Case Name: John H. Peck v. James T. Goss et als.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1871-09-23
Citations: 6 Heisk. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: John H. Peck v. James T. Goss et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
John H. Peck v. James T. Goss et als.
1. Trespass De Bonis Asportatis. Plea not guilty. Under this issue, evidence that the defendants were acting under the orders of a military commander was irrelevant, and it was error to admit it.
2. Same. Same. This evidence could only have been introduced by the defendant under a special plea of justification.
3. Same. Sarnie. If the evidence had been brought out by the plaintiff, the defendants might have relied on it under their plea of “ not guilty.”
Case cited: Smith v. BraneUm, 1 Heis., 52.
■FROM JEFFERSON.
Appeal in error from tbe judgment of tbe Circuit Court, December Term, 1870. Jas. F. Randolph, J.
J. R. Cocke for plaintiff in error.
Meek & Gratz for defendant in error,
cited and commented on Smith v. Brazelton, 1 Heis. 52.

Opinion:
Nicholson, C. J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Plaintiff brought trespass against defendants for taking and carrying away a gray horse worth $700. Tbe defendants put in pleas separately — each one pleading "not guilty."
The proof of plaintiff is full and conclusive as to all of the defendants except James T. Goss. As to him the evidence is insufficient to have authorized a verdict.
The only evidence made by the defendants, who obtained a verdict, tends to show that they may have been acting under the orders of a military commander. This evidence was objected to as irrelevant under the issue; but the objection was overruled and the evidence admitted. If this evidence had been brought out in the testimony of the plaintiff it might have been relied on by the defendant under the plea of not guilty: Smith v. Brazelton, 1 Heis., 52. But no such evidence having been made by the plaintiff, the defendant could not rely upon such a defense, except under a special plea of justification. Having put in no such pleas, the evidence was improperly admitted. As this evidence was material, its admission was an error for which the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial awarded as to all the defendants except James T. Goss.