eral bridges in the county, the principal one being across the Loup river. The county has had the full benefit of the bridge bonds. They were turned over directly to the parties who built the bridges, and were by them put on the market and into circulation, with the statement on their face that they had been properly voted for and issued. Good faith and common honesty require their payment when found in the hands of innocent bona fide purchasers. The plaintiff must, therefore, have judgment on the coupons detached from the bridge bonds, with lawful interest thereon from the time the same became due and payable.
BOARD OF COUNTY COM'ns OF SHERMAN CO.
(Circuit Court, D. Nebraska.
January 3, 1881.)
Jury trial waived. Finding of facts. It is founel, from the pleadings and the testimony produced in support thereof, that the county orders in suit were issued by the county commissioners of Sherman county in part payment of the contract price for building a court-house for the county; that the building of a court-house involved the extraordinary expenditure of monoy, and that no vote of the qualified electors of the county ever authorized the expenditure of money or the issuing of the orders for any such purpose; that no court-house was built and accepted by the COUlIty, and no benefit whatever resulted to the county from the issuing of the said warrants; that the warrants are not negotiable securities, and are void for want of proper authority to issue them. O. S. Case and J. O. Oowin, for plaintiff. Groff d; Swit.zer, for defendant.
BROWN 11. OOM'aS Oll' SHERMA.N OOUNTY.
DUNDY, D. J. Suit is brought on ordinary coanty orders, or warrants drawn on the county treasurer, to the amount of $3,000. The orders were drawn on the ninth day of July, 1874, and were presented to the county treasurer, and payment thereof demanded, and indorsed not paid for want of funds, on the eleventh day of July, 1874. Judgment is demanded for $3,000, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum from July 11,1874. The building of a court·house usually involves the necessity for an extraordinary outlay of money, and the necessity of resorting to an extraordinary remedy to raise money and supply the funds to pay therefor. The ordinary county revenue is usually insufficient, even if available, therefor. And, when it becomes necessary to build a court-house for the convenience of a county, there is a well-known method provided by law for, raising the funds and authorizing the work to be done. Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, c. 13, pp. 234, 235, 236, Gen. St. of Nebraska, fully explain the modU6 operandi. A county cannot well build 8r $10,000 courthouse with an empty treasury and bankrupt in credit to commence with. When it is undertaken, disaster usually overtakes the enterprise, as it did in this instance. Now I must hold that, when 8r county desires to build a. court·house, if it has not on hands 8r sufficient fund which can be applied in payment for such a purpose without doing violence to pJ;incipIe, it must first submit a proposition to the qualified voters. of the county, to get permission to iUClur s:1Ch extraordinary indebtedness, and for authority to resort to the extraordinary remedy provided for raising the necessary and appropriate funds therefor. This was not done. Without such authority the commissioners could not lawfully contract for the erection of such a building, and without such action on the part of the electors of the county the commissioners were powerless to proceed, however much the building may have been needed. As authority for making such an appropriation of money W,tS wanting, there was no rightful authority for issuing the warrants sued on. As both acts were wanting in lawful authority
FEDERAL REPORTER. .
to uphold them, it follows that the warrants are void, and that no recovery can be had on them. This same question has been more fully considered in another case just disposed of, in which Lewis is plaintiff and Sherman county is defendant. That case involved the validity of $5,000 in bonds issued to build a court-house for defendant, and what is said in that case relative to the court-house bonds applies as well to the warrants here under consideration. Jurgment for defendant for costs of suit.
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Tennessee. January, 3, 1881.)
L CRIMINAL LAW-HuSBAND AND WIFE-MARITAL OOERCION-PLEADmG
OOVERTURE.-If a married woman be described, in an information filed against her alone, as a single woman, or be not descrihed at all as married or single, she may either move to quash the information or plead in abatement for want of a proper addition; but if she fail to do this, and plead not guilty, that is prima facie evidence that she is not a/eme COlJfYl't. It is not conclusilJe, however, and she may, under the general issue,prove the marriage, as well as the otherfacts essential to show marital coercion. 2. SAME SUBJECT-EvIDENCE OF MARRIAGE-NEW TRIAL.-The declarations of a man and woman recognizing each other as man and wife, made at the time of their arrest in company with each other while engaged in the act of making counterfeit coins, the fact that they had been cohabiting together, and were reputed to be married, are competent proof of the marriage; and it was error to exclude it as inadmissible under the general issue, the defendant having failed to plead her coverture in abatement, for which a new trial should be granted. 3. S.UIE SUBJECT-REJECTION OF PROOF-INSUFFICIENcy-JURY TRIAL. A new trial will be granted in criminal cases for the improper rejection of competent and material testimony, although in the opinion of the court the evidence rejected was wholly insufficient to establish the issue, because the defendant has a right to the verdict of a jury on all the facts constituting her defence, and the court will not, on a motion for a new trial, undertake to pass on the weight of the proof; and especially is this so where the effect of the ruling rejecting the testimony was to preclude the defendant from offering not only that rejected but any other.