the County upon mesne 2. Where one repeats an process. Ibid. 3. 12. What is an excuse to the sheriff for not making an arrest is matter of law, after the facts are ascertained. Ibid. 13. Where a sheriff's bond had been taken in 1838, only three justices of the? County Court being present, and the bond was only for $4,000 instead of $10,000 as required by law; Held, that these defects were cured by the Act of 1844-5, which had a retrospective, as well as 4. a prospective, operation." State v. Jones, 359 14. A sheriff and his sureties in his official bond are not bound for the collection of any claim put in) his hands for collection, unless, as in the case of constables, the claim be within the jurisdiction of, a Justice of the Peace. State v. Long, 379 Sec EVIDENCE-EXECUTION. SLANDER. 1. Where, in speaking of a trial before a magistrate, in which the plaintiff had been a witness, the defendant said that "he (the plaintiff)had sworn falsely," these words import that the plaintiff had committed perjury and are, in themselves, actionable. Rhinehardt v. Potts, 403 oral slander and gives the name of his informant, he is justified or not, according to the quo animo the charge is repeated and propagated. Johnston v. Lance, 448 In the case of a written libel, the mention of the name of the author, or the general rumor, of the libellous matter, will not excuse or justify the publication of such, even if the author or the rumor be distinctly proved. Ibid. Where a person charges another with perjury and is sued in an action for the defamation, it is not sufficient for him to prove simply, that what the plaintiff' swore to was not true, but he must introduce evidence to convince the jury that the false oath was taken corruptly. dler v. Robison, STATUTES. Chan 480 when the taxes were as- ? sessed; Held, that the Court must intend that these were a majority or the whole of the Justices of the County, and therefore the taxes were properly imposed. State v. McIntosh, 68 2. This is different from the cases, in which the law requires a certain number of Justices to be present, when a tax is imposed, and the record does not shew that the requisite number was present. Ibid. 5 TENANTS IN COMMON. 1. When one of two tenants in common of a tract of land is in possession of the tract, and his co-tenant makes a demand of the whole tract, his refusal to comply with that demand is not to be considered as evidence of an ouster of his co-tenant. Meredith v. Andres. 2. More especially is this the case when the demand is made by one professing to claim under the cotenant, but of whose title the tenant in possession knows nothing. Ibid. 3. Nor, when the person so claiming enters into possession and is turned out by a writ of forcible entry and detainer, can this be considered an ouster of the co tenant, Ibid. ? TENANT AT WILL. The estate of a tenant at will is determined by a demand of possession by the owner, and also by his own conveyance in fee. Howell v. Howell, 496 TOWNS. 1. The commissioners of an incorporated town have no right to impose any taxes, but such as are expressly authorized by the Act of incorporation. Comms. of Asheville v. Means, 2. 1. 406 A power to enact byelaws, &c. for the good government of the town, of itself, confers no right to levy taxes. Ibid. TRESPASS. Where land is subject to entry and has been granted, the action of Trespass Q. C. F. lies, although the land is covered with water. Smith v. Ingram, 175 2. One, who is in the actual or constructive possession of land, may recover damages from him, who dispossesses him, tho' not in possession at the time of the action brought. No ulterior profits or damages can be recovered, until he regains the possession; and then the law, by relation, would adjudge him to have been in possession from the first ouster, and entitle him to damages for all the time the defendants wrongfully held the lands. Ibid. 3. In order to entitle one to 4. The plea of liberum tene- 310 to the adverse claimant or be accompanied by circumstances of notoriety. Ibid. 7. Where a person intends to place his fence on a particular line, but accidentally places a small part of it on land claimed by another, this will not be a possession adverse to such claimant. Ibid. Where See DAMAGES. TROVER. the defendant, in consideration of a debt he owed, agreed to let the plaintiff have a bed and furniture of the value of $28, but no particular bed and furniture were conveyed or delivered, and afterwards the defendant refused to deliver any bed and furniture; Held, that the action of trover would not lie for the plaintiff. 370 Jones v. Morris, TRUSTS. See EXECUTIONS. 6. Where a tenant claims USE AND OCCUPATION. by a disseisin, ripened in-1. In an action for use and to a good title by lapse of time, he must shew an actual, open and exclusive. possession and use of the land as his own, adversely to the title of the demandant. It must be known occupation, where it appeared that one P, had jeased the premises to the defendant for the year 1844,that in the latter part of that year he, with the knowledge and consent of 3. the defendant, rented the same to the plaintiff for the year 1845, who leased a part of the same premises to the defendant, who occupied them and held them under the plaintiff. Held that, if this was a case, in which attornment was necessary, the defendant had attorned, and at all events was liable to the plaintiff for the rent. Cooke v. Norris, 213 4. Held, further, that the defendant having abandoned the premises before the end of the year 1845, and no specific contract being proved as to the time he should enjoy them and the premises being a wharf and ware-house in a coinmercial town, it was properly left to the jury to say for what time the parties intended the lease to continue, and the Court could not non-suit the plaintiff, because his action was brought before the expiration of the year. Ibid. USURY. 1. Where an usurious loan is made to A as the avow-{ ed agent and for the benefit of B, the declaration must state the loan to have been made to B. Jones v. Herndon, 79 2. Though in a declaration for usury it is proper that some day should be stated as the day of payment of the usurious interest, yet VENDOR AND VENDEE. the vendor was informed, 4 |