Volume 10 — South Carolina Law Reports

<p>This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, tried before Justice Joiinson, at Marion, in October Term, 1816.</p> <p>*Thotnas Grice, by deed, conveyed to his two grandsons, David and Aaron Herring, while they were infants, two negro girls, Nancy and Violet. The deed contained some specific provisions, on the construction of which the rights of the parties principally depended. It was in the first .place a formal deed of gift, (as it is usually denominated,) expressing natural love and affection as the consideration; and the donor expresses a wish or desire that James Johnson, one of the defendants, should have the possession of them until his said grandchildren, who were twins, should arrive at twenty-one years of age, and that he should then account with them for the expenses of raising the negroes, and the profits of their labor. The defendant, Johnson, took possession of the negroes when they were very young, and kept them until they were thirteen or fourteen years of age, and shortly before David and Aaron Herring came of age, he sufferedthemtogo into their possession, forthe purpose of assisting them in making a crop, &c., and he at the same time furnished them with some provisions, and did other acts of kindness for which they were indebted to him, and they were also indebted to other persons in the neighborhood. About the time that David and Aaron Herring came of age, they sold and conveyed the negroes to the plaintiff, their brother-in-law, and delivered them to him, and immediately after left the country, without having made provision for the payment of their debts, and particularly the debt of the defendant, Johnson. The defendants, after the Herrings had arrived at twenty-one years of age, entered the plaintiff’s house armed, and, under circumstances of considerable aggravation, forcibly carried the negroes off. They were proven to be worth from eight hundred to one thousand dollars, and for this injury the present action was brought.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for fifteen hundred dollars, to be released on the return of the negroes, and the payment of one hundred and fifty dollars.</p> <p>A motion was now made in arrest of judgment, on *the ground, that a verdict in the alternative in the action of trespass, vi el armis, is against law — and for a new trial on the grounds :</p> <p>1. Because in the action of trespass, vi el armis, the injury done in the taking and not the value of the property, ought to be the measure of the damages.</p> <p>2. Misdirection in charging the jury, that David and' Aaron Herring were entitled to the possession of the negroes when they attained the age of twenty-one years, without a settlement with the defendant in relation to the trust.</p> <p>3. Because it did not clearly appear that the Herrings were of age at the time of the sale to the plaintiff, and therefore void, but was, at any rate, fraudulent, and void as to creditors.</p>

Trespass for cutting down trees, &c., on plaintiff’s land, in opening and making a new road from Winnsboroug'h to Camden. Defendant justified under an order of the Board of Commissioners for Fair-field District; so that the great point in this case was, whether defendant, acting under the orders of the commissioners of high roads, in making a new road over tlie plaintiff's land, was liable to an action of trespass for damages or not ?

Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock, at Barnwell, November Term, 1815. The writ in this case was returnable to April Term, 1814. The declaration was filed without leave of the Court, and without notice to the defendant, on the 24th of March, 1815, which was after the Court next succeeding that to which the writ was returnable. Judgment by default had been obtained, and the cause entered on the Writ of Enquiry Docket.

Verdict for grand larceny, in stealing a ten-dollar bill of the bank of Cape Fear, North Carolina, payable to General Jackson. The case was tried at Marlborough Court, 1st.of April, 1817, before Justice Oolcock. Samuel Winds proved that he arrested the defendant on this charge. That he (prisoner) told the witness that he had received the bill from a negro, who had stolen it; but afterwards confessed that he had taken it.

Trespass to try title to eighty acres of land. The plaintiff claimed under a sheriff’s deed (which *was duly proven,) dated 6th October, 1812. The surveyor proved the locus in quo, and that the defendant still lived on the land, notwithstanding the sale.

■This was a rule to show cause why the defendants should not be committed to gaol. The facts were, that the defendants had been convicted before Judge Cor,. cock, twelve months ago, for killing a negro in heat and passion. The Judge pronounced the sentence, and' the clerk recorded it, “ that they pay three hundred and fifty pounds old currency.” The defendants immediately paid that sum to the clerk, and took his receipt.

This was am application for dower. The declaration, as usual stated the marriage and seisin of the husband; issue was joined, and the jury found a verdict for $200 for the plaintiff. A motion was now made to set aside the verdict.

This was a special action on the case against the defendant, for damages sustained at his ferry, by the plaintiff, in consequence of the chain breaking, which fastened the flat to the shore.

This was an action of covenant, on the following agreement: “An article of agreement, made and entered into, and confirmed on the 13th day of August, 1806, between William Richards, of South Carolina, Pendleton District, of the one part, arid John D. Terrill, of Georgia, Franklin County of the other; witnessetk, that whereas there appears to be a prospect of obtaining some lands, by purchase, in the State of Georgia, the parties aforesaid make and ordain the following…

This was an action of debt, by summary process, brought against the defendant, to recover the penalty imposed by the act of 1803, for converting to his use an estray, contrary to the directions of the act, which penalty is given to the informer. The process was quashed on the ground that the act prescribes the mode by which the penalty should be recovered, to wit, by information.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Camden, in November Term, 1816. The facts were these; the defendant, who was a merchant, gave the plaintiff a promissory note, on which this action was founded.

