II. Every thing written of another holding him up to scorn and ridicule, and calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, is Torrence vs. Hurst,

a libel.

See INDICTMENT, II.

PAGE

403

LIEN.

I. When the operative energy of an execution has been suspended
by an injunction, a sale, under a junior execution, does not
affect the lien acquired by such elder execution; but the
property in the hands of any person remains liable to a levy
when the injunction is removed. Lynn vs. Gridley,
See JUDGMENT, V.

448

LIMITATIONS-STATUTE OF.

I. The statutes of limitations of another state cannot be pleaded in bar here, but the courts will confine themselves to their own statutes. Hamilton vs. Cooper,

II. But where the statute of limitations of Kentucky not only bars the remedy, but takes away the right and confers title, such statute may be pleaded, with an averment that the party acquired title thereby. Ibid.,

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

1. In an action for a malicious prosecution, when the facts have not been found by the jury, it is error to instruct the jury "that admitting all the testimony in favor of the plaintiff to be true, yet, that he had not shewn a want of probable cause." Furness vs. Porter,

542

325

441

MINOR.

I. The sale, by a father, of the lands of his child, a minor, is void,
both under the common and Spanish law, if unauthorized by
the decree of the proper tribunal. Griffing vs. Hopkins &
Elliott,

II. Such sales of lands here, during the existence of the Spanish
Government in Mississippi, would be governed by the Spa-
nish law. Ibid.,

But see note by Reporter.

III. That the sale was for the benefit of the minor, does not render
such sale valid. Ibid.,

I. A subsequent mortgage, duly recorded, and without notice,
takes precedence of a prior unrecorded one. Pomet vs.
Scranton et al.,

II. The issue of a mortgaged slave, is not subject to the lien of
the mortgage. Turnbull vs. Middleton et al.,

413

III. A mortgage executed by husband and wife, resident in this
state, according to our forms of conveyance, upon lands
situate here, is binding; and the wife cannot set up a mar-
riage contract in Louisiana, by which they agree that the
property acquired should be governed by the laws of that
state. Lapice vs. Gireaudeau,

MOTION.

I. The proper method to correct irregularities of the clerks and
other officers, is by motion to the court below, or by writ of
Audita Querela. Hicks, Administratrix, vs. Murphy jor
Moore.

See ATTORNEY at Law, 1.

“PRACTICE, VIII.

“ REPLEVIN, I.

"SHERIFF, I.

MURDER.

1. In the State of Mississippi, murder may be committed by the

480

66

killing a slave, as well as the killing a freeman. State vs.
Jones,

II. The term "reasonable creature," in the definition of murder,
means a human being, and embraces an idiot, lunatic, or un-
born child, and a slave. Ibid.,

III. The term "king's peace," in the definition of murder, means
the place where the crime was committed, and embraces
persons attainted, outlawed, or even alien enemies, not en-
gaged in battle. Ibid.,

NATIONAL LAW.

I. During the existence of the Spanish Government in the Missis-
sippi Territory, the laws of Spain controuled the transfer
and descent of property. Chew vs. Calvert et al.,

II. The ancient laws of conquered, or ceded countries, remain un-
changed, until actually abrogated by the new government.
Ibid.,

NATCHEZ.

I. The city of Natchez is a port of entry. The city of Natchez vs.
Trimble & Forsyth,

PAGE

83

83

83

54

54

376

See PROMISSORY NOTE, XIX.

NEW TRIAL.

1. The voluntary withdrawal, during the trial, of a witness sub-
pœnaed, but not examined, is not sufficient ground to grant
a new trial. The State vs. Blennerhassetts,

II. When the jury assess a fine, the court will not grant a new trial,
unless the amount of the fine is so excessive, as to evince
partiality or corruption in the jury. Ibid.,

III. That counsel did not continue to press the examination of a
witness unwilling to testify, lest the court might commit the
witness for a contempt, is no ground for a new trial. Hinds
vs. Terry,

IV. The court will not grant a new trial upon the suggestion of
the discovery of new and material evidence since the trial,
unless the truth of the suggestion is fully established. Ib.
V. If it is manifest, to a reasonable certainty, that justice has not
been done, the court will grant a new trial. Taylor vs.
Sorsby,

7-17

7-17

80

80

97

VI. It is an evident mistake, in point of law, for the jury to take
out a deposition not read on the trial, and constitutes a strong
reason for granting a new trial. Ibid.,

See note of Reporter,

VII. A new trial ts never granted for excessive damages in assess-
ing the alternate value in an action of detinue, if the defend-
ant has it in his power to deliver the specific article.
nings vs. Gibson,

Jen-

VIII. When a complainant, in a bill for a new trial at law, appears
to have had a good defence, which he was prevented from
making, or, moving for a continuance, or new trial, by acci-
dent, unmixed with negligence, a new trial will be decreed.
Ford vs. Ford,

NOTICE.

1. A purchaser is presumed to have notice of every defect, disclo-
sed by any recital, in any deed essential to his title. In or-
to protect himself in equity, as a purchaser without notice,
that fact must be averred in the bill. Chew vs. Calvert,
et al.,

II. Persons standing by in silence, when a sale of their property
takes place, are not deprived of their rights, unless the pur-
chaser in fact was ignorant of the existence of their title.
Ibid.,

III. Notice of protest given on the day that a note falls due, is suf-
ficient. Harrell vs. Bixler,

See PROMISSORY NOTE, II.

NUNCUPATIVE WILL.

See WILL, II, III.

OBLIGOR..

I. In a bond for building a public bridge, the erasure of the names
of two or three obligors, is an erasure in a material point,
and the court should so have instructed the jury. Love,
use &c. vs. Shoape & Martin,

II. If one of the obligors was not present, or did not consent, the
bond was void as to him.

Ibid.,

OFFSET.

508

508

See EVIDENCE, XII.

"PLEA, VI.

I. A surviving partner cannot sustain an action at law against the
administrator of a deceased partner, on an unsettled account
growing out of the parnership transactions. White's Ad-
ministrator vs. Waide,

263

PATENT.

I. The patent relates to the act of Congress, which is the founda-
tion of the title. It is the act of Congress which constitutes
the title, and a patent is not the only evidence of title. Hack-
ler's heirs vs. Cabel,

II. Patent must relate to the act of Congress, and the proceedings
of the board of commissioners, as the origin and foundation
of the title. Ibid.,

III. A patent shall have relation to the origin of the title, and in
this point of view, is admissible in evidence, though it ema-
nated after the demise laid in the declaration, or after the
death of the patentee. Winn vs. Cole's heirs,

IV. A mere stranger, without title, cannot, at least in a court of
law, say that a patent obtained without fraud is a nullity.
Ibidem,

See LAND LAW, IV, VIII, IX.

91

91.

119

119

See CREDIT, I.

"EVIDENCE, XX,

PAYMENT.