Cowell.—Double costs. See COSTS.-—Double damages. See DAMAGEs.—Double eagle. A gold coin or the l'niteil States of the vnlue of twenty dollars.—Doub1e entry. A system of mercantile book-keeping. in which the entries in the day-hook. etc., are posted twice into the ledger. First. to 21 personal account. that is. to the account of the person with whom the (lcnling to viliic nny given entry refers has taken place: secniidly. to an impersonal nccnniit. us ’;;oods." Mozley & WhiI:- ley.—Doiible fine. In old English law. A fine imr dune grant et rcnder was C'lll(‘ll a "double fine." becausc it cnmprelicniled the finn rm‘ rog- ciicarice de droit come cc». ctc., and the fine flif ronccssit. 2 Bl. Coinm. 3!'i3—Dm:i'ble insur- ance is vihcrc divers insurances are mnile upon the same interest in the samv subjuct nsznin.-st the some risks in fiivur of the same ass-ired. in E eding the Maine. 1 Pliili. Ins. 5 .5 9 .» double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and intcrcst. Civ. Code (‘nl § 2641: Wells v. Insurance (‘n._ 9 Sorg. & R. (Pin) 10?: lnsuranre Co v. Gwuthniev. 82 Va. 323. 1 S. E. ‘Z09: Perkins v. Insurance (‘o.. 12 Mass. 218: Low- cll Mfg. C-0. v. safe,-gnnril F. ins. Cn._ 89 N. Y. 5{l7.—Douhle plea, double pleading. fice DUPLICITY : PLEA: Pl i':Ani I\'o.—DonI:le possibility. A possibility upon :1 lilv. 2 B1. (‘nrnm. ]70,—DDIlblB rent. lh I‘ni::lisb law. Rent payable by a tenant who continues in possession after the time for which be has given notice to quit. until the time of his quitting pn sion. St. 11 Geo. TI. c. 1!).—Doiihle taxation. The taxing of the same item or piece of property mice to the same person. or taxing it as the property of one person and again as the property of another: but this does not include the imposition of different barges concurrently on the same property (P. 9., a city tnx rind a school tax). nor the taxation of the some piece of property to different persons when they hold different interests in it or when it l'9pl‘('\‘(-‘tits different values in their hands, as when both the ninrtgagur and mtirtzagi-c of prop- erty nro taxed in respect to tliPir iutcrcsts in it, or when 3 tax is laid upon the ciipitai or prop- arty of a (‘Dl'[)lJ]"tll0_n and also upon the mine of its shares of stock in the hiinds of the sep- aratc sluclilinldors. Cook v. Burlington. iowii. 251. 13 N. W. 113. 4-1 \fl'|. ll Cheshire (‘minty Tel. Co. v. Suite. 167: Detroit Common Council r. Delr . sessoi . 91 lllllll. T3. 51 N. V‘-'. 7Si. 16 L. R. A. D9.—Donh1o use. In patent law. An application cl’ xi principle or process, previously known iind applied. lo some new use, but a ' h does not lend to in new result or the piuduction of a new article. De Lamar v. De Laiiiar Min. Co. (C. C.) 110 Fed. 542: In re Iliandy. 3 Fed. Cns. G71.—Dn'iible value. In [English law. This is 8. penalty on a tenant holding: over after his lnndlni-d's notice to quit. By 4 Geo. II. c. 28. § 1. it is enacted that if any tenant for life or years hold 0\'l-‘l‘ iiny lands, etr'., after the determination of his estate, after demand miide, and no in writing given, for delivering the posses on thereof, by the hind- lord, or the person hating the rnvei-sion or remainder therein, or his agi-nt thi-ri-unto law- fuilv authorized. such tcnnnt so holding over shall pay to the person so kept out of Dosh ssion nt the rate of double the yearly mine of the lands. etc.. so detained, for so ion: a time as the same nrr: detained. See Wondf. Landl. & Ten. (12th Ell.) 717, at aeq.—Dou'ble voucher. This was when E common recovery was had, and an estate of freehold was first con- veyed to any lndillicrciit person against whom the prim-inc was brought, and than he vouched the tenant in tail, who vouched over the com- mon vouchee. For, if a rocoicry were hnd im- mediately against a tenant in tail. it hari-ed only the eslnte in the premises of which he was
rop_<_>rtions exce
.5 u»
394 DOUBT
than actually seised, whereas. it the recover were had_ against nnother person, and the te ant in tsil_wnre voiiclice. it barred every late right and interest which he might have in (IQ lands recovered. 2 Bl. Comm. 359.—Don1ilr When a tenant bound to repair £01.; -i_honse to be wasted. imd than nnliml fclls timber to repair it he is said to com double waste. Co. Litt. .a3.—Do-tibia will. A will in which two persons Join. cach leaving property and estate to the other, so that survivor takes the ivh c. Evans v. Smith. DOUBT. UIiC€l'l21lllIl;_V of mind: the iii)- sencc of a settled opinion or conviction; the attitude of mind towards the acceptance of or beiict in a proposition, theory, or statenie-oi. in which Hie jiiil,-.',ment is not at rest hut to either side. ROM Vs‘
Ga. 98. 73 Am. Dec. 7.11. . 3 South 863: Smith V.