The defendant in this ease had been convicted under the act of 1801, of retailing spirituous' liquors without a license. An execution had been issued against him to collect the flue imposed against him by law, in consequence of such conviction. This was a rule against the sheriff to show cause, why he had not enforced that execution. He showed *for cause that the Governor had remitted the penalty. The solicitor contended, that the Governor had no such power.

This was an action of trespass to try title to a tract of-acres of land. Both plaintiff and defendant claimed under Isaac Huger, who, on the 25th April, 1786, mortgaged it to the loan office. On the 29th March, 1797, it was sold by the commissioners, and conveyed to Samuel Brailsford, (the father of the plaintiff,) who recorded his title in February, 1810. The plaintiff claimed by her father.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of land.

This was an action for malicious prosecution. The only evidence offered, to show that the prosecution was ended, was an endorsement made on the back of the warrant, in these words : “ On the part of the State. I enter a noli prosequi in this case, March Term, 1815. James Ervin, Solicitor, N. 0.” A motion for a nonsuit was submitted, on the ground, that this evidence would not support the declaration.

The writs, in ihese eases, were issued, returnable to November Term, 1812, and the plaintiffs took no steps since that time, to progress in their suits. The defendant moved for leave to enter up judgment as in case of -nonsuit, and issue execution for costs, which was overruled.

* The plallififf produced a grant, 6th December, 1771, for two thousand acres, to Georg'e Evans. The executors of the grantee had sold to Thomas T. Tucker, from whom the plaintiff purchased. On the production of the will of Evans, and the deed by the executors to Tucker, it appeared that three of the executors had qualified, and that two only had signed the deed'.

This cause was tried in the Spring Term, 1815, in Charleston, before Mr. Justice Nott. The plaintiffs were the affreighters of the ship Ariadne, of which the defendant was the owner; and this ': 1. Over freight paid on a cargo of rice and cotton, from Charleston to Lisbon ; having paid on the- gross weight, whereas, by the charter party, they were bound to pay on the nett weight only. 2.

This was an action on a bail bond, assigned, by the Sheriff of Charleston District, to the plaintiff. Tried before Mr. Justice Gsimk, at Charleston, January, 1817. ', ^ The defendant was bail to the sheriff, in an action brought by the plaintiff, against one William Adams. In that action, the plaintiff obtained-a judgment and sued out a writ of fieri facias,-which was returned nulla bona; and he now seeks in this action to charge the bail..

The defendant’s testator had g-iven a bond, in the penalty of three thousand pounds sterling, with a condition to pay four per cent, interest on certain legacies, until the legatees therein mentioned, respectively arrived at the age of twenty-one years ; and as each one came of age, to pay him his proportion of the principal, being, in the whole, fifteen hundred pounds sterling.

This was an action of trover, to recover certain negroes claimed by the plaintiff, under the will of his mother, Judith Guei’y. The clause of the will, under which the plaintiff claimed, was in the following •words: “I give to my daughter, Florida G-uery, two uegro girls, by name Subel and Hannah, and their increase ; but in case my daughter, Florida Guery, should die without heirs of her body, then, the said negro gilds, Subel and Hannah, to return to my son Isaac Guery ;…

This was an action of debt, on a judgment recovered against Thomas Ladson, in his lifetime. He died leaving a will, and William Sanders his executor. Sanders, the executor, died, leaving a will, and appointing the defendant, William Fishburne, his executor, against whom the present action was instituted, charging him as executor of William Sanders, executor of Thomas Ladson, deceased. Defendant pleaded payment, on which issue was taken.

<p>On the plea of non est factum, no evidence will be admitted, but. such as goes to the destruction of the bond, (a)</p> <p>Wherever the vendee is deceived in the purchase of land, by misrepresentation, he Ta&jpleadit or give it in evidence in discount, against a bond given for the purchase money. (b)</p>

This was an action of replevin. The plaintiff declared in the usual form. The defendants avowed the taking for a certain sum due to the said James Beggs, one of the defendants, *for rent in arrear, setting forth the lease, and the sum due, in legal form. The plaintiff replied, 1. That the said A. 8. Harvey was not the bailiff oí the said James, as the avowry alleged, and issue was taken thereon. 2. A tender and refusal, but did not pay the money into Court.

Tried before Mr. Justice Grijike, at Charleston, January, 1817. The defendant was the endorser of a promissory note, for the recovery of which this action was brought by the plaintiff as endorsee. The note had been lodged in the - bank for collection; but on the second day of grace, no demand having been made by that bank, it was withdrawn and lodged in the Planters *and Mechanics’ Bank, and on the same day demand of payment was made of the drawer.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Grimke, at Charleston, January, 1817. James W. Gadsden, the* defendant, left his residence in town, with his family, about the 28th November, 1815, and resided entirely in the country, until about the 29th May, 1816; during which time he never personally received the service of a copy of a writ issued in the above case, or had any knowledge directly or indirectly by a copy left for him, or otherwise of the commencement of this suit.

