in Ireland. Both of her parents were Roman Catholics, and reared their family in the same faith. Mrs. Fisher died February 7, 1917, leaving Mr. Fisher with two interesting children, Mary C., six years of age, and James, two years younger. Mr. Fisher is a democrat in politics, and a Catholic in religion. Fraternally he belongs to the Decatur Council, Knights of Columbus; to the Decatur Rotary Club and to the Peru Lodge, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.
Mathew F. Harris began his mercantile career as a clerk in the general store of Hugh McCaffrey in Peru, growing up in the business along with his present partner, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Harris developed good business energy and talent, and when the firm of which Mr. McCaffrey was made treasurer, with Mr. Fisher as president and Mr. Harris as vice president, was incorporated Mr. Harris was given charge of the hardware department, a position for which he was eminently fitted, having become familiar with dealing in that line of merchandise while with Mr. McCaffrey. In 1915, having placed the business of the Peru department store under the care of a supervisor or manager, Mr. Harris, in company with his old friend, companion and business associate, John Fisher, established himself in business at Decatur, Adams County, and as junior member of the enterprising firm of Fisher & Harris is carrying on a thriving and remunerative business as a cash grocer, his trade extending into all the nearby counties and into Ohio. The firm is advantageously located on Second Street, at the head of Court Street, and has an attractive stock of all kinds of staple groceries, Messrs. Fisher and Harris catering to the tastes and needs of their many generous' patrons.
Hugh McCaffrey Founding Father of the Peru Knights of Columbus:
The Knights of Columbus were founded in 1882 by Rev. Michael McGivney, of New Haven, where the national headquarters were established. Catholics eighteen years of age and not engaged in the liquor business are eligible for membership. Local organizations are called councils. Peru Council. No. 718, was instituted on November 30, 1902, by ten members belonging to the councils at Logansport, Kokomo and Fort Wayne. They were Joseph and John Brennan, Peter Kelly, Pliny M. Crume, Charles B. Cannon, Hugh McCaffrey, Patrick H. McGreevy, John W. O'Hara, Thomas J. Miller and Daniel S. Long.
At the beginning of the year 1914 the council claimed 187 members. The officers at that time were as follows: Miehael P. Costen, grand knight; William Welsh, deputy grand knight; Dr. Joseph M. Doyle, chancellor; C. J. Burke, recorder; Frank Kramer, secretary: Joseph Becker, treasurer. Charles B. Cannon, one of tiie charter-councilors in this council (He holds the office of state secretary.)
[Is C. J. Burke is the husband of Rosella Burke, our "Rosie"?].
Another Court Case of one of Hugh McCaffrey's Businesses:
Mccaffrey v. The Bradford Milling Company.
[No. 2.825. Filed March 9, 1900.]
Appeal And Error.—Evidence.—Transcript.—Record.—Where the original transcribed copy of the evidence is embodied in a proper bill of exceptions and certified by the judge, the evidence is properly in the record, under the act of 1897 (Acts 1897 p. 244), although it is not shown by whom the evidence was taken and transcribed, p. 284.
Same.—Instructions.—Record.—A series of instructions brought into the record by order-book entry, not signed by any one, and it not appearing whether they were given or refused, cannot be considered on appeal, pp. 284-286.
McCaffrey v. Bradford Milling Co.
Appeal And Error.—Instructions.—When Not All in Record.—The sufficiency of an instruction will not be considered on appeal unless all of the instructions given are in the record, p. 286.
From the Miami Circuit Court. Affirmed. R. J. Loveland, P. H, Loveland, W. C. Bailey and C. A. Cole, for appellant.
E. T. Reasoner, J. W. O'Hara, John Mitchell, N. N. Antrim, W. B. McClintic and //. Taylor, for appellee.
Robinson, J.—Appellant appeals from a judgment in favor of appellee, an Ohio corporation, for the price of milling machinery furnished under a written contract. The only questions discussed relate to the correctness of certain instructions to the jury.
