Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 La. 143

Keys v. Powell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided August 15, 1834

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1834-08-15

<p>Where defendants claim title to certain^property under an act sous seing privé, dated on a particular day in JBaton Jtoug'e, and the plaintiffs show, that on that very day, in another state, one hundred and seventy miles distant, the same vendor executed a power of attorney before a justice of the peace, to the same Vendee: Held, that this fact, connected with the circumstance that this person, executing the two acts, had at that time left the state to avoid a criminal prosecution, will be considered such violent presumption of forgery and perjury, as will require the verdict to be set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial.</p> <p>Where defendants claim title to certain property under an act sous seing privé, dated on a particular day inJBaton Rouge, and the plaintiffs show, that on that very day, in another state, 170 miles distant, the same vendor executed a power of attorney, before a justice of the peace, to the Meld, that this witíi th'ech'cumstance, that this tin^ tlm tweets, left the’sE-ite^o avoid a criminal prosecution, will he considered sumptio^offorgery and perjury, as will retjuire ^ the veraside and the cause remanded ior a new trial.</p>

Decided 1834-08-15

Bullard, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiffs alleging that they are the widow and heirs of James Sides, deceased, set up title to certain slaves in possession of the defendants, and sue for their recovery. The defendants derive title to them under the last will and testament of Job Keys, who, they allege, purchased them in his life-time, of the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The cause was tried by a jury in the court below, who found a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.

¶3The sale from Sides to Keys, which was given in evidence, is a private act, under the ordinary mark of the vendor. Its execution is sworn to by one of the subscribing witnesses. It to have been executed in the of East *146Rouge, on the 28th of February, 1825. To rebut this evi<jence the plaintiff exhibited to the jury, a power of attorney executed by Sides, by which he constituted the same Job Keys his attorney in fact, with power to sell and dispose of any property of the principal, in the parish of East Baton Rouge, bearing the same identical date, and executed and acknowledged before a justice of the peace, in the county of Copiah, in the state of Mississippi, at a distance of one h undred and seventy miles from Baton Rouge. This power of attorney was accepted by Job Keys, who proceeded to act un(jer jt and actually disposed of certain property of the . .... ..... . „. . _ . . principal. In addition to this, it is shown that Sides had ielt the State, to avoid a criminal prosecution, had confided his pr0perty to Keys, and never returned except on one occasion, r r J J 7 1 7 and then clandestinely. These circumstances raise such violent presumption of forgery and perjury, the two instruments seem so utterly inconsistent with each other, the one J 7 appearing from the evidence before us, to render it impossible that the other can be genuine, that we feel ourselves bound to set aside the verdict.

¶4It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court, be annulled and reversed, and that the case be remanded for a new trial, and that the defendants .and appellees pay the costs of the appeal.

/7/la/143 · .json · Public domain