The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-11-10

llVcred by the supreme COuft, now IN
session in that city:
BY COOPER, j.
/. Observation-Disclosures
sustain an original bill to set aside judi
cial proceedings for fraud there must be
IN averment of such facts as, if proved,
would show meditated and intentional
continuance by one or more Of the llti-
gants to keep complainant and the court
in ignorance Of the real facts, whereby a
wrong conclusion was reached and posi-
tive injury done to the party complain
ing, without neg lect or inattention on
his part. Mcdowell vs.. Morrill,.
.. Samc-Same-Bill of Review
10 sustain bill Of review for errors Of
law apparent, the errors must, by prop
er rccltals Of the proceedings sought to
be reviewed, be specifically pointed out,
and only such errors can be noticed as
are thus ignated. -ldem.
3. Same-Insanity. If the mental
capacity Of a party was considered and
passed upon by the court in the pro-
cccdings sought to be reviewed, new
matter which merely tends to establish
the fact Of incapacity, and might then
have been procured by reasonable dill
gcnce, is not sufficient to sustain bill
Of review; but Quere: Whether if the
mental capacity Of defendant in a
chancery suit, who appears by attorney,
was not considered and the cause not
proceeded with as if he we're sane, his
unacy at that time would be such new
matter as would sustain bill Of review
after an inquisiton Of lunacy, and the
appointment Of IL guardian. ---Idem.
Attachment in Equity--Appeal Bond
Rclief.-Where an attachment is sued
out in equity upon proper averments
under the Code S3I54, ct seplente, tat'
obtained, and proceedings had in con,
} formity herewith, the debtor acquies,
eng therein, and, upon appeal, giving
bond for the appeal conditioned for the
payment Of the debt, the complainants,
ON atfirmancc, will be entitled to judy
mcnt on the appeal for the recovery be-
low, notwithstanding a prayer in the
bill for relief beyond that which follows
an attachment at law.-Rogers u Perry
vs.. Newman.
|. Forgery rasurc --The erasure
Of IL special endorsement Of the payee Of
u county warrant made payable to IL
named person or order, 50 as to make
the endorsement general, and passing it
thus altered to II third person, would be
forgery. -Garncr VS.. State.
2. sSamc-Ioamc. So it seems, would
be the erasure Of II writing on the face
Of the warrant intended as mode of
cancellation, and passing the warrant
thus altered to the injury Of IL third per-
son. ldem.
3. Evidcncc-Objections. An objec-
ton to the reading Of a certified copy of
II record Of Justices Judgment must
specify the ground Of objection, or it
will be Of no avail.--ldem.
4. Forgcry-Evidcnc Upon trial
for forgery, evidence Of the passing Of
similar forged paper by the defendant
is admissible to prove the scienter, and
proof Of erasures on the paper thus pass
cd, like the erasures on the instrument
set out in the indictment, and the pro-
duction Of such paper or tracing it back
to the hands Of the defendant, would
make out prma tacic case Of the for
gcry.--ldcm.
5. Samc-Nenuc. The venue in Il
case Of forgery is made out by proof by
prosecutor that he was at the county
seat Of the county in which the indct-
ment was found, when the defendant,
who was II Justice Of the peace Of that
county, called him into his office and
said he understood the prosecution
wanted Il county warrant, the prosecu-
tor adding that he got the warrant from
the defendant on which the indictment
was based. --Idcm.
Profanity. The Use ofany anathema,
whether with or without the name of
Deity, which imports IN imprecation of
future divine vengeance, is profanity ;
but II single utterance is not indictable.
--lsom VS.. State.
BY FREEMAN, j.
Homicide --Sclfdctense. Where n
party by throwing stone drawn from
his pocket inficts mortal wound upon
the head of his assailant, who had fallen
by the force of his own blow, but is in
the act Of rising to renew the assault, it
is error to charge the jury that to excuse
the homicide on the ground of selfde-
Tense "thc danger must be imminent,
apparent and existent at the moment of
the fatcd blow" -Alsup vs.. State.
Mcfarland, D., dubitante.
Daaderick, A. j., dissntic1n.
Prosecution bond.-A witness for
plaintiff cannot maintain M action for
his costs against the surety of plaintiff
IN his prosecution bond.-Blair VS..
Digger.
Chargc-Error. A party who has
failed to ask for additional instructions
to the jury ut the proper time cannot
assign as error that the charge was I'M
pertcct.-Daly vs.. Smith.
BY TURNEY, J.
Races-Internrarriage. The statute {
the intermarriage of black
md white persons is constitutional. - r
i;lss vs.. State.
Action-Dismissal Widow suit
rought by widow under the act of d
=. /,