Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-03

that she was not liable ar cos case the prosecution we're
frivolous or mAcors prosiasd BY act I6I, en- l. sec 76
rious prosecution II il Insisted fat ne ne reasons
minor or render ma g Psosseass Bot his
tsris Beas'ey w. The STATE Fsg 81, aaikortss ss
II then he excluded from the night 70 & d, net
upon the rason applicable C a married women. ana
tars aresntelhy the dsudsul an the - -
icy, entitled much weight They have reference boss fa
his oNn safety sad the danger ehers ami he public by ne
N The other hand, contenasa with rss iorcs l he G6r1
afforded by The criminal laws for the security his TEhts
both 81 person and property Why shoad be not Be allowed
cali into action the power Of the STATE to sTea his wrongs.
protect his rights rs well as Others being repess
As to % danger to iussef e others, or to tho STATE. A.,
would be avoided ssne ey the Supervision Of The Attorney
NSs being deprived q tAs eOOn ri.hs 70 prosecute ossna
es BY any statute Or eSa o. Ploe po We Dc not fes
authorised or inciind TO add this . & long A o. Che scognis
The Judgment viii s reversed he demurrer ne plea
tainel and the rsnsndee far trial. CARUTazs.
correct cory, J, p oIAaS, cisrk s8. 8. i-s tsls1
tsai IA ialairg Scott ". The state 80 4ssal q.
At February tesms ls5, Of the ccut Court Cannon.
the pant 10 error Others entered reeznzsnee
'n the oar thousand dollsrs 0isty s sereaf . to
Ing jane terri d s.a court g answer criminal chsrss Of
which indicted N sid cearE The defendant td
were entered 10 ssreyy ssanst him ba that &
separate judgement far he penalty q -four thsussnd doar
Of the three persons boandfor B Appearances Con-
seQueRtg, instead OF suent for the penalty o. 81
be levied Of their respective goods chaeis lands and sns1ens
four distinct Judgments each for enrs peaaly the recag
nzanee have ben obaineis and for tie full satisfaction Of
which, made separately abie. Separate Wrs Of
scir issued, which the bail eTeFy demurre on
argument the demurrers overule pies tel re
put and against the deenants aud
anal judgment rendered. from which appeal pro-
secuted to this COurt. l.f a sl-ff
The question the regularity OF the proceedings
oeny the emurers and in rendering there
We think the Court erred. - - .a-. .
It eear think admit Of doubt that the State
which judgment ought pursued the the term Of the
enans undertaking. recovery shoad
sgnst them Jointly and severy to le levied Of their respe
tive goods, &c, .tI- Il
But said upon Joint and several judgmeut for The
penalty each liable. indvhiully % the satisfaction
thereof and this being the Of rendering sss iudg
men II Be At all, IS o. oT rather tal SAB
~. ~
The derer the question to The 0 the Court
to render than one judgment for the penalty and this
be treated Of or- Nor Wona the suges
thai satisfaction 0f Of the Judgments oaid
preclude the State from enforcing asaeOR Of Of the Ot
obviate ne Osco though upon this question: as Il b net
preented IS the seorl express noopDiOn- Neither vii
for the reason, consi question 20 The right nf
bution betseeR the ball should be subjected - sat
aetion ofthe entire penalty greater amount than his eqaA
proportion. -..a.a
We decision upon ground Of want Of authority IN
the Court orender several judgments the reconaEcs in
his ysv Of the case the Judgment must be reversed and
the demurrer sustained McktSNET-
correct copy, J. P. CLARK, Clerk.