페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

TABLE OF TITLES AND DEFINITIONS.

See index for numerous sub-titles and definitions contained in the notes.

Stab, 17

Stack, 17

SPELLING, I

STATUTE OF FRAUDS. See Frauds SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS, 5

(Statute of). Spile, 15

STATUTE OF JEOFAILS. See AmendSPIRITS ; SPIRITUOUS. See Fermented; ment; Jeofails; Pleading.

Intoxicating Liquors, Searches and STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. See LimiSeizures.

tation of Actions. SPIRITUALISM. See False Pretences; STATUTE OF USES. See Real Prop

Testamentary Capacity; Undue In- erty; Trusts; Uses.
fluence.

STATUTE OF WILLS. See Wills,
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION. See (STATUTES, 140
Actions; Justice of the Peace.

Stay Law, 519
SPOLIATION. See Alteration.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, 520 Spring, 15

Steal, 555 SPRINGING USE, See Uses.

Steamship, 555 Spurious, 16

Steer, 555 Square, 16

STENOGRAPHERS, 556 Squatter, 16

STEP-CHILDREN. See Child; GrandSQUIRE. See Esquire.

child; Issue.

STIPULATED DAMAGES. See LiquiStable, 17

dated Damages.

STIPULATION (IN ADMIRALTY), 567 STAGE. See Theaters.

STIRPES. See Per; Succession; Stage Coach, 17

Title. Stakeholder, 18

STOCK, 582 Stale Demand, 13

STOCK-BROKERS, 699 STALL. See Markets.

STOCK EXCHANGE, 748 Stamps, 18

V STOCKHOLDERS, 776 Stand, Standing, 18

Stock in Trade, S99 STANDING ASIDE. See Jury and Jury STOCK YARDS, 900 Trial.

Stone, 902 Standing By, 19

Stoppage, 903 STARE DECISIS, 19

STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU, 903

STOPPING PLACE. See Stations; l'sual. STATE COURTS. See Courts; Jurisdic- Store, 934 tion; Municipal Courts; Surrogate; STORE ORDER ACTS, 935 United States Courts.

Storm, 937 STATED ACCOUNT. See Account. Story, 938 STATE LANDS, 42

STOWAGE. See Ships and ShipStateinent, 72

ping. STATE PRISON. See Prisons.

STRADDLE. See Gambling Contracts.

Stranding, 938 Stationary, 113

Stranger, 939

Strategy, 939 STATIONS (RAILROAD), 114

Straw Bail, 939 STATUTE MILE. See Mile.

Stray, 939 STATUTE OF DESCENT AND DISTRIBU- Stream, 939 TION. See Succession.

STREET RAILWAYS, 940 vii

Start. 41

STATES, 72

Stationery, 113

THE

AMERICAN

AND ENGLISH

ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF LAW.

SPELLING—(See also INDICTMENT, vol. 10, p. 548; NAME, vol. 16, p. 122).—The formation of words by letters; orthography.

Incorrect spelling does not vitiate a written instrument, if the intention clearly appears. This rule applies with full force to the written verdict of a jury, it having been frequently held that when the sense is clear, neither bad spelling nor ungrammatical findings avoid the verdict.2

1. Black's L. Dict.; Bouv. L. Dict.; after reciting a deed the court said: State v. Hedge, 6 Ind. 330.

“I have omitted the inaccuracies in Incorrect Spelling Disregarded.-In- spelling, for mala grammatica non correct spelling was disregarded in the vitiat chartam." following cases: “ Octagenta.” “ Sep- Cases Where the Badly Spelled Word temgenta," “ Sewtene Pounds," cited Was Held to Avoid the Deed.—“Teneri James Osborn's Case, 10 Rep. 133a; in terengentate liberis,” Hills * quadrans," Cromwell 7'. Grunsden, Cooper, Cro. Jac. 603; Octigent,” Saik. 462; 1 Ld. Ray. 335: 5 Mod. 278; Fitzhughe's Case, Hob. 19; “Quim“ Tenerie and Obligarie," Dodson v. quagent,” Parry v. Dale, Yelv. 95. Kayes, Yelv.

193;

* nobules " for See as to the effect of bad spelling, “nobilibus,” Matthew V. Purchins, whereby it is doubtful what is meant, Cro. Jac. 203; "threty-two ponds,” for Fielder v. Troy, Sty. 257. thirty-two pounds, Hulbert ?'. Long, 2. Snyder v. U. S., 112 U. S. 216; Cro. Jac. 607; “ Joaem,” without any Koontz v. State, 4. Tex. 570; Haney dash over it, for "Johannem," “ quin- v. State, 2 Tex. App. 504; Krebs v. ginta.” Downs v. Hathwaite, Cro. Car. State, 3 Tex. App. 349; Taylor v. 419; " Terdecem,” Hopehill v. Searle, State, 5 Tex. App. 569; McCoy v. Cro. Car. 386; “ Septuagintis”. for State, 7 Tex. App. 379; Pepper v.

Septingentis," Walter Pigot, Harris, 78 N. Car. 71. Hoore 645; see also Cro. El. 896; Thus in Hoy v. State, 11 Tex. App. *Octogessim," Moore 864; see other 32, where a verdict of guilty was found, cases collected, 2 Rolle Abr., p. 146 the jury assessed the defendant's punet seq., tit. “ Obligation."

ishment at “two years in the State In Hogans v. Carruth, 19 Fla. 90, penitenilery.” The court, by White, the court, by Westcott, J., said: “As to J., said: "As to the verdict, the misthe mistake in spelling the word pres- spelling of the word 'penitentiary' is ence, it is entirely immaterial.

upon a par with the spelling of the The law fortunately is far from being same word in the verdict in the case of strict in requiring any great accuracy McMillan v. State, 7 Tex. App. 100, in or precision in respect to what is writ- which it was held that misspelling does ten, so far as the rules of grammar or not vitiate a verdict, when no doubt orthography are concerned, or as to can be entertained as to the words inthe chirography or evenness of the tended, or as to their meaning." page or the straightness of the lines.” In McCoy v. State, 7 Tex. App. 379, In Watters v. Bredin, 70 Pa. St. 237, the verdict assessed the prisoner's 23 C. of L-1

1

not

The rule of idem sonans has received exhaustive treatment in another article. In addition to the numerous cases there cited as illustrative of the doctrine, the following lists are appended.2 punishment at “a five years in the the question of idem sonans was elimi. State prisin." This was held a suffi- nated from the case, and was cient verdict.

considered. In the case before us the In Wooldridge v. State, 13 Tex. question of idem sonans does arise, and App. 443; 44 Am. Rep. 708, it was directly affects the verdict. If the held that a verdict in a murder case word mrder' used in the verdict is which read, “ We the jury find the de- not idem sonans with the word 'mur. fendant guilty of murder in the fist der,' then manifestly this verdict is degree,” was 'insufficient, illegal, and insufficient and must be set aside. would not support a judgment of con- But if the words are idem sonans, then viction. The case has been much the verdict must be sustained, notcriticised. See 27 Alb. Law J., pp. 341, withstanding the bad spelling of the 381, 422; 16 Cent. L. J. 361, 378, 415. word in the verdict, for it is well set

In Walker v. State, 13 Tex. App. tled that incorrect orthography or un618, the court held the verdict of grammatical language will not vitiate "gilty of mrder in the first degree” to a verdict. Taylor 7. State, 5 Tex. App. be valid. The court reconciles this de- 569; Koontz z'. State, 41 Tex. 570; cision with its decision in the case just McMillan i'. State, 7 Tex. App. 100; cited as follows: “By the ninth assign- Curry v. State, 7 Tex. App. 91. In ment of error the sufficiency of the ver- applying the doctrine of idem sonans, dict as returned into court, and upon the rule is that if the words may be which the judgment of conviction is sounded alike without doing violence based, is called in question. This verdict to the power of the letters found in as we copy it from the judgmententry, the variant orthography, then the the original not having been sent up words are idem sonans, and the variwith the record, reads as follows: ance is immaterial. Henry 7'. State, • Wee the jurors finde the defendant 7 Tex. App. 388; Ward v. State, 28 gilty and of mrder in the first degree, Ala. 53; Gresham v. Walker, 10 Ala. and assess his confinement in the pen- 370; Gahan v. People, 58 Ill. 160. etentiary for life.' It is objected to Applying this rule to the word 'mrder,' this verdict, (1) that it finds defendant used in the verdict, we hold it to be guilty of no offense known to the law; idem sonans with the word ' murder,' and (2) that it does not assess the properly spelled, and that the punishment as required by law. It variance in the orthography of the will be perceived that in the verdict two is not a material one, but that the defendant is found guilty of mrder, their sound is so nearly the same, the letter 'u' being left out of the when pronounced, that there is scarce. word which the jury evidently intend- ly, if in fact, any difference. They ed to use. In the Wooldridge case, are not different words correctly spelldecided by this court at the presented and not sounding alike, as in the term, ante, 443, the rules governing Wooldridge case, before referred to, verdicts in murder cases were elabo- but are in fact the same word differ: rately discussed, and it is unnecessary ently spelled, but sounding alike. We for us to reiterate them. In that case think also that the doctrine of idem the word 'fist' was used in the ver- sonans applies to and governs verdicts dict, instead of the word 'first,' in in the same manner, and to the same finding the degree of the murder. extent, that it does in other matters. It was held that these two words were Haney 7'. State, 2 Tex. App. 504; Taywell known