Appellee argues that the evidence is not before this court. On September 9, 1897, the clerk certified to the transcript which was filed in this court May 31, 1898. The act of March 8, 1897 (Acts 1897 p. 244) was then in force. What may be termed the caption to the bill of exceptions containing the evidence is by no means a model; but from it we can gather that the copy of the evidence inserted into the transcript was given in the cause wherein the Bradford Milling Company was plaintiff, and Hugh McCaffrey was defendant; that the trial commenced January 3, 1897, at a regular term of the Miami Circuit Court. It does appear that the evidence was taken and transcribed by one styling himself "official shorthand reporter," but under the act of 1897 it is not material by whom the evidence is written out. Luckenbill v. Kreig, 153 Ind. 479. In the case at bar it does appear that the original transcribed copy of the evidence, by whomsoever made, was embodied in a proper bill of exceptions and was certified to by the judge, and in such case such original copy may be used in making up the transcript on appeal. Weakley v. Wolf, 148 Ind. 208.
In a criminal case instructions can be brought into the record only by a bill of exceptions. Lane v. State, 151 Ind. 511; Graybeal v. State, 145 Ind. 623; Bealerv. State, 150 Ind. 390, and cases cited.
In a civil case instructions may be made part of the record under §§542, 544 Burns 1894, §§533, 535 Homer 1897, without a bill of exceptions, or they may be brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. No attempt has been made in this case to bring up the instructions by bill of exceptions.
To question on appeal, without a bill, the giving of instructions or the refusal thereof, an exception must be taken to the giving or the refusal to give each instruction, and the exception signed by the judge and dated. The series of instructions, of which the particular instruction forms only a part, must then be brought into the record. And it must be remembered that the manner of taking an exception to a particular instruction, and bringing a series of instructions into the record, are entirely separate and distinct. If the instructions in a series are requested by a party, they must he in writing, numbered, and signed by the party or his attorney. If they are given by the court of its own motion, they must be signed by the judge. In each instance they must be filed as a part of the record, and this filing must be shown by an order-book entry. These rules must be observed, because they are the requirements of the statute. See Hall v. State. 23 Ind. App. 521.
In the case at bar there is an order-book entry that after the argument of counsel "said jury is instructed by the conrt, and said instructions are filed, and are in the words and figures following, to wit." This is followed by a series of twenty-five instructions tendered by the plaintiff below, and signed by plaintiff's attorneys.
Immediately following this, without any separate heading, are instructions 26, 27, 28, 28 1-2, 29, and 30, all of which were given, but, as a series, they are not signed by any one. By the return to a writ of certiorari what purports to be a series of six other instructions requested by defendant below are brought up, biit they are not signed by any one, nor does it appear by proper entry whether they were given or refused. [Peirce, Rec., v. Jones] It is thus seen that the only instructions in the record are the instructions tendered by plaintiff below.
The record fails to disclose that it contains all the instructions given to the jury. In Forsyth v. Wilcox, 143 Ind. 144, the court said: "By the settled rule of practice in this State the sufficiency of any instruction must be determined in the light of all the instructions given, and to make compliance with this rule possible the appellant must make it appear from the record that all charges given are in the record." Board, etc., v. Nichols, 139 Ind. 611.
In one part of the third instruction the court used the wrong number in referring to one of the answers, but when the instruction is taken as a whole, and in connection with the first, second, and fourth instructions, it could not have misled the jury. A careful consideration of the instructions given which are in the record does not disclose any instruction given that is so defective or erroneous as not to be pertinent to any issue made by the pleadings or the evidence, nor is there any instruction so prejudicial to appellant that it could not have been corrected by other instructions which may have been given. Board, etc., v. Nichols, 139 Ind. 611; Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541; Ford v. Ford, 110 Ind. 89; Gallaher v. State, 101 Ind. 411; Conduitt v. Ryan, 3 Ind. App. 1.
There is no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment