Lovett, &c.
Lovett, &c.
Opinion of the Court
afterwards drew up the opinion of the Court.
The second error assigned is, that the evidence was not sufficient to support the charge. By the report of the evi dence, it appears that the petitioner’s name was borne upon the company’s roll; that he was duly warned, and did appear with the company on the day appointed ; that he marched into the line of the regiment and was afterwards missing, and did not again parade with the company. And it is admitted, in the exception, that he had no leave to depart, from Lieutenant Stone, the commanding officer of the company. This evidence fully proves the charge ; for no officer except the commanding officer of the company, had any authority to give leave of absence. If a senior officer should give any order to that effect, it must be made upon the officer of the company.
The remaining objection is, that the clerk was not duly appointed. This objection also we consider unfounded. Barton, the captain, was authorized to make the appointment of sergeant and clerk, he not having received his discharge until after the time when the appointment was made.
As to the supposed irregularity of the appointment in other respects, that depends upon parol evidence, which is inadmissible to contradict or control the written evidence of the appointment. That being in common form, we can take no notice of the parol evidence ; and we give no opinion, whether it proves any irregularity or not.
Petition dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles W. Lovett, &c.
- Status
- Published