Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1844-05-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
c,srs pErEanrSrp At THE NAY TERM 1874.
lRerexf<d Er Ia Ia nnn Sta,r S,nfndl
NoxpAf. Nay u.

Moso.s, May 81.
Armsiro-g ef NJ g. The state on rel. Of Morror-Error
10 the Nation {. L. Opinion by Judge DEWEY. When the
surety q . ~gu5rdian becomes dissatisfied with his situation.
and applies 10 the proper authority t. he discharged from
ADDITIONAL security Is gwen, conditioned for the Performance
of the c nd,'ion q The former bond, The surety q the latter
bond - Iiibie for all the defslcations Of the guardian under
both bonds
A judgment fof thu plaintiff in an action Of debt on a
bond with condition should MT include The damages assessed
under the breaches assigned J1dgmea' egp"ed an part and
rsversed in part.
Muffkia 81 al. r. The Strfe-Eror to the Fayettc c. c.
Opinion by Judge SULLIVAN. !. A Plea which Processes TO
answer the Whole declaration aud answering a part only, is
bad On gene raj demurrer.
2 In action against an agent Of the Surplus Revenue. for
failure TO pay over 10 the school Comm is-ioners interest
money that had accumulated IN hs hands, IL 4, not Necessary
u prove or aver a demand.
,. The act Of the 10Th Februai v, ls4i. by which the agents
Of the Surplus Revenue Fund. IL the several eourtes. were
continues 10 Office 81 long a. thei- .eivices might be need, q
was a new appointment and the oficilI bond. Of such
agents. given previous 10 such statutory appointment, 90 n
cover dcfalca'ions which took place under such appointment
his engagement; AMI his Undertaking 10 be strictly con-
stfued. Judgment rerersed.
Byykif 4. M,nohon Appeal from the Henry c. c. Opin-
ion by JUICE PL.cEFoRD When The plaintiff in an acti n
Of siinder proves the speaking Of the acton be words laid
in the deoissarion, the law i'm lies that the wo,ls are false
and that they were spoken ma'iciousiy, unless lhete Is eyi-
dence sufficient TO Sa,Isfy the jury TO the contrary
II in SANDER. for charging The plain TT with rcijnry, Tho
defend, mi Justify on The ground hat The words are True, iht
for Truth.
10 prove, in support OF such Justihcaiion, The flI'y o
thr p'ain'If , statement, two witnesses, or one witness ant
strong couoboiating circumstances, are necessary but 1
prove tie other allegations IN the plea, one witncss l
sufficient.
o. the tr;sl in such case. The jurywere Instructed, that If tn
defendant hai faileI 10 prove the plea 10 BE- Tue, The hlins o
the plea was a great agsravstion Of the SANDER, aud tie Jfl
should take hat Circumstance into c'n~Ideration ~ as~cs sin.
the damages. He'd (wIthout determining what would b
the effect Of the plea were there no evidence introduced d
it, suppor'.) that the instruction must, in his case, be Gro
neous, rs Il did not nece>SzIil. follow. q. tie instruction sup
posed. that he Justification, If not fully proved, should AZ
gIavate the damages.
Although the pt a Of jg s'ihcafion in such case BE- not CT
tifeiy proved. vet IL ihe evidence given under II show tia
the defendant had reason 10 believe. from the piiintil's con
duct, that the ch .ge was true, such evidence may te ecu
sidered by the jury in mitigation Of damages. JadsHqer
rrreys~d.