and

commonly used lor 7'. State, 5 Tex. App. 569; Huffwords, having entirely different mean- man v. Com., 6 Rand. (Va.) 685; Wilings, and not sounding alike, and that liams z'. State, 5 Tex. App. 226; State the one could not be substituted for v. Smith, 33 La. Ann. 1414." See also the other, or construed to mean the NAME, vol. 16, p. 122. other, and that the verdict was insuffi- Indictments. The effect of misspell. cient. It was, however, expressly ing in an indictment is fully treated unstated in the opinion in that case, that der the title INDICTMENT, vol. 10, p. 548. as the word “fist' used in the verdict 1. See NAME, vol. 16, p. 122. did not have the sound of the word 2. Idem Sonans.-Abbotsan and Ab. ‘first, which should have been used, basan, Cotton's Case, Cro. Eliz. 258;

as

Miss. 403;

Adderson and Anderson, Van Pelt z. Hopper, 13 Ark. 43; Harris and HarriPugh, i Dev. & B. (N. Car.) 210; Au- son, State z. France, 1 Overt. (Tenn.) gustine and Augustina, Com. v. Des. 434; Henderson and Henry, Henry v. marteau, 16 Gray (Mass.) 15; Aramanti Curry, i Abh. Adm. 433; Hubble and and Amaranti, Musquez v. State, 41 Hubbles, Cotton ?'. State, 4 Tex, 260; Tex. 226; Bagswell and Bagwell, Case Hudson and Hutson, Chapman v. State, 1'. Bartholow, 21. Kan. 300; Baswell 18 Ga. 736; Hutchinson and Hutcheand Basil, Hyde v. Watson, i Den. (N. son, State v. Stedman, 7 Port. (Ala.) Y.) 670; Berry and Barry, Rateree v. 495; Janes and James, Janes v. WhitState, 53 Ga. 570; Beton and Belton, bread, 11 C. B. 406; 73 E. C. L. 406; Belton z. Fisher, 44 Ill. 32; Biddulph Jna. and Jno., U.S. v. Hinman, Baldw. and Puthuff, Pillsbury v. Dugan, 9 (U. S.) 292; Joan and Jane, Griffith v. Ohio 120; 34 Am. Dec. 427; Blackman Middleton, Cro. Jac. 425; Keeland and and Blackburn, Miller v. State, 53 Kneeland, Hammond v. Reddin, Dud.

