Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-09
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
s OFFICIAL. toI

t
necIsious of the SuPreme Court OF the
state Of Tennessee, at KnoxvtileS sep
teIneer Terms 1850. - ---rrfF -z-
- @ Queener Va. Morrow.
This WAS in form an action Of tebt brought by
Morrow against Qaeener, for money aad snd re-
osiyed 10 The use Of the plaintiff. Judgment for
the plaintiff The cause Of the action is THE: n
In Jsnusry, 1S53 perhaps, trunk containing
.bout twenty-five hundred dollars, in bank notes,
Was feloniously taken from the dwelling house ef
the plaintiff, by some perssn or persons unknown.
It is assumed for the plaintiff, that the defendant
proeured two slaves to commit the felony, or that
be sotaay received the contents Of the trunk from
their knowing the same have been stolen. The
questions aFiaing in the case are mainly questions
Of evidence. ..-
by the defendant and st the time Of the felony was
in the plaintiffs service; the other slave namsd
Dan. belonged to William Cary
The defendant was Afterwards subjected ts .
search at the house Of William Cary Several per-
sons were present, amsng others the slave Dan.
DrrnO tne search the slave Dan said that Qaeener
ssrot him and Gosh to steal the trunk. This was
denied bv Qdeener. Dan also stated that Queener
talked to him in the feid. This WAS also denied.
Dan said Ito Qaeener,) ayeu know you esne to nee
Ia the 6eld and hitchei your horse ia peach tree,
and be broke loose twice, and was tramping the
vraund and told-ycu master would be mad."' TO
tk;s oueeuer replied that he vas In the Geld, but
vas net salkipz about Morrow's money. All the
foregoing statenenis Of the slave we're objected to
and 40 far As they we're denied by Queensr wsrs OK
.nasd Int the isolated admission Of the defendant
that he was in the feld. was allowed to 60 70 the
jury. ,
ANT Was improperly received. on the ground that,
taken BY itself, and disunited from the statement
Of which it formed part, 1t proved nothing, and
1se ks-a - L. a.
meet in which it is presented 10 not altogether free
from dificulty The question whether il was sd-
ujssibls at all must net be confounded with the
different question whether it was admitted under
proper restrictions
The general rule is that the relevancy Of evil
denee Is a question for the Court This rGle ex-
oludes evidence of collateral facts, which are inca
cabls Of sffordipg any reasonable presumption or
nference az to the pri lcps fact matter in dis
pute The objection is that IL tends TO mislsad the
ury from the true point ia issue and to excite pre-
iudice l Greenlesf Ev., sec. 81.
But it is not required that the evidence should
bear directly upon the issue II is admissible If il
tends 10 prove the issue, constitutes link in the
| chain of proof Ibid, sec. 81. The rule is often
one Of difcult application; particular fact seem
iney irrelevant, may have such relations to or be
40 connected with other faets less directly
as when taken together to fusnish some just groand
of presumption inference in respect to the main
4 fact in issue. Ihe sPpHceSiou u SnS Eulo Muss
therefore be defined on the circumstances Of each
\ particuls- case -, ..-ss.a.I snsssM 4,
Upon the hypothesis that The defendant prOoured
the tvo slaves to steal the money, afterwards re-
csived il from them, knowing It to be stelen, the
| fact thst he was In COMPANY or had an interview
with Dan under the circumstances stated, canset
be said to be irrelevant to the issue. "a. sfs,s
Nmsy be possible, as suggested, that by mis-
apprehension Of he Instructions the part OF the
iury or wilful aisregard Of It, the defendant may
have been as much prejudieed BY the reception Of
| his bare admission that be was IN the feld with
Dan, as be could have been BY admitting the whole
statement Of the slave. -. - -. - .as,.sst
and one part Of it being confessed By the defend
ant to be true they may have treated this admission
| A eonisraatory ofihs entire statemsnt This how
ever, IL mere eopjeeturs, In The praesieal admin
isration Of iusiies viii net do TO assume that tbs
/ Jury either nisspprehsnded or disregsrded the in
| st,uction ofths court, Unless the verdict demon
strated hs fact to be 90 BY being rtrngnant there
"a: ueith or ear be assumed that ths jury were in
/ aneuoed By inony which was excluded or With
iraup from their consideration, unless such cen
| ciusion Be forced upon the mind By the fact tAa
\ there vas no legal evidence before them upol
which their verdict could possibly have been based
The case should hass been considered bT the jurl
A IL the rejected svdenes had net been heard AMI
ills certainly to be regretted that il was heard be
ing pslpsby illegal. inssmuch as it wss not in th
power Of lhs court by ts rejection to sfacs the i'm
preston il vas likely to make upon minds uasccus
iomsd TO the judicial process Of nicely analyzin
| and weighing evidence. ~ rr
Nor Is il reasonably to be expected that jurors
however honest and we'll meaning, will always b
able 10 ignore an Impression 30 likely to sink dee
into their minds, and, uneonsoiously perhaps, in
auesce their action But still this is one of th
practical evils Of our system Of trial by Jury, q
which, in most cases. there ie no remedy. "a
The Jury might have been cautioned more part
cularly perhaps against the influence of the rejecte
testimony, but this was not asked for aa
Second-The next errors assigned relates to th
admssibility of the declaration of the wife of d.
fendant for the purpose of fixing Liability upon biz
| In this action. ~ nt go as
The witness, Mrs. Hart, states in substance tha
she was passing the residence of defendant, and n
wife asked her to stop--Mrs. Queener was weepin
and said her husband had been abusing her, TO max
| her give up that money-she had roll in her han
as large as her wrist and said 1t was Ao'ro"
! money. rla -.
The defendant was at the other door, and sal
isxvhatfg Ahatfit ttat-s