Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-23
LEGAL.
decisions of the Supreme Court of
Tennessee, at Nashville, December
Term, 1857.

decisions of the Supreme Court of
Term, 1887.
Reported for the Union and Dispatch, by S. J.
Henderson, Attorney at Law.
The jurisdiction of Justice of the Peace ex-
tends to two hundred and fifty dollars upon
accounts. judges shall not charge juries
with respect to matters of fact but may state
the testimony and declare the law" Facts
to be deduced from the evidence must be left
exclusively to the jury"
Ayres os Moulton & Reid.
This is a suit commenced by warrant
before Justice of the Peace for the county
of Robertson, on the 9TH of March, 1866,
by Moulton & Reid as Ayres, in which the
defendant was summoned to answer the
plaintiffs I" for money had and received for
their use and benefit, to-wit two hundred
and twenty-five dollars and ninety cents,
with interest thereon"
The Justice rendered judgment against
the defendant for 1922 80 and costs, from
which he appealed to the Circuit Court,
where the cause was submitted to a jury,
who rendered verdict affirming the judg-
ment of the Justice of the Peace. Upon
this verdict a judgment was pronounced
against the defendant. Motions in arrest
and for new trial were made and over
ruled, and the defendant has appealed in
error to this court.
1t is now insisted the Justice had no
jurisdiction on the amount. We do not
think this proposition can be maintained.
The record shows the suit was founded upon
an account, which was without objection
read to the jury. By the Code, section
4123, subsection l, the jurisdiction of
Justices of Peace extends to five hundred
dollars upon all notes of hand, indiscrimi-
nately and upon endorsements of negoti-
able paper where demand and notice are
expressly waived in the Endorsement and
by sub section 2, it extends "to all I'M
settled accounts, obligations, contracts, or
other evidences of debt, not embraced in
the preceding section, where the amount
claimed does not exceed two hundred and
fifty dollars" We think there is nothing
in this objection.
1t is also insisted, and as we think cor
rectly, that the charge of his Honor the
Circuit Judge is erroneous. He said to the
| Jury: "From the facts as proven in this
case, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover of
the defendant the sum sued for" Thus
assuming to answer both the questions of
law and the questions of fact. This was a
clear invasion of the province of the jury,
and violation of section of article 6 of
the constitution of the State, which pro-
vides az follows, viz:
Judges shall not charge juries with
respect to matters of fact, but many state
the testimony and declare the law" while
it is thus competent for him to state the
evidence. The facts to be deduced from
the evidence, must be left exclusively to
the jury.
In the case of Kirkland u.s. Montgomery,
1st Swan 452, the Circuit Judge in his in
structions to the Jury said: The facts
proven in this case are not sufficient to
entitle the plaintiff to a recovery against
| the defendant"
This it was held was error.
Other questions have been presented in
argument but we do not deem it necessary
now to express any opinion touching them,
inasmuch as the Judgment must be re-
versed for error in the charge of the court.
Judgment reversed, and the cause re.
manded.
HAWKINS, Judge