Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-07-04
SUPREME COURT.
Condensed Decisions, Reported for
the Appeal by H. Clay King. Esq.

Bolg&Eer Us. Williams. From the
! Memphis Cb3ncery Court. Motion by
Boughner to supercede the injunction
granted by Chancellor Smith.
Argument OF counsel for BOaghner
heard to-day. Further hearing post
pOucd to Tuesday, the 9Th Of l;,ly, of
which the counsel fer Williams win
take notice
| 30. 81. N0hes vs.. State. troa the
Memphis Criminal Court.
NOkes was Indicted fJG q capital Of
feuse. When Irraigued he demanded
copy Of the Indictment, and objected
to be put on trIaI until such copy was
furnished aud had BY him two entire
days. The Court 0Yerruled his Objec-
don and put him forthwith upon his
trial, when he was convicted.
The ohense charged against 3ilo pris-
Oner was committed on the TIhof Sep
tembeT, l2G7. The Indictment was
found On the nth, and the trial was
: had on the ZIth Of rLe same month.
The prisoner was in actual cOnfine-
meHJ in sac CoUnty Jail. from his ar
! rest until he was put on trial, The
| 9Th section of the Bill Of Rights or
dains that in all criminal prosecutions
4" the accused hath a right TO demand
the nature and cause OF the accusation
against him, and TO have q COPY there
OIL" Section 5204. Code, enaCts that
every person indicted for g capital Of
fensp, If he is in actual confinement,
( Is entitled 70 a copy Of the Indictment
at least two entire days before trial.
The record diSclCses nothing of the
nature Of 2 waiver by the accused Of
the right 70 the copy, nor Say eOnduct
or neglect Of any klRd Which could
CperaIs t. exclude him from the de-
mard and enjOymeR1 of the right, Che
hiving no counsel until counsel was
assigned by the Court on the trial.
The Constitution and the Code give
the accused the right 70 have 3 copy
of the indictment Tor two entire days
before the tViai. This right never
| having been waived BY the prisoner,
was denied aim without sufficient
cause. Ihis was error, Tor which
new tTiaI VIII be granted,
No. 81. AIich3el MCGrath vs.. John
I League. From Memphis Law Court.
Tnis IS a proceeding by distress war
rant issued bv John League, Clerk OF
the County Court Of Shelby County,
| ing to procure a license for running
dray in the city OF Memphis. WrIts
of certiorari and superseded we've OBJ
| tanned to bring the cause into the Law
| Court Of MemDhis, where upon mo-
tfop. petition was dismissed and ap-
peal taken to this Court, The liabll-
Tty of the plaintiff in error for the tax
depends upon the construction to be
u, of Of TGr- Qr-I
the 5th section OF the act all hacks,
/ carriages, or vehicles running for hire
shall pay privilege tax of $40,
Each express wagon or cart including
wagons or carts engaged in transterr-
ing, other than those belonging to eX-
press or omnibus companies, shall
take out q license. annually from the
County Court Clerk, and shall pay a
tax for each express wagon of 50, each
express cart of $5, each transfer wag-
on, two horses, $40, each express
wagon, four horses, S1d. $50
1t viii be seen from the act that the
Legislature defined and classed the
vehicles they intended should be
taxed. Drays were as well known as
hacks or any other vehicle described
in the act, and if it had been intended
| that draws should be taxed they would
have been specified. We think it was
not intended by the Legislature that
tax should be levied upon them.
Therefore, the proceeding against the
plaintiff in error is without warrant
Of law. The Certiorari and superse-
IDEAS were properly sued out, and the
Court below erred in CismlisSing the
petition. The Judgment viii be re-
versed and the distress warrant
quashed. .- ,.
No. 40. Arlington VS.. f. y. Tyler.
From the Memphis Chancery Court.
Davis Biggs, the executor of James
Biggs, deceased, died after proceeding
so tar in the administration of the es-
| tate of his decedent as to sell the per-
soualty Of the estate and the lands OF
testator under power to that effect in
the viii, taking che notes for the pur-
chase money to become due on these
sales, PAYABLE to him as " executor OF
| James Bugs, deceased" K. \. Ty-
Ter qualified as administrator on the
estate of Davis Biggs, deed. and these
notes came to his hands among the
/ assets of the deceased. He employed
| counsel to collect the notes executed
to Davis Biggs as executor OF James
Biggs, who put the notes in suit. At
ter actiors were begun on these notes,
in the name of Tyler as administrator
of Biggs, Arlington qualified rs adj
ministrator dc bonus non Of James
Biggs' estate, and filed this bill 70 re-
cover of Tyler the said notes, claim
ing the saneas assets belonging to the
estate Of the. said Biggs.
Held: l. That the administrator de
bonus non Of James Biggs was entitled
to the possession Of all the notes exc
euted TO Davis Biggs, executor of Jas.
Biggs, decd, the saEae being assets be-
longing to the estate of Bisggs, unad-
ministered. ~
2. That until the appointment Of an
administrator, de bonus non, the per-