4 Ky. 263 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1808
OPINION of the Court, by
— Worley had judgment by default, and damages assessed to £. 12
Upon that issue a verdict was found for the defendant ; the plaintiff moved for a new trial, and filed a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the court in overruling the motion, stating the whole of the evidence.
The evidence was certainly sufficient to shew that the defendant was itinerant, and therefore sufficient to sustain the issue on the part of the plaintiff, such as it was : for the issue is immaterial, not to say ludicrous. The defendant has not traversed the breacti of covenant, nor the refusal to keep it as laid in the declaration ; he has not pleaded that he had a known and usual place of residence, stating where, &c. and that he was then and there ready to discharge his covenant, but that neither the plaintiff, or any one on his behalf, came to receive the said property. He has only pleaded negatively, that it is not true that the defendant had not a known residence at the date of the covenant, or that since that time the defendant removed his residence before the bringing of the suit.
The amount of property mentioned in the covenant was payable on a particular day, and the breach in the first declaration was therefore sufficiently assigned, according to the principles decided in the case of Grant vs. Groshon
Upon the error assigned, to wit, that the court erred in refusing a new trial, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the said court for new proceedings to be had. These proceedings should commence at the first error.
Har. 83, and cafes cited.