In this case, the defendant was indicted for stealing sundry bank bills privily from the person. The indictment contained other counts, charging the defendant with simple larceny, for taking the same bills. Cornelius Tobin, the prosecutor, swore, that in June last, (1817) his pocket was picked of $2700 in bank bills. The description which he gave of them, corresponded generally, with bills which were afterwards found on the person of the defendant.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Charleston. It was an action of assumpsit on a due bill, made by the defendant to the plaintiffs. When produced in evidence, it was in the following words : “ Due Messrs. Jacob D. Stagg & Co. or order one hundred and thirty-five dollars, payable on demand. Signed Benj.

This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, which became due four years before the defendant petitioned for and obtained the benefit of the insolvent debtor’s act. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Jacksonborough, April, 1816. A writ for the admeasurement of Mrs. Gist’s dower, in the land of her deceased husband, Edward Tongue, had issued in pursuance of an order of Court of the preceding term, to which the commissioners made a return, recommending the assessment of a sum of money in lieu of dower.

Tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Charleston, January, 1816. The plaintiff, who was a carpenter, had performed work, and furnished materials for the defendant, which by admeasurement, and at the customary prices, amounted to $1495.

Tried before Mr. Justice G-rimke, at Charleston, January Term, 1817. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as endorsee, against the defendant, as endorser of several promissory notes drawn by Philip Cohen. The plaintiff’s right to recover was resisted on the grounds : 1. That legal notice of non-payment by the drawer, had not been given to the defendant, the endorser, by which he was discharged.

These were cross actions of covenant, brought on the same deed. Thomas has agreed to sell his printing establishment to Wilson for the sum of $20,000, and entered into a covenant to transfer the same to him, on a given day> nPon condition that Wilson would execute to him *a bond for the payment of the money in four periodical instalments, with good and sufficient security to be approved of by him. Wilson had undertaken, on his part, to give such security.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Oheves, at Georgetown, Spring Term, 1817. It was admitted, that the plaintiff had a demand against the schooner General Hampton, a vessel owned by the defendant’s father, but in the possession and charge of the defendant. That the owner of the vessel was absent, and that the vessel was specifically liable in the Admiralty for the demand. That the plaintiff was about to libel her. That she was ready for sea and bound on a voyage.

Tried before Mr. Justice Grimke, at Charleston,- January Term, 1817. This was an action of debt against the defendant, as a security on a replevin bond. A judgment had been formerly obtained against John Allport, the principal, for a return of the goods distrained, for payment of the rent in arrear; upon which, an execution de retorno habendo c.um. ji. fa. was issued, and returned by the sheriff.

This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Beaufort. The paper produced, was in these words : “ For value received, I promise to pay to John Frampton, sen., or bearer, three hundred dollars, on or before the first day of January next, as witness my hand this 26th day of May, 1812.” (Signed) “Reuben Samuels.” (Endorsed) “Benjamin.

This was an action to recover the plaintiff’s wages as a bricklayer, for one hundred aud ninety days work, and labor done and performed at the request of the defendant’s intestate. It was tried before Mr. Justice Gbimke, at Charleston. The only evidence offered to prove the demand, was the book entries of the plaintiff.

<p>This was an action of assumpsit, tried at Charleston before Mr. Justice Smith, in January Term, 1816, to recover freight prorata, on a contract to carry-bales of cotton from Charleston to Amelia Island.</p> <p>The cotton was shipped on board the schooner Sally. The vessel departed on or about the 11th of December, 1813, and proceded as far as Beaufort, by inland navigation, when she was arrested in virtue of the embargo laid by the United States. By the terms of the Act of Congress laying the embargo, there was a compulsion to land the cargo within ten days, and the vessel prohibited from returning or prosecuting the voyage. In this dilemma, the owner applied to the defendants, and requested directions from them what to do. They required the cargo to be brought back, but were informed, that the law prevented this. The defendants then said, that the owner of the vessel might leave the cargo at Beaufort, with one Francis Anone, who received and stored the same. The owner sold the schooner before the embargo was raised, but never applied for freight till it was raised. When applied for, the defendants desired that the contract should be performed, and the cotton carried to Amelia Island, which he refused, saying he had sold his schooner. On this evidence the jury found a verdict for the plaintiiij and this was a motion to set aside that verdict, upon the following grounds :</p> <p>1. Because the verdict was contrary to law; as the carrier was bound, after the raising of the embargo, to proceed and carry the cargo to the port of destination, before he could entitle himself to freight.</p> <p>2. That the verdict was contray to evidence ; as the testimony showed there was an intention between the parties to waive the original contract, and the permisssion *to leave the cargo with Mr. Anone, was a mere aceommodation to the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. That the verdict was without evidence; as there -was no proof of an acceptance, from which the jury could infer a promise to pay rateable freight, or for a quantum meruit.</p> <p>4. That the verdict was against the weight of evidence ; as the testimony strongly supported the inference, that the defendants did not mean to waive their right of having the cotton carried to Amelia Island ; and the conduct of the carrier in not demanding his freight, till the raising of the embargo, corroborated such inference.</p>

