Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-02-03
[COneluded tO-mOrTOl0.l
supreme Court OF Ohio

TUESDAY, Feb l, 1859.
No r. James Richardson, " Henry NJ Bates
ct al. In error to the Court of Common Pleas
of Hamilton county. Reserved in the District
Court
SUTL1FF, J.
In an action upon an indenture, leasing land
fof fiye years, to recover of lessees upon their
covenants to pay rent. Held:
L. That the answer setting up that the inden-
ture was not attested or acknowledged by the
lessor, and therefore did not convey the term,
and that lessees were not indebted for any rent
under the indenture, stated facts sufficient to
constitute an equitable and therefore perfect
defense under the code.
2 That the defect in the lease in not being
attested and acknowledged is not cured or af-
fected by section of the statute of Frauds and
PeIjuries. Judgment affirmed.
No. 76 Miranda Maxwell v. John Campbell
ct al. Error to the Common Pleas of Morgan
county. Reserved in the District Court of that
County.
BRINKERHooF, J., delivered the opinion of the
Court. Held
L. In an action on promissory note given by
party in custody before Justice of the Peace
charge of being the father of bastard
child to the mother of such child, for a compro-
mise of such prosecution and for the support of
the child, the facts that the agreement Of COM
promise was not acknowledged before the Jus.
tice, that no memorandum OF the same was en-
tered on his docket, and that no bond was CIV
en- conditioned that the child should not become
township charge, constitute no defense to the
action.
2. Nor does an answer in such action, aver
ring that the child "liyed but few days after
birth, and that no expenses were incurred in
the support ofsuch child, state facts sufficient
to constitute defepce to the action.
No. ~. HOimon er al vs.. a. v. rIUuIo
Bill of review reserved by the District Court Of
Hamilton county.
J.R. Swan j. delivered the opinion of the
Court. |
1. When material words in a will were
erased and foot note of the erssure made be-
| fore the will was executed, and the words so
erased were restored to the testator's direction
before he executed the will, the will must be
deemed valid, although the foot note was erased
by some unknown hand after the execution and
attestation of the will
2 Afidavits of Jurors, stating that they mis-
understood the charge of the Court will not be
received on motion to set aside the verdict
8. Exceptions may be taken to the ruling
and charge of the Court upon the trial of an is
sue contesting the validity of a will
A. On bill of review in such case, the Court
can only examine such matters as appear upon
the record; the testimony before the jury in re-
gard to the validity of the will being oral and
forming no part ofthe files or record, cannot be
reviewed.
5. The order of g court of probate which re-
cites that the will was presented TO the court fol
probate, that the subscribing witnesses were
sworn and examined in open court, and then
testimony was reduced to writing and filed by
order of the court; and that, therefore, the
court ordered the will to be filed and admitted
to record, is sufficient evidence that the Will
was proved in accordance with law, and order
ed to be recorded