Boswell and Roswell, ley (Ga.) 177; Land and Lance, DavBrooking v. Dearmond, 27 Ga. 58; enport v. State, 38 Ga. 184; Lington Braddy and Brady, Dickerson and Lincoln, Armstrong v. Colby, 47 Brady, 23 Ga. 161; Buter and Butler, Vt. 359; Litherbarrow and Letherbar. Reeves v. State, 20 Ala. 33; Byles and row, Letherbarrow 7. Ward, 5 Jur. Bayles, Hoagland v. Culvert, Spenc. 388; Little and Lytle, Lytle r'. People, 288; Byrne and Burns, State 2. Burns, 47 III. 422 ; Littlemore and Lidamore, 8 Nev. 251; Cahew and Cahill, State v. Parker v. People, 97 Ill. 32; Loyons Thompson, 20 N. H. 250; Corrigan and Lyons, Roe 7. Doe, 32 Ga. 39; and Corgan, Prince v. McLean, 17 U. Lutle and Little, O'Neil v. State, 48 C. Q. B. 463; Coonrod and Conrad, Ga. 66; McConnellsburg and ConnelsCarpenter v. State, 8 Mo. 291; Currier burg, Gibson v. Gibson, 20 Pa. St. 9; and Kiah, Tibbets 7. Kiah, 2 N. H. Margaret N. and Margaret Ann, Dilts 557; Daniel and David, Jackson 7'. v. Kinney, 15 N. J. L. 130; Malay and Stanley, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 133; David Mealy, Čom. v. "Donovan, 13 Allen and Daniel, Com. v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 571; May and Mayo, Mayo v. (Mass.) 376; 77 Am. Dec. 333; Davies State, 7. Tex. App. 342; Mawre and v. Pratt, 16 C. B. 586; 81 E. C. L. 536; Moore, Countess of Rutland's Case, 5 Davis and Davids, Taylor v. Com., 20 Co. 42; Montacue and Montague, State Gratt. (Va.) 825; Danden and Darden, V. Montague, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 257; State z'. Turner, 25 La. Ann. 573 ; De Mordern and Modern, Langdale v. Hust and De Hurst, Mortimer v. Oger, People, 100 111. 263; Moss and Morse, Cro. Eliz. 258; Domick and Domeck, Litchfield 7. Farmington, 7 Conn. 108; Olive z'. Com., 5 Bush (Ky.) 376; Dou- Ogilbee and Ogilsbee, Ilamilton 7'. gal and Dugald, Barnes v. People, 18 Langley, 1 McMull. (S. Car.) 498; Ill. 52; Edward Charles and Charles O'Mara and O'Meara, O'Meara v'. Edward, Hands 1. Clement, 11 M. & North America Min. Co., 2 Nev. 112; W. 816; Edward E. T. and E. E. T., Palus Cheal and Paulus Cheale, CodUnion Bank v. Tillard, 26 Md. 446; well's Case, 5 Co. 42; Peirs and Peter, Edward and Edwin, Mann v. Birchard, Griffith v. Middleton, Cro. Jac. 425; 40 Vt. 326; Grant v. Clapp, 106 Mass. Peregran and Peregrine, Dunn 2. 453; Elbertson and Elberson, Elberson Clements, 7 Jones (N. Car.) 58; Pettis v. Richards, 42 N. J. L. 70: Ellen and and Pittis, Hutto v. State, 7 Tex. App. Helen, Taylor v. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) 44; Pillsby and Pillsbury, Pillsbury v. 829; Erlin and Erlwin, Cromwell v. Dugan, 9 Ohio 117; 34 Am. Dec. 427; Grundsen, Salk. 462 ; Farelly and Far- Redus and Reder. Hunter v. State, 8 ley, Leonard v. Wilson, 2 C. & M. 589; Tex. App. 75; Robert Rodger Strang Flory and Florez, State v. Florez, 5 La. and Robert Roger Strong, In re Ann. 429; Foster and Forster, Rutland Smith, 10 C. B. N. S. 344; 100 E. C. L. 2. Forster, Cro. Jac. 77; Franciscus and 342; Roffenberg and Rifenberg, Whit, Francis, Griffith i'. Middleton, Cro. aker z'. Wheeler, 44 Ill. 440; Samul Jac: 425; Garret and Jared, Graham 2'. and Samuel, Fenn v. Alston, 11 Mod. Roberts, 1 Head (Tenn.) 56; Gigger 284; Seam and Couture, Augur v. and Jiger, Com. v. Jennings, 121 Mass. Couture, 68 Me. 427; Sarmine and Sar47; 23 Am. Rep. 249; Gardiner and min, Cull v. Sarmin, 3 Lev. 66; Seden Gardner, and Gravaier and Gravier, and Soden, Wyatt v. Barwell, 19 Ves. Rector z. Taylor, 12 Ark. 128; Harman 435; Shipcott and Shapcott, Bowen v. and Herman, Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga. Shapcott, 1 East 542; Sin Groon and 266; Hopper and Harper, Jester v. Lin Goon, People v. McNealy, 17 Cal.

« 이전계속 »