This was an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiff, the owner of a tract of land on Sian’s Island, against the defendant. It appeared, that a pathway had been opened from the plantation of the plaintiff to a creek dividing Blau’s and Burden’s Islands. Defendant finding this path convenient to him, (he having a plantation on Sian’s Island, and residing himself on Burden’s Island,) made use of it.

This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note for $1825. The note was admitted by the defendant. A defence very common in our Courts, was gone into by the defendant, that the note had been given for a commodity which had been misconceived by him, at the time of sale; that they were defects incident to it, which would justify a recision of the contract; at any rate, a considerable diminution in the price agreed to be paid for it.

This was an action on a. promissory note of Philip S. Smith to John Jenkins, for S3,000, dated July, 1810, and payable at five months. The plaintiff proved the note. The defendant alleged, that the note was given without consideration, and probably put into the hands of the payee, as the agent of the maker, to be paid over to some third person.

This was an action on two policies of insurance, dated the 13th and 15th September, 1810, made by defendants with the plaintiff, as agent of John and Thomas Armstrong, though in his own name, on the *Spanish brig San Carlos and her carg'e ; on the brig $8,000 and on the freight, valued $2,500.

This was a special action on the case, brought by the plaintiff against defendants, the owners of a schooner called the Nonsuch, to recover the amount of a cargo of rough rice, shipped on board of said vessel, and chiefly lost by the sinking of the Nonsuch in the river, while prosecuting the voyage from Georgetown to Charleston. It appeared that the loss was occasioned by the Nonsuch having been run down by another coaster beating in the same direction.

This was an action of assumpsit, to which the defendant had pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied, that the defendant had assumed to to pay within four years ; on which issue was joined. To support the replication, plaintiff s attorney produced a writ which appeared to have been entered in the Sheriff’s office, in Charleston, the 15th day of December, 1805, with the letters N. E. I. the initials of non est inveslus, marked upon it.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Charleston, May Term, 1817. The demand of the plaintiff, which was supported by the evidence, consisted of seventeen promissory *notes, amounting with the interest up to the year 1808, to $8028 05.

This was an action to recover $20, which the plaintiff placed in the hands of the defendant, as a stakeholder, to be paid to the winner of a wager, between the plaintiff and Samuel Hasket, depending on the event of a horse race. The wager was the same as that on which the action of Wootan v. HusJcet,1 was brought. And although the plaintiff’s stake was only $20, yet the bet was for more than 10Z. At the trial, the facts of the case were much controverted.

This was an action to recover the sum of $60 won by the plaintiff, by wagering on a horse race. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Bay, at Charleston, Spring Term, 1815. . The case, though within the process jurisdiction, was under the act; (1 Brev. Dig. 221, and P. L. 270,)1 submitted to the jury, who gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Colleton. The defendants, who were in the service of Dr. Glover, proceeded from his plantation to Mrs. E. Witsell’s, for the purpose of hunting runaway negroes. They loaded their guns with buck shot, and on approaching the house, they separated, so as to command the back of the house. A negro who was in or near the house, on their approach, jumped up, and ran off towards a swamp, which was at no great distance.

<p>To call another Mulatto, is actionable, per se.</p> <p>This was an action of slander, for calling plaintiff’s wife a Mulatto. There were no special damages laid in the declaration, so that the only question was, whether those words were actionable, per se, '</p> <p>The cause was tried in Charleston, Spring Term, 1815, before Mr. Justice Nott, who held that the words were actionable, and the jury found a verdict accordingly.</p>

<p>This was an action to recover the amount of an account, which consisted of charges for publishing several advertisements in the City Gazette, edited by the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant’s intestate, and for the price of that paper for two years.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s books of original entries, in which these charges were debited were offered in evidence, but the presiding Judge rejected them, as inadmissible. The case went to the jury on other evidence, and they found a verdict for the defendant.</p> <p>A motion was now made for a new trial on the ground, that the plaintiff’s books ought to have been admitted in evidence.</p>

This was an action of replevin, tried before Mr. Justice Smith, Charleston, January Term, 1816. The defendant was bailiff of the landlord, and distrained for rent in arrear. The plaintiff produced a receipt in full for the rent, that is, a receipt for an order on Ool. Magwood, who was called as a witness, and proved that it had not been paid by him, because the funds of the drawer had been taken out of his hands. No notice of nonpayment was proven.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Grimke, at Columbia. It appeared that the garnishee had been served with a copy of the writ of attachment, which was returnable to October Term, 1814, and that the garnishee made no return to that term ; but on the fourth day of the following March Term, he offered a return. An objection was made on the part of the plaintiff to its being received, on the ground that it came too late.

