3L 38 14L 467 14L 474 State v. Wise. CRIMINAL LAW. THE STATE v. JAMES WISE. Perjury. Indictment. In an indictment for perjury, which is assigned upon the swearing of the defendant as a witness in a criminal case, it need not be alleged that the case in which the false swearing occurred was by indictment or presentment; it is sufficient if it avers that the court had jurisdiction of the issue. FROM KNOX. Appeal in error from the Criminal Court of Knox county. M. L. HALL, J. ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEA for the State. W. L. LEDGERWOOD for Wise. MCFARLAND, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This indictment charges the defendant with perjury, which is assigned upon his swearing as a witness "in a certain lawsuit or trial wherein the State of Tennessee was plaintiff and Thomas Gilson was defendant, pending before the Criminal Court of the district of Knox county, * which said suit or trial was within the jurisdiction of said court, * * in which trial it became material to enquire whether Thomas Gilson was guilty of carrying a pistol under the laws of the State of Tennessee." The cause of demurrer, which was sustained by the court, was, that the indictment does not show whether the cause against Gilson, in the Criminal Court State v. Wise. of Knox county was by indictment or presentment. In Steinston v. The State, 6 Yer., 531, the omission of the indictment to charge that the matter of traverse for assault and battery in which the false swearing occurred, was by presentment or indictment, was fatalthe court saying that it did not necessarily appear from the indictment that the court had jurisdiction of the issue. It is to be observed that in the present case, while the indictment does not show whether the case pending against Gilson was by indictment or presentment, it does in terms aver that the court had jurisdiction of the cause. The law upon this subject has been (since the case of Steinston v. The State), materially changed by the Code. It is sufficient to charge the facts in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition. Code, 5114. In an indictment for perjury it is not necessary to set forth the pleadings, records or proceedings with which the oath is connected; it is sufficient to to give the substance of the controversy or matter in respect to which the offense was committed, in what court or before whom the oath alleged to be false was taken, and that the court or person before whom it was taken had authority to administer it, with proper allegations of its falsity. Code, 5129, 5130. Under these provisions, we think the indictment is sufficient, it being averred that the court had jurisdiction of the case against Gilson in which the false swearing is alleged to have occurred. Reverse the judgment. 3L 40 1pi 426 Hambright v. National Bank. HAMBRIGHT v. THE CLEVELAND NATIONAL BANK. NATIONAL BANKS. Usury. A bill to recover usury cannot be maintained against a National Bank. It is not subject to the laws of the State upon that subject, except so far as Congress may see proper to permit. FREEMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This bill is filed to recover usury alleged to have been paid within the last six years. A demurrer was filed, on the ground that the party could only sue for and recover under the 34th section of the National Banking Act as therein provided, and that National Banks were not subject to the regulations of the State on this subject. The Chancellor overruled the demurrer on these points, but sustained it on another, to-wit: that the defendant could not be called on to make a discovery that would expose it to penalties for violations of law. Both parties appealed. We have heretofore held as ruled by the Chancellor on the first question and our court has taken jurisdiction of such question. See case of Steadman et als. v. Redfield & Co., September Term, 1874. The Hambright v. National Bank. case of Farmers and Mechanics Bank v. Dearing, 1 Otto, 91, U. S. R., had not then been decided. This case distinctly holds the contrary doctrine to that laid down by this court. The syllabus of that case is as follows: "The provisions of the National Banking Act imposing penalties upon National Banks for taking usury, supersedes the State laws on that subject. That National Banks organized under the act are instruments designated to be used to aid the Government in the administration of an important branch of the public service; and Congress, which is the sole judge of the necessity for their creation, having brought them into existence, the States can exercise no control over them, nor in anywise affect their operation, except in so far as it may see proper to permit." This being a federal question over which the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction, we are compelled to yield to the authority of that court, and do so notwithstanding our previous holding to the contrary. The result is, that the decree of the Chancellor is reversed, the demurrer sustained on the ground stated, and bill dismissed at the cost of complainant, in this court and court below. Foster v. Water Company. 3L 42 8L 504 A. N. FOSTER v. LOOKOUT WATER COMPANY and M. & A. PRACTICE AND PLEADING. Action. The plaintiff sued a city and water company for the loss of his house by fire, and averred, in his declaration, that the water company owned the water works, pipes, etc., and the city controlled a fire department, and was in duty bound to use all means at command to extinguish fires; that, by contract with the city the company undertook to furnish water to extinguish fires; that a fire occurred near plaintiff's house, and extended to and consumed it; that defendants, at the time, had permitted the pipes to get out of repair and become full of mud and gravel, whereby, etc. Held, upon demurrer, that the declaration shows no cause of action against either defendant. FROM HAMILTON. Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Hamilton county. JOHN B. HOYLE, J. E. M. DODSON for plaintiff.' KEY & RICHMOND and C. H. B. CASE for defendants. COOPER, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff, whose house in the City of Chattanooga was destroyed by fire on the 26th of July, 1877, brought this action to recover damages for its loss, and, a demurrer to his declaration having been sustained, appealed in error. Under the Code, as at common law, a declaration, to be good, must state facts showing a substantial cause of action. Code, sections 2881, 2884. The declaration |