
    Davis vs. Strickland.
    Where in answer to a rule the constable alleged that “he did have said distress warrant in his hands, and that he levied the same at the instance of W. F. Dempsey, agent of plaintiff, on one bale of cotton as the property of William Perryman, he, the said Dempsey, pointing out said cotton as the property of said Perryman, and deponent made an entry to this effect on said distress warrant except the interlineation of the words ‘in the possession of William Perry-man.’ Deponent has made no sale of said cotton, having ascertained that the cotton levied on was the property of A. Huntington. This deponent has had no opportunity to levy said warrant on the property of said Perryman since he .ascertained that the bale of cotton levied was the property of A. Huntington,’’ — and there was no traverse of the answer:
    
      Held, 1st. That no testimony' was admissible in reference to the answer, there being no issue made by traverse for trial.
    
      2nd. That the answer, without more, was insufficient to prevent the rule from being made absolute against the constable — the levy on the cotton having been actually made, and it not appearing that the cotton had been surrendered by the constable, or that the levy had been stayed by process of law.
    Jackson, Justice.
     