LEGACY.
In Equity Pleading. An allegation in the bill of matters which disprove or avoid a defence which it is alleged the defendant is supposed to pretend or intend to set up. Story, Eq. Pl. § 31.
It is frequently omitted, and this the more properly, as all matters material to the plaintiff's case should be fully stated in the stating part of the bill; Cooper, Eq. 11; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 372, 1883, n.; 11 Ves. Ch.1 574. See 2 Hare, Ch. 264.
In Practice. The instructions given by the court to the grand jury or inquest of the county, at the commencement of their ses sion, in regard to their duty.
The exposition by the court to a petit jury of those principles of the law which the latter are to apply in order to render such a verdict as will, in the state of facts proved at the trial to exist, establish the legal rights of the parties to the suit.
It formerly preceded the addresses of counsel to the jury; Thayer, Evid.; and that is still the practice in the federal district court in Maryland. It includes a summing up of the facts.
The essential idea of a charge Is that it is au thoritative as an exposition of the law, which the jury are bound by their oath and by moral obliga tions to obey ; Com. v. Porter, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 285 287; Pierce v. State, 13 N. H. 536; Townsend v. State, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 162 ; Davenport v. Corn., 1 Leigh (Va.) 688; Montee v. Com., 3 J. J. Marsh. (KY.) 150; 21 How. St. Tr. 1039; Kane v. Cora., 89 Pa. 522, 33 Am. Rep. 787. See 6 South. L. Rev. 352 ; 1 Crim. L. Mag. 61 ; 3 id. 484. This is the rule in the fdderal courts ; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 15 Sup. Ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343 ; Alabama; Pierson v. State, 12 Ala. 153 ; Arkansas ; Pleasant v. State, 13 Ark. 360; Sweeney v. State, 35 Ark. 585; California; People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65; Kentucky ; Corn. v. Van Tuyl, 1 Metc. 1, 71 'Am. Dec. 455; Maine ; State v. Wright, 53 Me. 336; Massachusetts; Com. v. Porter, 10 Mete. 286; Com. v. Anthes, 5 Gray 185 ; Michigan; , People v. Mortimer, 48 Mich. 37, U N. W. 776; Mississippi ; Bangs v. State, 61 Miss. 363; Missouri; Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 607; Ne braska ; Parrish v. State, 14 Neb. 60, 15 N. W. 357 ;
New Hampshire ; Pierce v. State, 13 N. H. 536 ; New York; People v. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 141; North Carolina ; State v. Peace, 46 N. C. 251; Ohio ; Adams v. State, 29 Ohio St. 412 ; Pennsylvania ; Com. v. McManus, 143 Pa. 64, 21 Atl. 1018, 22 Atl. 761, 14 L. R. A. 89 ; South Carolina; State. v. Draw dy, 14 Rich. 87; Texas; Pharr v. State, 7 Tex. App. 472. By statute, in some states, the jury are con stituted judges of the law as well as of the facts in criminal cases,—an arrangement which assimilates the duties of a judge to those of the moderator of a town-meeting or of the preceptor of a class of law. students, besides subjecting sUccessiye criminals to a code of laws varying as widely as the impulses of successive juries can differ. It is so in Georgia; Oneil v. State, 48 Ga. 66; Illinois ; Board of Super's of Clay County v. Plant, 42 Ill. 331; Indiana; An derson v. State, 104 Ind. 467, 4 N. E. 63, 5 N. E. 711; Louisiana; State v. Ford, 87 La. Ann. 444; Maryland ; Forwood v. State, 49 Md. 531; Tsnnes see; Nelson v. State, 2 Swan 237; and Vermont; State v. Croteau, 23 Vt. 14, 64 Am. Dec. 90. Even in these states, however, the courts have tried to escape from this doctrine, and haye of late years practically nullified it in many instances. See Hab ersham v. State, 66 Ga. 61; Bell v. State, 57 Md. 108; Mullinix v. People, 76 III. 2U; State v. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 449; State v. Hopkins, 56 Vt. 263. The charge frequently and usually includes a summing up of the evidence, given to show the application of the principles involved; and in English practice the term summing up is used instead of charge. Though this is customary in many courts, the judge not bound to sum up facts; Thomps. Charg ing Juries § 79; State v. Morris, 10 N. C. 390. But if he do sum up he must present all the material facts ; Parker v. Donaldson, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 132; Merchants' Bank of Macon v. Bank, 1 Ga. 428, 44 Am. Dec. 665. This is the practice in courts of the United States ; United States Exp. Co. v. Kountze Bros., 8 Wall. 342, 19 L. Ed. 457.