Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-03-10

1
| By Snead, Judge-GibsOn vs. Utley ct als
| affirmed. Pierce, administrator, vs. Settle;
reversed and remanded, and account Or
| dered. Terry, Walsh & Co. vs. W. H.
Blackmore ct ais; remanded for accounts;
Freeman, Judge, dissenting on opinion.
| Neil VS. Neil ct ais; affirmed. Jackson VS.
| Parkes; affirmed. Zachery VS. State; re-
versed and new triad granted. State vs. But
ler; affirmed. Mcdonald vs. State; reversed
and new trial granted. States VS. Smith;
reversed and remanded. Franklin VS. State;
reversed and remanded for new trial.
Which vs. State; reversed and remanded for
new trial, Lowry vs. Broyles; affirmed.
Ford VS. State; affirmed.
By Mcfarland, Judge-Turner ct ais
VS. Harlan; drecree affirmed. Hooper VS.
McQuery; petition for hearing allowed to be
argued at next term. Puckett vs. johnson;
reversed and remanded. Davis VS. State;
affirmed. Austin vs. Richards; affirmed;
State vs. Edge6eld and Kentucky Railraod.
| affirmed and petition. Anderson vs. Cleaver;
affirmed. Stewart VS. State; reversed and
remanded for new trial. Presswood VS. State;
| affirmed. Duniap vs. State; reversed. Fos-
ter VS. State; reversed.
By Deaderick, Judge-Kenzee vs. Helm,
! Cb ICNCIbou dnu ICluauucus OdNluSOn
vs. Gordon; affirmed. Cheatham vs. Fitz-
patrick; reversed and remanded. Caruth-
ers VS. Thomas; affirmed. Jamison VS. Par
ker; reversed and remanded. Cheatham,
James & Gillespie VS. Galloway, Mathes &
| Perry; affirmed and remanded. Ordway VS.
Bramlette; remanded. Mari VS. Gillian ct
ais; reversed and remaDded. Hickman vs.
| StOckdale ct ais; remanded.
By Freeman, Judge-Pillow vs. Watkins
! ct ais; decree modified. Frierson VS. Pres
byterian Church; affirmed and remapded
for execution.
By Nicholson, Judge-Brittain VS. State;
affirmed. johnson vs. State; reversed.
johnson vs. State; reversed. John
son vs. State; remanded for proper
indictment. Clark vs. State; affirm
ed. State VS. Barbara; affirmed, except as
to abatement. Haslem VS. State; affirmed.
Hathaway VS. State; affirmed. Alexander
vs. State; reversed. State VS. Murry; revers-
ed, dissenting opinion by Turney, Judge.
O'DOnnell vs. Jamison and Simmons; affirm
ed. Gordon, HARRISON & Co. VS. Stapleton;
decree modified. Perkins vs. Bently; re-
manded.
We present points of interest adjudlca-
ted by the court yesterday, in the following
cases: ....- -
Mayes VS.. the State-A rehearing was
refused in this case, the decision being that
the section of the Code 5,542, subsection
9, curing failure to state in the Bill of
Exceptions that the venue was proven, was
contrary to the constitution.
Ferry VS.. Chilled that q voluntary
payment made by ore Of the secretaries on
clerk and masters bond may be set up as
a credit on the penalty bond.
State vs.. Smith-In this case the court
held that a single act Of public drunkenness
was indictable.
Ford VS.. The State-Held: that dealing
in gaming instruments was indictable.
Hooper vs.. McQueuy-The court de-
cided On former hearing that holOgraphic
codicil indorsed on a genuine will was not
necessarily genuine. Yesterday the petition
for rehearing was granted by Judge Nc
Farland, stating that it was question upon
which the court thought proper to hear
further argument.
Stewart VS.. The State-Held that the
charge of the court below was inconsistent;
his honor in the court below first charged
that to prove insanity there must be the
same measure Of proof that was necessary
to establish the defendants guilt, and after
wards charged that if the jury were doubt
full or had a reasonable doubt Of the guilt
of the defendant, or of his sanity, that the
Jury ought to convict. The cause was re-
versed upon this inconsistence and the
prisoner remanded for new trial.
Cheathan vs. Galloway-held that property
levied on and replevied, is subject to second
levy by attachment, at the suit of other
creditors. FriersOn vs. The Presbyterian
Church-held that, AN Act of Incorporation
passed by the General Assembly of the
State of Tennessee in 1851, at Memphis,
was a valid act. The case involved the
discussion of the rights and powers Of
States. The opinion is interesting and able.
Alexander vs. the State-held that an in
dictment for murder which did not state the
weapon with which the deed was committed
was good. The case was, however, re-
versed, upon failure to prove the venue.
Murray vs.. the State.-Held that the
WantOn killing of sheep without malice to-
wards the ownerwas not a misdemeanOr.
The Court stated that they were bound by
the former decisions of the Court, upon
this point, in rendering this decision. Judge
Turney dissented, upon the ground that
the Court should not be bound by the for
mer decisions on this point.
The merchants tax case, brought by r.
P. Jenkins, wholesale druggist of this city,
against W. G. Ewin, County Court Clerk of
this county, to test the constitutionality Of
that portion of the revenue act of uly "a,
1871, which imposes both an ad vslOrem
aud privilege tax on merchants, was decided
yesterday, in the Supreme Court, Justice
Sneed dissenting.
Chief Justice Nicholson, in delivering the
opinion of the Court, said:
sit is a principle of universal constitu-
tional law, that the power to levy and col
lect taxes is an incident of sovereignty. The
Constitution of the State does not confer
upon the Legislature the power of taxation
it passes under the general designation of
Legislative power There is no limitation
upon the Legislature as to the amount or
objects of taxation, except that found in the
restrictions apd prohibitions Of the consti-
tuition.
"That section of the Constitution in
which is found the clause under which the
tax in question was imposed, first lays down
the general proposition that all property,
real, personal aAd mixed, shall be taxed but
gives to the Legislature a discretion as to
taxing property belonging to the State by
counties, cities OrtOWns, etc, and then, by
way OF restriction upon the exercise OF the
power, proceeds as follows: 'All property
shall be taxed according to its value, that
to be ascertained in such manner as the
Legislature shall direct, so that taxes shall
be equal and uniform throughout the State.
No one species of property from which tax
may be collected shall be taxed higher than
any other species of property of the same
value
'This is an absolute and imperative inhi-
bition upon the Legislature, requiring them
in taxing property, to provide that it be
taxed according to value, but expressly ex-
cepting from the inhibition the manner of
ascertaining that value. This much is left |
to the discretion of the Legislature, but this
discretion is to be so exercised that no one |
spacies Of property from which tax is col |
lected shall be taxed higher than any other |
species of property of the same value. So !
far, the provision is confined expressly to |
taxation of property. Then follows the |
nloTaa GLlY,f thu 7