Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-29
CONDENSER DEOTSIOgS OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
BrOwnsviIIe, june Term, 1s6s.
BY II. CLAY KING. Esq.
o. 3l.-Unlon Bank VS.. Haskins.

No. 3l.-UnlOn Bank VS.. Haskins.
FACTs.-This was an action by the
Union Bank as indorser and holder of a
promissory note against Haskins as in
d0rser.
Special pIes of non est factunl, to the
effect that defendant indOrsed the note
for the accommodation of one Neely,
whose name was in the note as payer,
when defendant signed his name as
iBdorsOE, and that without his knOwl-
edge or consent the name OF Neely was
erased, and the name of one Crisp in
serted without his knowledge or eanc-
ton. The face of the note showed the
eTasion of the name Of Neely and the
insertion of that of Bills, the name of
Bills was in different ink from the body
of the note, and the name of Haskins.
There Yves no other proof in regard
thereto.
Held: 1. AS general rule, on a spec
ial plea of non est .fdctun1, the burden of
the proof is on the defendant to estab-
lish the truth of the facts, which coz
stitute the matter of the plea.
2. The alteration of the note by strik-
ing out the name of the payer and in
EeFtiDg another is material alteration,
aud if made after the Endorsement by
lAsS Nt- iNi-hat2t TIC AlDtE 10 O4uCut bO idl
IS HaskiBs is concerned, and the plain
tiff cannot recover on it although he
is q bona tde holder for value, and took
it in the due course of trade, and it
makes no difference whether Haskins
indorsed ii for accommodation or for
value.
3. 1t was proper for the jury to inspect
the note, and upon the evidence shown
upon the face of the paper to pass upon
the Issue raised by the plea. There
being no presumption of law either way
under the circumstances of this case. "A
Sneed, 55.)
No. 32--Wickha-n VS.. State.
Wickbam was indicted, and tried
in the Shelby Circuit Court for an
assault with intent TO commit murder.
He was acquitted of the crime charged,
but convicted of an aggrs waited assault
and battery by jury who assessed his
punishment in fine of $500 and impris-
onment in the county sil for twelve
months, upon which verdict the court
rendered judgment.
The indictment failed to show that the
ofiense was committed outside the 5tb,
18th and l4ih Civil Districts of Shelby
county, and the record failed to show
that the Ue70re JaciGs was returned into
court.
The record does not show any proof
that the ofense was committed in Shelby
county, outside 9th, 18th and l4th Civil
Districts, but there is no bill of excep-
tions taken in the cause showing what
the proof was on the trial.
Held: lst. It is better that the indict-
ment should show that the ofense was
committed within its Jurisdiction, but
that by code 5l25 that is not necessary
il the proof shows the offense was COM
mitted within the jurisdiction.
81. The defendant not having chosen
to set out the proof by bill of exceptions,
this Court will presume that the proof
was sufficient to Justify the verdict and
support the Indictment. Melton VS.. the
Stale, 3 Hume, SO.
I'd The defendant having been con-
yIcted only OF ofmisdemeanor(h how it would
be il he had been convicted of the felony
it is not necessary now to inquire), and
the defendant having failed to show that
there was no proof to support the juris-
dictiOn, he cannot be permitted to link
that supposed defect with the other de-
feet in the return of the VenOr6 fdcias to
b ing the case within the rule of Da-
wilson vs. State, 2 Cold, IS4.