This was an action, by summary process, on a promissory note for $85. At the time the note was put in suit it had been some time clue, and interest had accrued on it, which made the demand exceed £20. The plaintiif did not claim interest in the body of the process, nor did the note, in express terms, stipulate for the payment of interest.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Newberry, Spring Term, 1818, At the sale of the estate ,of the plaintiff’s intestate, in pursuance of ah order of the Court of Ordinary of Newberry district, the defendants purchased a negro woman slave, and her child, at $-, and gave their note for the payment. This was an action to recover the amount of the note.

This was an action of deceit, brought under the summary jurisdiction of the Court, tried before Mr. Justice Cheves, at Laurens. The process stated that the plaintiff and defendant exchanged horses. That the defendant warranted the horse which he gave to the plaintiff to be sound, knowing him to be unsound. *The plaintiff demanded a jury, and the case was accordingly submitted to one.

This was an action of trover to recover the value of a negro child, to which the plaintiff claimed a right. It appeared that, by a former action of this nature, the plaintiff had recovered of the defendant the value of a negro woman, (mother of this child,) pending which action the child in question was born.

Tried before Mr., Justice Bay, at Granby, 18 — . The plaintiff, who was a constable, had levied a magistrate’s execution on a mare, as the property of Nathan Joiner, at the suit of the defendant. But the mare was claimed by Martin Witt, and the plaintiff refused to sell unless the defendant would indemnify him: the defendant did so, and the plaintiff sold the mare.

Tried before Mr. .Justice Gantt, at Newberry, March Term, 1818. This was an application on the part of the Clerk of Newberry, to set aside an order made in the Court of Sessions, in the year 1808, requiring Mm to receive all recognizances for the maintenance of bastard children, and to file the same in his office; from which resulted much trouble, and no compensation to the clerk.

This was an attachment issued by a magistrate, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1785, which makes it lawful “ for any justice of the peace, upon complaint to him made upon oath by any person, that his debtor is removing out of the county privately, or absconds and conceals himself, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him, to grant an attachment,” &c. The Act also further requires, that “ every justice of the peace, before granting such…

This was an action of trespass to try title to a tract of land. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Nott, at Lancaster Court House, Spring Term, 1818. Defendant’s grant called for a BlachjacJc tree, in Walker’s line, but upon a resurvey, a Blackjack, supposed to be the corner mentioned, was found somewhat *sbort °f Walker’s line; and the only question as to the location was, whether his line should stop at this Blackjack, or be extended to Walker’s line.

This was an action on the case, brought to recover the consideration money (five hundred and fifty dollars) paid by the plaintiff, an elderly widow lady, to' the defendants, dealers and traders in negroes, for a negro girl, purchased of them by her. The ground on which the right of plaintiff’s case rested, was that of unsoundness in the negro which she had purchased.

<p>In an action brought against the securities of the sheriff, on the security bond., for not paying over money collected by the' sheriff, interest is only recoverable from the time the action was brought, unless a demand had been made on the sheriff before, and then from the demand.</p>

This was an action of slander,'tried before Mr. Justice Nott, at York, Spring Term, 1818. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration that the defendant had called him a hog thief. The first witness called was Sarah Moore. She said she heard that defendant had accused plaintiff of stealing his hog, and had made him pay for it.

This was an action of trover, to recover damages for the conversion of four negroes. The plaintiff proved that the negroes belonged to James Baker, deceased, in his lifetime. He proved a demand, and a refusal by the defendant. He also proved the value of them, and closed his case.

TrOVER for three negroes. Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt at Edgefield, March Term, 1818. It appeared that the plaintiff had married the daughter of the defendant. That some time after his marriage, the negroes in dispute had been sent by the defendant to him, and that he had them in possession two or three years. That they were considered by his neighbours as his property. About the expiration of the third year, they were taken away by Mrs. Banks, wife of the defendant.

The evidence of the gift was the repeated declarations of the father, both before and after the marriage, that he had given them to her; and at one time, when the negroes were seen at work for the daughter at her father’s house, he said to the witnesses, that he had given them up to her.

This was a motion to set aside a nonsuit. It was a case of trover for certain negro slaves, tried before Mr. Justice Teezevant, in Marion district, April, 1804.

Tried originally before the Recorder of Charleston, and at January term, 1818, before his Honor Judge Grimke. This -was an action brought to recover from the defendant the sum of twenty dollars, for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the City Council.

Tried before Mr. Justice Bay, at Ooosawhatchie, April Term, 1815.

Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock, Colleton, April Term, 1818. These were two actions brought against the defendant, in the name of the treasurer, on his bond given for the faithful discharge of his duty. The first was to recover the amount of the judgment of John Coburn v. Richard Single-, ton; and the second to recover the judgment of Bichard Evans, against the same defendant. In the first case it appeared that the judgment was for $94 and $25 costs ■making $119.

