Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-01

Opinions of the suPrems gourt Of ths state
% Eennessees delivered az Knoxville, nj
september Term. 1855.


There is gSopu 4 sasNa ar i.scn2Tang tte
pstniorer from his pafehase. Ths acre elsriesl
error IN the number o. ID sc,i IS CT 70 nlojr1a
Thslot actually sold and psrchassd by the pe;i. i'm
ct xas she saue lot Intended 10 be sold Fbe Eur-
chaser gos be pfsperiy he iateaGsd u purchase
The error in the number Of the loi mislsd 70 one.
: Il might well have bern located IS sarpiusage. as
the description of the lot vas Sufficiently certain
without il Ihoaghin eogrsssng the error in this
respecs by subsequent erdeF The CnsBcelOr acted
/ properly. Dssree affirmed NchISsET
mus copy. Aussr ". NELsOs. Clerk.
William Mesher The Mayor and Acsn 81 Chattanooga
TIE Rec rJer Of The city o. Chat snoe q issued
wsrrant in debs against Msshcr fer fay dollars,
whieb, as atsd IN the variant he owes ia cOnse-
quenee Of fosfeitars penalty incaFred for mis-
demeauos for keeping disordsrly house in the city
OF Chattanooga. contrary 10 the provisions Of che
10 h seesi9H # an Act passed By ibe Mayer and
Aldermen, ia, u4ry 1th, 1857 Toe l0th section
referred TO- creates the misdemeanor, snd the 18th
sec ion Of the same 0rdin1aes pres ri6es the pen
atty thu g Wh1ever shall be convicted Of INSIDE
meanor under any OF the provisions Of this Ordi-
NANCE shall forfeit aud pay 70 this city SUN Of not
less than three nor more than Fifty dollars Judg~
mint vas given BY the Recorder against the defead
aut for $50, aud the case Has taken to TIE Circuit
Court by esrisrlri where the same was dismissed
ard is brought here By viii o. error Upon the
facts stated the petition The following questions
are made and argued;
lBllt IS c1ute lueu maj Inc oGlon l0rlelt-
ure would not be until cOnEisiiOn was first had
for the misdemeaner. We think two proceedings
Unnecessary. To sustain the action for the penalty
it would be indispensable to prove the offence stated
10 the warrant There was 10 penalty 10 be ree0V
cred If the misdemesnor did not exist. As part
Of the case, The very foundation Of it the offence
would have 10 be made ont before The Recorder.
HOE could here be separate prOceedings There
was no power to indici, the city can only operateby
Enes, iorfsuTes and penalties, and these 10 be re-
covered By warrant If the fac forfeiture, or pen
sliyfOr the is not material; is liked BY the
ordnance for sDy particular thing that msy be re-
covered by warrant and the only proof required Is,
that the offence act to which such De or forfeit
ure is attached, has been committed. Debt is The
proper action e penalties pres ribed for eertsin
offences by acts and ordinances. This is the well
settled law ana has been recognized a. the present
Item Tae second ground relied upon to reverse is,
that the warrant, was issued without any complaint
oath made before him required by the LIST sec.
Of the ordinance Of 1852. When such complaint is
made the ordinance requires that he "a shall issue
q warrant for the arrest Of the offender, but he Is
not precluded from issuing ii without such oath,
upon his own knowledge If he were sued fer ma
lcious prosecution this mi ht be matter Of con-
sideraOn, but it is presumed it does not yiae the
proceeding.
These two objections were taken By pleas in sba,e
ment before tue Recorder, and in the petition for
certiorari which was dismissed BY the Circuit Court
Inc eASHSo " ASSt'H5 N~1OtNS-iJ 'i~NN~ ~
denied in the petition, and so no merits are shown
TIE petition was properly dismissed and judgment
will &c affirmed CARUrHERs.
A true copy. Attest, C. W. NELSON, Clerk.
East Tennessee eorgiaR R. Co. rs sullens Dodson Es
The statute Of Limitations can have no application
to this case The aUd cannot be considered as taken
under the circumstances Of this case, until the year
1850. II The construction Of the road ha not been
resumed by the present company under the am nd
ed charter in 1851, claim for damages could
have been msintaihsd in opinion, on the ground
that the land had been actually taken by the com
pany though perhaps dams ges for The espass to he
lands might have been supported
The value eli the land at the time it Was taken,
thst is in 1851, the proper criterion as 10 The
amount Of damages.
Deere, affirmed MCKfsSEY
A true copy. Attest, C. W. NELSON, Clerk.