Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-02
LAW REPORTS.

Condensed Decisions of the Supreme
Court, Reported by Il. Clay King, Esq.
BROWNSVILLE, May l, 1863.
No. 2. Holt vs. Pettigrew. Where A
& B. have been sued and judgment re-
covered against them as alleged partners
OF q. d D., in q subsequent suit against
G. and d N the same alleged partner
ship contract, A. and B. are competent
witnesses for the plaintiff to prove the
partnership Of A. B.. G. & D., as well az
to prove the correctness of the demand.
No. 3. Sanders vs. Bolinger. Ga the
trial by jury Of this Case ia the Circuit
Court, where there was q cOLf Fl ct OF testi-
mony OF the witnesses for the plaintiff
and the defendant, the Circuit Judge
charged the jury that they should look
to the situation of the Witnesses to de-
termine their credibility." Held, that
although the charge is not as full and
explicit as it ought to be in such cases,
is not calculated to mislead, and is not
of itself ground for reversal, in the ab-
sence OF a refusal to instruct more fully.
No. 1. Hooks vs. Alexander. Al.
though on q reference to the Clerk and
Master to take an accoRnt, he must re-
port facts and not q Judicial opinion
based on the facts, yet If the report is
other wise correct, as for instance, where
be reports nothing due to the complain
ant, and this is shown by the proof and
pisadings in the cause, the bill will be
dimissed without a second reference, the
merits being reached.
2. If an answer, which is under oath
s2d 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 n witress AID cor
F0bOrating proof to overturn it.
No. 3. Hickerson vs.. Joyce. This
was so action of trOver, before q Justice |
OF the peace; damages laid ia ths war
rant at S97. On appeal to the Circuit
Court, the plaintiff recovered SIO7.
Held That the same strictneAs not be-
ing required in he proceedings before
justices Of the peace, as ia 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 tbs warrant, the amount Of the
recovery IN the Circuit Court being with.
in the Jurisdiction Of q justice OF the
peace. In such cases the warrant could.
10 the Circuit CsuTt, be amended so as to
include the whole amount Of damages OF
which a justice OF the peace has juris-
dictiop.
Nc.6. Wsrdlow vs.. Rushing. The de-
PENDANT sold a mule to the plaintiff with
a warranty. The mule was taken from
the plaintiff By a0 elton of ~repleviD.
b neighbOrs were calledi ia to settle the
controversy of the sale and warranty.
They determined that the defendant
should pay TO the plaintiff 500, and
thereupon the defendant agreed to pay
the plaf that sum, and offered to pay
the money, but the plaintiff refused 60
axe the money, and brought his action
il the case for breach Of warranty.
Held That under the plea of the gen.
ersl issue, it was erroneous to restrict the
amount OF the paint FPS 60 the
amount awarded by the n~eighbors, and
offered by the defendant.