This was an action of trover, for two negroes, owned by Mrs. Gilbert, plaintiff’s intestate, in her lifetime. Defendant claimed them as a donatio causa mortis. It appeared in evidence, that the deceased lived and died at the house of defendant. Samuel Nesmith, the first witness, swore that he was in the room when Mrs. Gilbert was lying sick, a few hours before her death. Mrs. M’Dowell, defendant’s wife, was also in the room.

This was an action of debt, upon a former judgment, obtained on three promissory notes, on 14th June, 1806 ; and the plaintiff claimed not only the sum due, (a part having been paid of the principal of the judgment,) but also interest, as damages for the detention of the debt. _ Before the commencement of the action, in a conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant’s attorney, the latter said to the plaintiff, “ I am ready to pay you the balance of the original…

This was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff as assignee of Lewis Ogier ; tried at Barnwell, Spring Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Oolcock. The general issue of non est factum., was pleaded. On the production of the bond, it appeared that there was no consideration expressed in the assignment, and that it was not under seal.

Action on the case, for not assigning a bail bond; tried at Orangeburg, before Mr. Justice Colcock. It appeared on the trial below, that the attorney of the plaintiff, in the suit of Antonio v. Anderson, applied to the defendant, who had been the sheriff of Lexington district, when that suit was instituted, to assign to his client the bail bond, which had been taken of Anderson, which he refused to do. That upon this refusal this action was founded.

<p>_ This was .a case for partition, in which the rights of the plaintiffs to a partition of the land in dispute, were contested.</p> <p>It appearing that all the lands lay in other districts, although most of the defendants resided in Fairfield; a motion was made, and sustained by the Court, for the dismissal of the suit, for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>The case was brought before Mr. Justice Cheves, at Fairfield, at a special Court, held in July, 1818.</p> <p>This was a motion to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, .on the ground, that the Court had jurisdiction of the case.</p>

This was an action brought on a written contract, in the form of a promissory note, for the payment- or delivery of six hundred bushels of corn. The cause was brought on for trial, before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Fairfield, Fall Term, 1818. *A motion was made for a nonsuit, on the ground, that the note was not assignable, under the Act of Assembly of 1798, and therefore the assignee could not bring an action in his own name.

<p>The finding of a grand jury in writing, which has been publicly announced by the clerk in their presence, is good, although not signed by the foreman.</p> <p>Where the grand jury, on a count for a riot and assault in an indictment, find “ A. guilty of a riot, ’’ it is a partial finding of the entire count, and therefore void, (a)</p>

This was an action of trover, to recover the value of certain negroes. There was an interlocutory judgment against the defendant, and the case had been several terms (five or six,) on the writ of inquiry docket.

This was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiff, as endorsee, against the defendant, as endorser of the following instrument: “January 15,1813.

<p>The Act of Assembly of 1712 gives the commissioners of the poor power to bind minors as apprentices, only where they shall become chargeable to the district.</p> <p>The commissioners of the poor have no right to bind an infant if its parents are living.</p> <p>An assignment of void indentures, though with the knowledge and approbation of the father, if not accompanied with the formalities required by the Act of 1740, as necessary to the validity of an indenture, will be likewise void.</p>

This case was submitted without argument; and the only question for the consideration of the Court was, whether, in an action of slander, the general bad character of the plaintiff may be given in evidence, by way of mitigating the damages ?

<p>Disturbing a religious assembly during worship is indictable.</p> <p>Under the Act of 1740, the patrol have no authority to correct slaves if in company with a white person.</p> <p>To authorize the patrol to disperse assemblies and congregations of slaves (according to the Act of 1800 >, the place of meeting must be private or confined, or the meeting itself in the night time.</p> <p>In an action for a malicious prosecution, both malice and want of probable cause must appear. ■</p> <p>Malice may be inferred from the want of probable cause; but the presumption of malice arising from the want of probable cause, may be rebutted by other circumstances.</p>

<p>This was an action of assumpsit to recover overseer’s wages.</p> <p>It was attempted on the trial, to show, that the plaintiff had not fulfilled his contract; that he had been negligent and unfaithful, and withal had been guilty of an express violation of the contract made by him, in keeping hogs, which, by the. con tract, he was prohibited from doing. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial.</p>

Tried at Winnsborough, Fall Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Johnson. William Calhoun, the elder, deceased, by his last will and testament, duly executed, devised a tract of land of two hundred acres to his widow, Catharine Calhoun, during her Ufa or widowhood; remainder to his two sons, William Calhoun, the younger, and the defendant, to be divided between them, share and share alike.

This was an action of slander, tried before Mr. Justice Colcock, at Columbia, The fifth count in the declaration, charged the words to have been spoken of the plaintiff as a merchant, viz.: “You have got my money upon your shelves ; you are a damned rogue.” The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the g’round, that the words were not actionable, which was granted by the presiding Judge. A motion was now made to set aside the nonsuit, on the ground: That the words are actionable.

