The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-10-04

Z ~ tststtt ttttttt tttH ffRutffIt OW n
sieph deprived fllareofs by fhe
caAes IL IL tho peculiar province ~
q mud such damages nccorsling 10
xictions ~ their own understafldino.
consistent with right not az A mn
law, under tho control and direction
court, hut as rule of remedial iuHtics
ing IN their discretion.
these arc the general PRINCIPLES reof
mk manages ~ the action Of traspa,us. IN
netinne and replevin. Bnt there are
distinctions Ia the form of the yerIict
Judgment which il ia material Ia ohser,,
10 trespass aud trover which lie for tie
cotafy Of damages alone, for Injuries 10 n
sonal property, and not for the specific ,
coNefS q the property itself, the rules abol
s. t.t are Of Obvious application. But
uetlnue and replevin where che recovery
We speeihc property a. well as damages I.
the caption or detention IL both nv. s,,,.i'
wlAio these principles are stilI annlicai,l
the form Of the verdict and imdrnent 1,
materially different. The verdict IN aet
pilue u Tor the laintiif Is for each apeclf
article on parcel, withsits separate ynina 4
tne time OF the illegal taking or detrntia
Win manages also, for the uninfeufionoI I,
jury, or the wilfil aud malicious vro,,g =.
oording to the principles above
the Judgment Is for the spcoA
20 De had, and ,sf.lot. fll
value, and also for =
the Jury and costs y,
pievin, our statute Regulated
Judgment To compel the ~
property or its alternative
the payment of such tanayi
MI taking or detention. ~
|, by the jury upon I
IN the case before us. the orr
mat the court permitted the !,
y prove the value of the prom!
y taxing We have seen that
y irand, malice or oppreasior
ne trne rules and the dsiendnlI
l"t complain that the more stri,
manages enhanced By the exist
faNatinE circumstances WINS nj
~ ease. Tho instruction M 81
iost favorable 10 him that the r,
,ouid perinit-and not being nre
iml ne cnnilot complain.
Ihe VI, 4th, 9Th and 9TH assign
~ 70 the exclusion of the testinlo1
ihttfeld aud of witssesa Sfevans
fsain deeds offered In evidence
npny was MI irrelevant and prof
The 9th assignment relates 10 the
~ OF the tax-collaetors and aars
oks offered 10 show that plaintiffs
= ma never given IN the property In
''''sy ~ ms property, % tha-Axss6ssor
~, , turing the period IL was alleged III
MS possession, and owned by him III.
us,l'e was clearly competent and Ahoul,lN
70 leen admitted
We 9Th assignment Is that the Court
~, w giving the instruction asked by
nun To the effect that delivery OF per-
~ property by 0 parent to a child, oil or
y marriage: VIII he regarded as gin,
anconeht' IN the absence Of any qualiii.
w think there was no error In GIVING
instruction TO the jury. Its application
ended altogether on the view Of the tea-
ony which they might adopt. If thew
eVcd ironl the evidence that PLAINTIFF
state did not derive his Possession Oftfe
pefty 10 dispute from his father. Hatch
ltheid, on or after the time Of his mar.
g. then y could have no application.
PC otll Instruction asked by the defen-
below, as 20 the construction of the
creditor IN the statute Of frauds
properly refused.
70 10Th assignment relates to the inIa.
rendered, which Is NJ iollows--affef re-
lhe verdict, finding the seperate
~ 81 the property /" II II therefore con.
~"1At Autb tHG HtNlNtlf re-
Of the defendant the property above
lernted, with hire for the same a. stated.
be had, IL not 10 be had, the sum by the
assessed N the aggregate, the sum OF
nine hundred and twenty-five dollars
the costs, etc.
y Judgment was erroneous. IL should
followed the verdict, requiring the de-
of each specific article, or its alter.
Q value, 80 that upon delivery Of any
Z more Of the articles, the defendant
l,e thereby discharged from the nav.
81 the ynlne ofthe articles 50 delivered.
this Judgment the defendant 4 rs
70 deliver the whole property, or nav
hole sum In the aggregate"
18th assignment is that the court mar.
witness Miller 10 testify 10 the declar-
OF the interstate In his lifetime. show.
title to the property In dispute.
was error. His declarations Ia dis
ment Of his title would have been
able for defendant. but declarations
own favor, TO establish title IN him
2 not admissible for plalntiff below.
these errors, the Judgment will Do re-
cause remanded and revise De moro