Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-07-29

Opinions of the Supreme COurt of the Stat
OF Tennessee delivered at jackson a
April Term, 1858.

Opinions of the Supreme COurt of the state
Of Tennessee, delivered at Jackson at
.s La gsyeite somers rs The State.
The presenl charges, that 'there was an eIeo
ton lending in our said State Of Tennessee, for
President aud Vice President Of the Uaited States
Of America, and that La Fsyette Somers" So s.did
bet, gamble, and Wagered a watch, money and note
Of the value Of $500 upon said election, with one
James q. Simmons, which said election has since
been held in our said State Of Tennessee" sc The
transaction proved by Simmons, is, that, be 'sold
defendant q watch worth S75, for which defend ant
executed his note 10 him for Sl60.-thst the watch
was delivered to the defendant at the time and if
BuchananiR the eusnug Presidential election should
receive a greater maiOrily over Fillmore in the
county of Henry, than johnson had obtained over
Gentry, in the last election for Governor in said
county, witness was 90 give up thenole, aud dsfen.
dant was 90 keep the watch" but in the contrary
event, witness vas 90 keep the note Afler the elec
tion witness having lost the bet gave up the note
defendant who kept the watch. This evidence the
Court charged, sustained thoindioi ment if believed
by thejgFY, sUd defendant was convicted.
l. This oontTissnce 10 ev de the law, BY sale Of
property fJr more than its value 70 be psid for or
not upOnthe contingency the result of an election,
has been long ago held, to be uRaVailiDg. IS de-
fence 3 Hump. Sol.
The charge that The bet was upon the Presi.
deniial candidates instead Of the Electors is good
have held, At the present term, in the case Of
Porter vs. The Slate.
3. The main ground relied upon for reversal, is,
that the proved, is variant from that charged
and does notsustain the presentment. The Court
reques ed to 50 charge the jury but refused, and
instructed hem to the contrary. We lhiUk there is
error in this. The presentment svers that there
was election for President pending in Tennessse,
and upon that election. the bet was made. 1t does
not STATE, that the wager upon the result in the
Union, or this State, any particular county. The
particular eharae er, and terms of the bet is not
out bat that is left for the proof The case made
out is covered By the charge in the presentmen and
IN no way coniradicts, OF falls short Of It, A case
of unlawful betting. on en- election, is legally set
out in the presea men and the case proved sutains
il. If the charge had been bet upon the result,
in the State, or any other county, than Henry, or
even upon ths majority in Henry the proof would
not have sustained il, aud there would have been
fatal variance But variance between the ch trgs
and proof exists, in this case. IS we have before
seen The charge is general, and the proof parti
eular but there IS no material conflict variance
We are not inclined TO yield these kinds OF ohee
TONS for the escape OF offenders uLless eoereed by
some settled principle which d. nOtfeeI at liberty
10 change.
Affirm the Judgment CARUTHRRs.
Test: 81. D. WELCH, CLERK.