<p>Where a father has been a citizen of the United States, his son is entitled to the privileges of citizenship, although born without the limits of the United States. Aliter of the child of a citizen mother by an alien father.</p>

Summary process on a note for $50. Tried at Edgefield Court House, Fall Term, 1818, before Judge Colcook. The note was in these words: “Due John S. Glascock, fifty dollars, value received, 29th December, 1815. Signed Allen Elliot. Test, John Randolph.” On the back of the note was written, “ I endorse the within note to William Eddings, under tire following proviso, viz., I am to be accountable for tbe said amount, provided it cannot be made out of Allen Elliott.

This was an action of trespass, to try title. The jury found the following special verdict. “ We find that the land claimed by the plaintiffs, was granted to Peter Eaysoux, on the 15th October, 1784, and that Peter Faysoux, the grantee, died on the-day of February, 1795, leaving tbe plaintiffs, several of whom were •minors, and one of whom is now about twenty-four years of age, (and four other children,) two of whom, viz., Hester and Sarah, are still living, and Mary and…

This was an action of assumpsit on a p omissory note, for $600, given by the defendant to the plaintiff.

This was an action to recover damages for a trespass committed by the wife ; tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Newberry, Spring Term, 1818. The defenddant pleaded, that since the last continuance, the plaintiff had recovered damages for the same trespass, in an action against one Manning. To this plea, the plaintiff demurred, and assigned for causes of demurrer, 1. That a recovery against one of several joint trespassers, is no bar to an action against another. 2.

<p>A. by bis last will and testament, bequeathed various personal property to his daughter B., to be delivered to her on the day of her coming of age, or her marriage; and by a subsequent clause, limited a remainder to his three sisters, if B. should die before age or marriage; by a codicil made soon after, A. bequeathed a negro woman to B., and declared that this codicil should be considered as part and parcel of his last will and testament, and that all things therein mentioned should be faithfully performed. Held, that the bequest contained in the codicil, was not subject to the limitations of the will, and consequently that B. took an absolute estate in the negro woman.</p>

Debt on bail bond, tried at. Newberry district, Fall Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Oolcock. This was a summary process ; and on the trial it was objected, that the proceeding should have been by scire facias, under the Act of 1785 ; which proceeding, it was contended, was substituted in lieu of the action of debt on tbe bond to the sheriff. The presiding Judge was of a different opinion, and decreed for the plaintiff.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson. This was an application to the Court for a writ of partition, to make a distribution of the real and personal estate of the deceased, Hugh M’Donald, agreeably to the Act of 1791. The defendants opposed this application, and set up a- will made by the deceased. It appeared that this will had been proven in the common form, and allowed by Joseph Brown, Esq., the late Ordinary of Chester district, in 1814.

<p>Debt on bond, tried at Columbia, Fall Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Cor.cocK.</p> <p>The bond was given to the plaintiff, (Kilgore) conditioned to prosecute a writ of replevin with effect, and to pay and satisfy all costs which should be awarded, in case he should discontinue or be cast in his suit, and all damages which should be recovered against him for suing out his writ.</p> <p>To this action there were two pleas in bar ;l that the bond was not taken in pursuance of the statutes or acts, P. L. 368,1. Brev. tit. Distress.2 Demurrer and joinder.</p> <p>A third plea, that the bond was taken by duress. Issue.</p> <p>It appeared that the defendant, Babb, was in the possession of a house, in the town of Columbia, as tenant to one Bruce, at the annual‘rent of three hundred dollars; that this house was sold by a decree of the Court of Equity, and that, as Rabb’s term had not expired, he was sent for to attend the sale, and did so. The sheriff declared, that Babb was in, at the yearly rent of $300 ; that his term had not expired, and that whoever became the purchaser would of course lie under this incumbrance. Rabb ,was present, and did not contradict this. A levy was afterwards made for the rent of the unexpired term of seven months; this bond was given, and defendant did sue out a writ of replevin; and for want of prosecution was nonsuited. Execution issued for costs, which were paid, and the goods not found.</p> <p>Upon this, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and a motion was now made for a new trial.</p> <p>*1- Because the bond was not taken according to the statutes and act.</p> <p>2. Because the proceedings of the Court of Equity should not have been admitted as evidence.</p> <p>3. Because, without them, it could not have been proven that there was any rent due.</p>

