Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1880-11-02
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER 20h, 1880.
Reported for the Chronicle byI. TIma ..Jr
F. & ~ry- Er4sure when.
The erasure Of special endorsement Of
the payee Of comfy warrant IUado paya-
biz to a named person or order. so as to
make the dorsemcnt general, end passir e
II thus altered to third person for value,
would be forgery. cooper, J,~Garner rs.
the site.
Same-Same-Sam
90, it Aeem., would be tho erasure Of 3
writing on the face Of the warrant intend d
rs mode of Cancellation, and passi e the
WARRANT thus altered to the Injury Of q
third person -IGen.
Evidence Objection how matc.
An ELECTION L. the reading Of 3 certified
copy OF record or Justices judgment
mast specify the ground of objection, or 1t
will be OF 40 avail.-Ide4
oAme--Admissi biity
Upon Il trial for foTg ry, evidence Of the
f-itd NJ IS admisslbl to prov the Scjenter.
ard pro OF the eTasuFes On paper tu US
passed, .k7 The era ures on IL 9 Instrument
sci out Iii the indtctm Mt ami the produc-
Too Uf such paper, or tracing it back 10 the
hands OF n def0nd ut, would maze out q
p ina tGcie case Of The forgery thereof
ldom
Venue-Su Efficiently proven-H0w.
Iho venue IN il case Of forgery is made
GU by proof ny the prosecutor that be was
At the County seat OF the county in WIN CHI
the Indictment was tou q, wnen the defend
ant, VINO Was Justice of the peace OF that
county, Cale4 him into his flee and Sail
he u"derst0o the pros cutor want d a
| county warrant, the prose- adding that
he < u the Wa rant from the defendant On
which the Indictment was based. -Idem.
Protane swearing W hat is.
Any ana hema which imports an inD7c-
cation Of future divine vengeanc-, would
PROBABLY constitute the otence OF profdnc
swearing Cooper, --lsom VS.. the State
Z, mmon nuisaf ce-What not
w neither single utteranoa Of prof4ne
impreca.lon in pablo would co.'s ;tute q
common NUISANCE may admit OF doubt =
dem.
Attachment = Appeal bond Judgement
on.
Where an attachment is sued cut in
equity upon proper avermeDis under the
code seetlo :455 ct 5 quents, fats ob.uine1,
aud proceed ms had III conformity there
W tn, the debtor acquiesiDg therein, and,
upon appeal, giving o0nd for the appeal
Conditioned for the pay msut of the de BIT
the OmplulHante, on atiirmAnCe will BE-
emit Ell TO Il judgment on the appeal boz d
for the recovery below, Notwithstanding
prayer IL the viii for relief be-
yond that which follows an attachment at
l4w.-CooLor J.-kogers s. Perry vs..
Newman.
Fraud-Judicial proceedings set aside,
when.
10 sustain an original D Il TO set aside
Judicial proceedings for fraud, there must
be an averemenL Of such facts rs if move;
would show medltated intentional
c0ntrlT nee by one or more of the iltlgsnts
10 keep the comp aInant and the court in
ignorance of the real facts, whereby a
wrong conclusion was reached, and posi-
1--WE Il jury done to the party complaining,
without neglect or intention on his part
Cooper. j.-NcDowell ". Merrell.
Bill of review -Erro s how pointed out.
To sustain bill of review for errors Of
law apparent, the erro. must, by proper
IecItals OF proceedings sought to be re-
viewed DO :. eclally pointed out, and only
such errors can be noticed as are thus
designated -Idem.
Bdl ufreView what will sustain.
If the mental capacity of party W as
considered and passed upon by
the courG in the proceedings soug
To be reviewed, new matter which
merely tenus to establish the fact of inca
pacity, and might then have been pro-
cured Oy reasonable diligence. is not suf-
hcient to sustain bill OF ieW.-Idem.
Same
Qlory, whether if the mental capacity O
s. defendant in chancery suit who appears
by attorney, was net considered, and the
cause, was proceeded with as if he were
zane, his lunacy at that time would be such
NV maitec as would sustain bill Of re-
view after an inqu'sitlon Of lunacy, and the
appointment of guardien?-Idem.
Costs-5Ureties not liable when.
A party is not required, and does not
give security for his owa costs, when he
commences u suit. The security is intend
ed to indemn fly the opposing party Chat is
the defendant) against his costs and ex-
nses.-FreemAn, blair vs. Duggan.
Rape-Capacity to commit-Onus.
IL ls, perhaps, giving to one, doti capa@
all that he Is emitted to by allowing him
the beneat of the presumption that he is
incapable of com mi:ing this particular
crime while under the age of IA years,
leaving the onus upon the state of remov>
ing the presumption by satisfactory proofs.
-Deaderick, j. Wagner vs.. the state.
EfInS Mich Egaar6 - ,oy1,