Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-03
LAW REPORTS.

Condensed Decisions Of the Supreme
Court, Reported by "A. cray King, 50.
BRQYNsvILLE, May /, 1869.
No. 2. Holt vs.. PsttigreW. Where A
& B. have been sued and Judgment re-
covered against them as alleged partners
of Z. & D., in q subsequent suit against
G. and D on the same alleged partner
ship contract, A. and B. are competent
witnesses for the plaintiff to prove the
partnership of A. b. G. IL D., ss well as
to prove the correctness OF the demand.
No. 3. Sanders VS.. Bolinger. Ga the
trial by jury Of this case in the Circuit
Court, where there was q cor Fl ct OF testi-
mouy OF the witnesses for the plaintiff
snd the defendant, the Circuit Judge
charged the jury that they should look
to the situation OF the witnesses 10 de-
termine their credibility." Held, that
although the charge is not as full and
explicit as il ought to be in such cases,
is not calculated to mislead, and is not
of itself ground for reversal, in the ab-
sence of refusal to instruct more fully
No. 4. Hooks VS.. Alexander. Al
though on a reference to the Clerk and
Master to take an account, he must re-
port facts and not a judicial opinion
based on the facts, yet if the report is
otherwise correct, as for instance, where
be reports nothing due to the complain
ant, and this is shown by the proof and
pleadings in the cause, the bill will be
dimissed without second reference, the
merits being reached.
2. If an answer, which is under oath
and responsive to the direct charges of
the bill, is contradictory ia its statements
and unsatisfactory, it is not by reason
thereof evidence for the defendant, and
does not fall within the rule requiring
two witnesses, or one witness and cor
robOratipg proof to overturn it.
No. 5. Hicksrson vs.. Joyce. This
was an action Of tro7er, before q justice
Of the peace; damages laid in the war
rant st S97. On appeal to tbs Circuit
Court, the plaintiff recovered SI07.
Held That the same strictness not be-
ing required in the pro eeediDgs before
justices OF the peace, as in actions in the
circuit and other superior courts, there
will be no reversal in the Supreme Court
because Of the recovery in the Circuit
Court being greater than the damages
laid in the warrant, the amount of the
recovery IN the Circuit Court being with
in the Jurisdiction Of justice of the
peace. Ia such cases the warrant could,
10 the Circuit Court, 0e amended so as to
include the whole amount of damages of
which a justice OF the peace has juris-
dictton.
No. 8. Wsrdlow We. Rushing. The de-
fendsnt sold mule to the plsintiff with
q warranty. The mule was taken from
the plaintiff by aa action of replevin.
The neighbors we're called in to settle the
controversy OF the sale and warranty.
They determined tnst the defendant
should pay to the plaintiff 500, and
thereupon the defendant agreed to pay
the plaintiff that sum, and offered to pay
the money, but the plaintiff refused to
take the money, and brought his action
in the case for breach of warranty.
Held That under the plea of the gen.
eral issue, it y as erroneous to restrict the
amount Of the plaintiffs recovery to the
amount awarded by the neighboFs, and
offered by the defendant.