The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-03-29

]
severalty 10 those slaves as to render then
subject to an execution against her.
II follows from these views that tn,
Court erred in disSolving the Injunction
whereby the slaves were subject 10 be sold
under the execution.
In these views Of the case. the GROUND
Of equity set up in the cross bill that th,
debt Of the plaintiffs in execution wa,
contracted for goods and money supplied
to the widow for the use of the estate, i
not taken into consideration. That ques
ton viii probably arise If that ground o
relief in the cross bin is prosecuted in the
further progress of the case.
The decree dissol7ing she Injunction il
reversed, and the cause remanded for fur.
ther proceedings. and tlaooualslnina1lt ~.
quired 70 answer the cross bill within
sixty days.
HANDY.
mss rs: State .,.'' oar
This was an indictment for murder,
tried in the Circuit Court Of Lowndes.
upon which the plaintiff in error, a slave.
was convicted. A motion was made for
a new trial. upon the following grounds,
/ to-wit l. Because the verdict Of the
/ jury was contrary to the law and the
evidence. ?. Because the Court erred Ia
/ permitting certain witness to give his
/ opinion as to the instrument with which
/ the wound upon the body Of the deceased
was inflicted and 3. Because the jury
were exposed to improper influences by
| the misconduct of the officers placed in
| charge of them. Which motion being
/ overruled the prisoner excepted, aud
| prosecutes his writ of error.
The exceptions to the judgment are
based upon the same grounds relied on
in support of the motion for a new trial.
We shall reverse the order pursued by
counsel in assigning the cause for new
| trial
It is insisted that the judgment should
be reversed and a new trial granted be
cause the jury retired from the court
room, to a room at a hotel in the town
| Of Columbus through-the public streets.
81 night. to consider Of their verdict.
without the consent Of the court or the
counsel foT the defendant.
Afhdavits were read in support of the
motion. From the evidence thus fur
nished il is clear that the conduct OF the
bailitis, in charge of the jury, was unau-
thorized and Illegal and should have
been severely reprehended by the pre-
siding Judge. But il isSettled that Il j.
not every improper or illegal act of the
officer in charge of the jury, or Of the
jury themselves which will constitute
Just cause for setting aside the verdict
30 Miss. Rep. l30.
The question here TO be considered is
not whether the bsiliffs in charge of th-
Jury, in conducting the jury through IA
-treets of the town toR room at the ho
el, were guilty. simply of violation oi
duty but whether by such improper
conduct on their part, the jury were ex-
i'Osed TO influences, which might have
tffaa afsAA ba Of fssf q
hey were so exposed, according 10 the
tong and well-settled doctrines OF this
court unless it were also atfirmat vely
shown that such influences failei of
4tfect, their verdict would be suspected
and should therefore be set aside. Here
without noticing the evidence in detail.
~ is only necessary 70 say, that il appeal
with sufficient certainty, that the jury
were not subjected 10 improper influences.
or placed by the conduct of the officers,
an such a situation, as il was at all prob
able that such influences could be brought
to bear upon them.
This exception therefore Is unsuppor-
ted and untenable.
2. IL is next contended that the court
erred in permitting Charles Nelson. a
witness examined on behalf of the pros
ecution. 10 state his opinion 70 the jury
7 wn,,.q n wound fsSehI fSas n 81 bies 81 81
the deceased was inflicted.
This witness on his examination before
the jury having described the locality
where the deceased's body was found,
its position upon the ground, the condi
ZION of the clothes and other connected
circumstances, stated that "he was well
acquainted with the difference in appear
aimee between gun-shot wounds and
wounds made with a knife or sharp in
stument That his knowledge was de
rived from experience and observation.
That he had frequently seen gun-shot
Wounds and wounds made with knife
on the body Of men. That in gun shot
wounds the edges we're depressed IN
wounds made with a knife the edges
were usually smooth and the lips Of the
wound protruded. That he examined
the wound on the body Of the deceased.
He saw buto wound on the body OF
deceased, that was just below the breast
bone, in the pit of the stomach directly
in front. The wound appeared to be
about Il inches long and about l Of an
inch wide That he had seen as much as
a dozen gun shot wounds and about the
same number Of cuts with a sharp instru-
ment on the human body. Had seen
the wounds on two persons IN Mexico
who were said TO have been shot in five
or six places and had seen the wounds
'e-A@-
been cut with a knife in five or six pla-
ces, and had seen cnts made by medical
men in lancing swellings on the human
body. That all the knowledge he hal
in relation TO the character OF wounds
is derived from having seen these per
sons, and from experience and observa-
ton. That gun shot wounds are rough
and cuts smooth. The body Of the de-
ceased was in a state Of putrefaction and
l.. farsra -
body was in a state Of putreiaction before. "
Having testified As to these facts this
witness was asked by counsel for the pros
-cution to state 70 the jury whether the
wound he had described, on the body OF
the deceased had the appearance OF a
gun shot OF pistol shot wound. or, Of bay-
ing been made with knife or sharp IN
-trument. Which question was objected
%. but the objection was overruled and
the witness permitted 10 answer. The
witness stated in reply TO said question
that the wound below the breast bone
IF the deceased lthe wound he had de-
.cribedl was made with y knife"
A a witness is called for the purpose
nf deposing as 70 facts only, ~ a general
rule. he Is not permitted 70 express hi-
opinion upon particular question wbeth-
IT such Qus-stion arise upon fact stated
OF a combination Of facts admitted as
General rule there are some classes Of wit
nesses who may deliver their opinion.
For example ION questions OF science.
kill or trade or others Of the like kind
Uersons Of skill, sometimes called experts.
-fosV-Rot only testify 70 facts. but are per
mifted to 9iTe ffssiiC opinions IN evidence.
Thus the opinions Of ffg1fc@s--tfsfssssn ~
constantly admitted a. 70 the cause OF
disease or death. or the consequences Of
wounds &c. and also as TO other subjects
Of professional skill" Boscoe CT. ev. 100.
i67. | Greenleaf eg. sect. 40. Jones vs..
Finch 81 Miss. Rep. 40l.
There was not a particle Of evidence
before the court, except the statements
Of the with ss himself which tended 10
prove that he possessed the knowledge
OF skill requfite 70 enable any one %
form an intelligent opinion on the sub
ject about which he deposed. The wit
ness was not offered as a person skilled
in the science Of medicine OF surgery.
And he did not himself pretend 70 any
knowledge in either Of these branches Of
science. He states his entire knowledge
and experience in regard TO wounds
made, upon the human body, by gun shot
| and bv sharp edged instruments. From
! his own statements II i most manifest
that he was not embraced in any class Of
witnesses made exceptions 20 the general
rule above laid down.
The court therefore erred in permit
ting the question 10 be propounded 70
this witness and his answer 70 60 to the
Jury as evidence And the error here
committed may have bad an important
effect upon the verdict. For without
proof that the mortal wound was inflicted
by means OF 3 knife or some sharp edged
weapon as no knife or sharp edged Wea-
pOn was found near the corpse Of the de-
ceased. the jury may have doubted, IN
der all the circumstances proved, Wheth-
er the deceased fell by his own hand or
that Of an assassin. For this error the
judgment must be reversed.
3. The last exception which we shall
notice points 70 the error alleged TO have
been committed by the court in oyerrul-
ing the motion for q new trial The
ground assumed. and which was mainly
relied on Tor a reversal Of the Judgment
il that the verdict was not warranted by
the evidence in the cause.
When this cause was before us on a
former occasion, the only question pre-
sented By the record. was the same qaes-
ton which we are now considering. we