276 FEDERAL REPORTBB. , �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 defend- ant. 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. Judgmeut for defendant for costs of suit. ���United States ». De QurLFELDT, (Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee, January 3, 1881.) �1. CBunNAL Law— HnsBAND AND "WiFK— Marital Cobbcion— Pleadhig �CoVERTURB.— If a married woman be deacribed, in an information flied Bgainst her alone, as a single woman, or be not described at ail 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 fade evidence that she is not &feme covert. It is not conclusive, however, and she may,- under the general issue, prove the marriage, as well as the other facts essen- tial to show marital coercion. �2. Samb Subjbct — Evidence of Marriage — New Trial. — The declara- �tions 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 com- petent proof of the marriage ; and it was error to exclude it as inad- missible under the general issue, the defendant having failed to plead her coverture in abatement, for which a new trial should be granted. �3. Samb Subject— Rejbction of Proof— IsrsuFPicrENcy—JnET Trial. �A new trial will be granted in crimincd cases for the improper rejec- tion of competent and material testimony, although in the opinion of the court the evidence rejected was wholly insufflcient to establish the issue, because the defendant has a right to the verdict of a jury on ail 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 eifect of the ruling rejecting the testimony was to preclude the defendant from ofCering not only that rejected but any other. ����
