Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-02-21

THURSDAY, Feb. II, 1859.
No. 81. John Hollister and John W. Smith
VS.. John P. Reznor. In error to the District
Court of Lucas county.
PECK, J., delivered the opinion of majority
of the Court. Held
l. In an action by the holder of bill of ex-
change against the other parties thereon, it is
competent to prove declarations made by prior
holder before the transfer and after the dishonor
of the bill, showing that the parties were dis
charged from liability.
2 But the substance of the declarations, or
sufficient of them to show their tendency and
effect, should appear in the bill of exceptions
taken to the ruling of the Court below, exelu
ding proof Of such declarations, so that the
reviewing Court may be advised that the party
may have been prejudiced by such ruling
And, therefore, where witness is produced on
the part of the defense in such ectiou, to prove
certain conversations touching the liability of
tie parties to the bill, and the Court sustain an
objection 10 the competency of the proof offered,
but not to the competency Of the lciness, and the
bill Of exceptions does not disclose what the
conversations were, which were offered to Ee
proved, nor their tendency and effect, the re.
viewing Court will not reverse,
SUTLIPF, j., dissenting. Held
=
/. Where the record shows the Court erred,
in refusing to suffer the defendant, in support
Of the issue on his part, TO prove conversations
of the holder OF the paper on which suit is
brought, in relation to the issue, it is to be
presumed the defendant was prejudiced by such
exclusion of his evidence; and
2 The fact that the party Hight have been
Injured by the refusal of the Court to suffer HIM
to introduce competent evidence, is good cause
for reversing the judgment against the defend.
ant.
g. The rule applicable TO .eritea evidence
and parol proof vFongfully admitted, requiring
that the same should appear to have been ma
terial, does not apply to the wrongful exclusion
of competent lcitnsss in determining whether
the party may have been prejudiced by such
error, such exclusion of the witness prevent
ing knowledge of the materiality of his testi-
mony.
No. IS. John K. Booth ct al. VS.. B. Shep-
herd, Administrator Of James G. Hubbard =
Error to the District Court Of Belmont county
ScoTT, j., delivered the opinion Of the Court
Held:
/. That the territorial limits of the State of
Ohio extend on the South east. at least, to the
line OF ordinary iow-water mark, on the North
west side of the Ohio river y l1-l = =
2. A reviewing Court is not bound to notice
errors which are not specially assigned and
will rot do SO, where substantial justice does
not require it to be done
No. rs. John s. Shepherd vs. Commission
ers of Darke county. Reserved by the District
Court Of Darke county.
J. Z. Swan, G. j. Held:
Where claim against county is created by
statute, and to be paid by the county upon the
allowance of the county commissioners, if the
eliim is in part allowed by the county commits
sioners, the remedy Of the complainant, if not
satisfied with the discrimination by the COM
missioners, is to appeal to the Court Of Com
mon Pleas, and in such case he cannot sue st
common law