Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-28
CONDENSED DECISIONS OF TIE
SUPREME COURT.
Brownsville, June Term, Is6s.


No. 3l.-Union Bank vs.. Haskins.
FACTs.-This was an action by the
Union Bank as iDdorser aud holder Of a
prOmissory note against Haskins IS in
dorser.
Special plea of non est fdctllBg, to the
effect that defendant Endorsed the note
for the accommodation Of one Nicely,
whose name was in the note as payer,
when defendant signed his name as
indoTsor, and that without his knOwl-
edge or consent the name of Nicely was
erased, and the name Of one Crisp in
serted without his knowledge or sane
ton. The face OF the note showed the
erasion Of the name of Nicely 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 was no other proof in regard
thereto.
Held: /. As general rule, on a spec
isl plea of non est fdctun9, the burden of
the proof is on the defendant to estab-
fish the truth Of the facts, which con-
stitu'e the matter Of the plea.
2. The alteration OF the note by strik-
ing out the name Of the payer and in
sertiDg another is q material alteration,
aud if made after the Endorsement by
the defendant the note is avoided, so far
as Haskips is concerned, and the plain
tiff cannot recover on it although be
is bona fde holder for value, and took
it in the due course of trade, and il
makes no difference whether Haskins
Endorsed it for accommodation or fol-
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. 95-wickham VS.. state.
Wiekhsm was indicted, and tried
10 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 q jury who assessed his
punishment in fine of $500 and impris-
onment 10 the county Jail for twelve
months, upon which verdict the court
rendered judgment.
The indictment failed to show that the
0ffense was committed outside the STD,
18th and l4.h Civil Districts of Shelby
county, aud the record failed to show
that the Ue1sore fGcias was returned into
court.
The record does not show sny proof
that the ofense was committed 10 Shelby
county, outside 9th, 18th and l4th Civil
Districts, but there is no bill of excep-
lions 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 offense 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.
q. 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
State, Hume, 50.
3D. The defendant having been con-
victed only Of INSTRUMENTATION it would
be if he had been convicted OF the felony
it is not neeessagg H4Y e ipquirel, and
the defendant having failed tosshOW that
there was no proof 90 support the juris-
diction, he cannot lie permitted to Inns
that supposed defect with the other de.
feet IN the return Of the venore fdcids to
bling tine case within the rule of Da'
wilson vs. State, 2 Cold, 1874.