The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-15
STATE SUPREME COURT.
DECISION DELIVERED BY JUSTICE
FoLKES YESTERDAY.
The Decision of the Chancellor and the
Funding Board In the Hahn-Bate Case
Affirmed-Price Peck's Case.

Special Dispatch to tho Appeal.
NASHVILLE, Tenn, Jan. IA. To-day the
supreme court, Justice Folkes delivering
the opinion, decided the case of Simon
Hahn vs.. w. b. Bate, Governor, and
others in favor of the defendants. The
funding act Of 1882 authorizes the funding
of the States bonds at 90 per cent. Of
their face value. Complainant Hahn
presented to the funding board bonds
funded under acts previous to 1882,
and refunded under that act
aggregating S9,l74. There were eleven
bonds which, funded under the act Of
1882, made with accrued interest nine
bonds and Sl74 Of scrip, OF these eleven
bonds five were State debt proper bonds,
which, under the act OF 1885, would have
been funded at par. They had, however
been funded under the act of 1882 with
railroad bonds and accrued interest
bonds. The funding board examined the
bonds and found them to be genuine
bonds of the State of Tennessee, and to
have been issued under the act Of 1882 for
other bonds funded Hereunder, as stated
hercinbciore. They proffered to fund
them all on sos basis, but refused to fund
any OF them as debt proper bonds. The
reasons assigned by the funding
board for their action were these: They
said that they could not fund class "A''
bonds on debt proper basis because they
could not be traced to any one debt proper
bond; that in the first place they were
traceable not TO one bond, but to a
batch Of bonds, and in the second
place that they were trilccable
TO bonds and coupons, not to bonds alone.
They refused to fund class b bonds pro-
rata us debt proper bonds for the same
reasons, and also because the batch oil
bonds for which they were issued was Il
mixed lot of debt proper and railroad bonds.
They refused 10 fund class @ bonds as debt
proper bonds because they were issued,
not even in part, for bonds, but for ma
tured coupons alone. Hahn brought suit
10 compel the refunding board to fund
these bonds as debt proper bonds. The
funding board insisted that its decision on
the construction OF the act Of 1888 was
conclusive. In this opinion the chancel'
lor sustained the funding board and that
decision was confirmed by the supreme
court.
PRICE PECKs CASE.
In the case of Price Peck Justice Folkes
delivered full and learned opinion, rs
some important points were raised. Peck
who is n negro, was convicted in the Dav
idson county criminal court OF murder II
the second degree and sentenced tC
the pcnitentiary for ten years. Ar
appeal was taken and exceptions fled tC
certain rulings OF the trial by Judge Ridley
The Legislature passed an act allowing tn,
accused to testify in his own behalf. Aftel
Peck had testified, the State introduced
witnesses who swore they would not believ,
him ON oath. To this testimony objection
was made on the ground that II woul,
prejudice the jury against defendant
The court charged the jury, how
ever, that they must not conside
this testimony as against Peck, tn,
accused, but against Peck. the witness
That when the accused became OF his owl
accord a witness he must, M 10 his charac
ter, be treated ~ other witnesses, but thi
must not prejudice his case rs the accuses
The ruling OF the trial judge was sus
tained. In the trial testimony II va
adduced 10 show that Robert Wood di'
the shooting, and that therefore Pee
was not guilty.
The Judge ruled that such tes,imon
was not allowable. To this ruling exccp
ton was taken. The supreme court sus
tanned this ruling and also affirmed ia
verdict OF the jury.