Rallirny Co.. 143 Mo. 33, -14 S. W. Jersey Traction Co v. (himdcii Horse it. C0¢ 52 N. J. Eq 452. 29 Ati. 33..
Reasonable doubt. This is a term ofi used. prulribly pretty ucll understood, but 11 I easily defiued It does not Lnr-tin a more pa hie doubt, because everything relating to liiii—i nflnirs, and depending on moral evidence. in opt-n to some possible or iniaginiiry diiulit. it is that state of the case which. iiiter the enllrn Cornparison and consideration of all the (fr deni e. leaves the minds of jurors in that Kalil‘- tion that they cnnnot say they feel iin ubtdl conviction to II moral certainty of the truth the charge. Donnelly v. State. ‘_’G N. J. Liivi. (‘-01, 615. A reasonable doubt is deemed to ex- ist. uitliin the Hill‘ thnt the jury should I!‘ convict unlcss satisfied beyond a rm-uullf doiiht, when the evidence is not S|ll]l£‘ien In ,3]. isty the judgment of tho truth of a propu:it' with sndi ccrt'iinty that a piiiilent man r.-u fci-l safe in acting upon it in his min imporllul affairs. Arnold v. State. 23 Ind. 170. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor, ifl the presuruptions of law indcpcndt-nt of H5 deuce are in favor of innocence: iind awry person is presumed to be innocent until in is proved guiltr. If upon such proof tllele is reasonable doubt reniaininz, the llL‘(‘l1S|’d in entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittiil-. for it is not sufiicicut to estnhlish a prob-hihxy, though a strong one, arising; from the dm-ti-in of chances, that the fact charged is more libel] to be true thin the contrary, but the evidence must estnhlish the truth of the fart to a roasonable and moral certainty.—a certainty tint convinces and directs the understanding nnri
DOUBLES. Letters-patent. Cowell.
satisfies the reason nnd Judament of those who ‘
are hound to not consririitioiisly upon it. Tlrlii is proof beyond rn:ison'ible doubt: becnnsr ii‘ the law, which mostly de ends upon ronsid_I-rations of a moral I1llt|iI'£'. s ould go further Inn this, and require nhsolnte certnintv, it would €\‘(‘lIld€ circumstantial evidence altogether. 1':-r Sh-iw ' Com. v. Wcbstcr. 5 2 Am. Dec. 711 And sop fi - llIPl‘. Tompkins v. Rutterfirld (C. C. 5..
"3
8; State v. Zdannwirz. (.9 ‘_\. J Low. CW.
5 AH. 743; . S. ' nuts \' (F. _ '11 F .
K State v. M’ay. 1'" M0. in . 2
(‘om. I’. (‘ ' . 2 Pitt‘ i ll. (I’?l.) 400
Hcnnesnv. T N. W.
v. State, Ind. 2 N. E. u’)
Stiite. 74 Miss. 140. 20 South. 860: .
. 61 N. W. 690: Stole E
State. 43 Nch. S73 lined. 2 it e. 129' State v. Chin]: Ling. 16 Or. 419, 18 Pnc. R4 Stout v State. 90 Ind. 1; Brid|r\_i v. Slalc, of lnil. -I v. Allcn \ Hum 111 ALL. 80, K) South. 494; State v. Rover, 11
