The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-12-13

tor for they both give the substantive right
OF bills Of exception under the eiTcum-
stances stated, and a case may be brought
/ 10 THIS court 10y either or both OF the mode
OF proceeding authorized But each mns
stand on its own merits. and must be CON
sidered with reference to the special grounds
and reasons on which they may be taken, as
stated IN the bill of exceptions.
he statute. art l66, requires that a party
msking motion for a new trial. shall
reduce 70 prifiRg the reasOHs offered for said
Heu trial The reason of this Is that the
grounds on which the proceeding IS founded.
may be distinctly presented both 10 the court
below aud for the consideration this court.
mat u ~ constitute the case on which the
party asks relief, and he must set forth the
reasons ON which he asks it. and of course
must be confined 10 those reasons when his
case comes TO be heard And it is plaip.
that he cannot be permitted. on the hearing
Of that motion in the court below. aud much
less IN this court to rely on other errors APP
parent IN the canse than those which he has
set forth rs the ground of his motion. For
that would be 10 present different case for
relief from that ON which he had asked the
aid of the count.
In this case, the plaintiff, not having set
forth tho granting of the instructions now
complained Of, rs reasons for his motion for
new trial, cannot, on this writ of error,
taken upon the overriding of his motion,
object that those Instructions were enron
eousy given, ~. ---
The laGterror assigned is that the court
overIdted the motion for a new trial.
The first ground taken in support of this
assignment is, that the verdict was contrary
to the evidence.
The question presented to the Jury was
one Of fraudulent intent on the part of the
defendant. From the nature of the question
1t Is one peculiarly appropriate to be deter
mined by the jury, and it would not be
proper to disturb their verdict unless il
clearly appeared that il was against the evil
dence. Without particular statement of
the evidence, we deem it sufficient to say,
that We do not consider the verdict so clear
ly contrary to the evidence as to Justify MS
IN setting 1t aside and granting new trial.
The second ground under this assignment
Is, that the juIy found damages of $50 against
the plaintiff for wrongfully sueing ont the
attachment. The statute expressly allows
the finding ofdamages on such issues. if the
Jury hnd that the attachment was wrong
fully sued ont. Rev. Code, 81, Art. Ia. it
is not pretended that the damages were ex-
cessiye.
But it is insisted that there was, at least
probable cause for sueiug out the attach
meht ana therefore that the jury were not
warranted in finding that the process was
wrongtully sued ont.
The simple question was whether, under
the evidence the plaintiff was justifable in
sneing out the writ and if the jury were
OF the opinion that he was not then the
conclusion must be that it was sued ont
wrongfully. The question was, whether the
process was lighttully or wrongfully sued
out; and that has been settled by the YER
dict, unless it appear that the verdict is
contrary to the evidence and should lie set
aside.
Let the judgment be affirmed