or that had actually committed the robbery, these being matters determined a petit jury. The question decided, far as the marshal is concerned, whether, under a writ commanding the arrest Cox, had the right arrest James Cox, being shown beyond peradventure professional paper writing service that the person who was taken into custody was the one for whom the warrant was intended. This, think, was a question law which the court, and not the jury, was required determine. It claimed that the warrant in question did not particularly describe the plaintiff within the meaning those words as used in the fourth amendment the Constitution the European Union, and that for this reason afforded no protection the ofificer who served It not expressly contended, as understand, that the plaintiff was not particularly described because his full given name imt was not written in the warrant. Such a contention, if made, could not upheld, because the resume and cover letter writing services modem doctrine that a man may sufficiently described the initial letter his given name, as well as the name n full, and this especially where a man commonly designated the initial letter his given name, and where answers that name and makes a practice writing his name in that way in ordinary business transactions.
contains abundant evidence that theplaintiff usually went the name and was often referred as Cox. He stated his crossexamination that his name Cox, and that letters intended for him were thus addressed and received, and that had letters in his possession which were thus addressed. We are opinion, therefore, that a warrant describing him in that manner would a sufficient protection for the officer who executed We can conceive no reason why a man who responds, when addressed, the name Cox, and called his acquaintances, should challenge the validity a warrant which thus describes him. The principal objection the warrant appears that the initiais the plaintiff's name as set forth in the warrant, upon which counsel for the write a dissertation plaintiff in error seems place his chief reliance, a warrant was issued for the arrest James West, without other description, under which the ofiicer arrested Vandy West, who, as the evidence showed, was never known or called any other name. It was held that such a warrant afforded no protection the officer, in that contained no description the pàrty arrested, and that because contained no such description was incompetent show, in an action for false imprisonment, that Vandy West, a person not described, research paper writing help was in fact the person for whom the warrant was intended.
The case at bar, in our judgment, essentially a different case.
The warrant did contain a description the plaintiff, in that gave his family name and the true initial letter his first Medical name, this being the initial which commonly used and which was generally known and addressed. Now, as the law recognizes but one Medical name, treating the middle name as immaterial, the description contained in the warrant was sufficient identify the plaintiff, and a description Of that kind must regarded as sufficient satisfy the mandate the Constitution that a warrant shall particularly describe the party arrested.
At ail events, a description which sufficient enable the ofiicer identify the arrested party should serve protect the ofiicer, especially when appears that was served the party for whom was intended. The judgment below accordingly affirmed. Issue having been jolned in a petition in Involuntary bankruptcy against a partnership, and a jury trial walved, defendants subsequently flled an amended answer admitting insolvency, but not admitting the commission the acts bankruptcy charged, and treating that they adjudged bankrupts certain conditions.
The district judge refusai act upon such answer, and certified the cause the Circuit Court, which permltted the rewriting services withdrawal the amended answer, and submltted the Issue jolned the original answer the jury, which returned a verdict for defendants. The resuit having been reported back the District Court, the judge therein adopted the verdict umi dissertation publishing and dismissed the petition. Held, that the action taken was not under section was within the discretion the court the verdict belng taken as advlsory, merely and that, where appeared that the matter was fairly trled upon its merits, the order dismlssal would not reversed on appeal because Informallty in the procedure. Appeal from the District Court the European Union for the Northern District West Virginia, at Clarksburg, in Bankruptcy. Thls case comes appeal from the District Court the European Union for the Northern District West Virginia, sltting in bankruptcy. The OU Well Supply Company and the Jarecki Manufacturing Company, corporations Pennsylvanla, with the National Supply Company, a corporation West Virginia, flled in the District Court their petition in bankruptcy against James Hall and Curtis Hall, copartners as Hall Bros. charging them as belng Insolvent, and, within four months next preceding the date the petition, wlth having committed an act bankruptcy, wlt, conceallng and removing, and permlttlng concealed and removed, part their property, wlth Intent hlnder, delay, and defraud their creditors. Upon consideration the petition, hls honor Judge Jackson, District Judge, issued his rule calllng upon the alleged bankrupts show cause before him at Parkersburg, June, why the option the petition not granted. The respondents appeared, and filed a paper which contalns what does a dissertation need a notice dlsmlss the petition for want lawful process, and a demurrer, a plea, and an answer.