<p>Wliore an infant sues by guardian, the declaration should state that he was admitted by the court; but after verdict, judgment will not be arrested on that ground, (a)</p> <p>In an action of trover, the jury may give the plaintiff the highest value of the property converted up to the time of the verdict. (b)</p> <p>A deed fraudulent as to creditors may be good between the parties, (c)</p> <p>Where a person has conveyed property to another, he is estopped by his own deed to deny his right to convey; (d) and much less can a third person, not being a creditor, take advantage of it.</p> <p>If A. sell property to B. in presence of, and with the approbation of C., the reputed owner, this is sufficient to enable B. to bring trover without showing how A. acquired the right, (e)</p> <p>If a voluntary deed be good at the time of execution, the vendor’s having contracted debts afterwards will not render it void, unless it be proved that the property was conveyed away with that view.</p> <p>For a voluntary deed is not necessarily void, because it contains all that a man is worth. Neither is it fraudulent, because the' vendor continues in possession; it is only deemed so against creditors and subsequent purchasers without notice.</p> <p>Where a father has made a bill of sale to his son, a minor, to whom he was guardian, and the father continues in possession of the property, this possession is consistent with the nature of the instrument, and, may be considered as the legal possession of the son. (f)</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, on a written contract, by which the defendant undertook to carry a certain quantity of coffee to the State of Kentucky ; in consideration of which the plaintiff agreed to give him “ one half of the net proceeds on the coffee, and the load bade, which, it was agreed, should be cotton bagging.

This was an action of covenant on a deed, in which the parties were reciprocally bound : the defendant’s intestate to advance four thousand dollars to the plaintiff, and bear his expenses; and the plaintiff to lay out the money so advanced, in the purchase of lands in the State of Georgia, which lands, when acquired, were to be equally divided between the parties. The breach assigned was, that the defendant had not paid the money according to the stipulations of his covenant.

This was an application to the Circuit Court of Darlington, pursuant to the Act of 1791,1 (1 Faust, 166, 1 Brev. Dig. 105,) authorizing this Court to try caveats, praying an order of the Court to restrain Ruth Thornhill, the defendant, from carrying into a grant a survey which she had caused to be made, and that a grant might issue on the survey of the plaintiff.

This was an action of slander, tried before Mr. Justice Nott, at Sumter Court, Spring Term, 1815. ^ The first count in the declaration stated that, on the second Monday in April, 1812, William Mayrant, John Kershaw, and Charles Richardson, were candididates for members of Congress, for the united districts of Lancaster, Chesterfield, Kershaw and Sumter. “That James B. Richardson, (the defendant,) in conversation with divers electors for said district, maliciously and falsely…

<p>In actions ex delicto, tlie plaintiff may enter a nolli prosequi as to a defendant.</p>

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The defendants pleaded liberum tenementum. The plaintiff replied, de injuria sua propria, absque tali causa ; and issue was joined thereon. Evidence was given on both sides, on the point of title. The defendants’ counsel claimed the right of replying in argument; but the presiding Judge ruled, that he was not entitled to reply. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Sumpter, at a special Court held in July, 1818.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum, fregit, *tried before Mr. Justice Oheves, at Union, Fall Term, 1817. The locus in quo was not disputed. Held: he stayed but one year. Afterwards Absolom Langston cultivated it for one year, but did not live on it. The witness who proved these facts, (Wm. Black-stock) stated, that when the first fact occurred, he was a little boy about six years old.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum, fregit. Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Union, October Term, 1818. To establish the plaintiff’s right to recover, the defendant, in pursuance of not'ce given for that purpose, *was called on, and produced a lease from Nathan Darby to defendant, dated in 1808, for the term of thirteen years, which had not yet run out.

This was an action of trespass to try titles, tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Lancaster, Pall Term, 1818. There was no objection to the plaintiff’s title, except one which arose out of the following circumstances : John Davis, the grantee, and in whom the legal title was, made a deed to the executors of his son, Robert Davis, then deceased, in trust, to be disposed of agreeably to the will of the said Robert Davis.

Action on the case for a nuisance, tried at Columbia, Fall Term, 1818, before Mr Justice Colcock. The plaintiff’s counsel first produced the Act of 1799, vesting the ferry, now owned by plaintiff, in the heirs of Comply for the term of fourteen years. It was admitted, that the clause so granting this ferry was not to be found in the engrossed act, though, in the act printed by the Slate printer. Next was produced the Act of 1811,1 3 Brev.

In Charleston, May Term, 1809, the plaintiff obtained- a judgment against the defendant, and sued out a writ of fieri facias, returnable to the next succeeding term, which was lodged in the Sheriff’s office, but no other proceedings were had thereon.

Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1818. This was -a rule against the sheriff, to show cause why certain moneys, in his hands, arising from the sale of a lot of land, in the city of Charleston, on a writ of y?, fa. against Charles Corr, at the suit of-, which the applicant claimed as mortgage, should not be paid over to the plaintiff.

This was an action of trespass, to try title to a tract of land in Beaufort district. In establishing- his claim, the plaintiff offered in evidence an exemplification of a judgment, and a pluriesfi. fa. in the same case, under which the land in question was sold at sheriff’s sale, in order to introduce, as a link in his chain of title, the sheriff’s deed of conveyance.

This was an action of assumpsit, on a verbal agreement, between the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff should serve the defendant, as an overseer of one of his plantations, for the year 1809, and that the defendant, in consideration thereof, should pay him the value of three hands in the crop, for his personal services, and three like shares for three negroes belonging to the plaintiff, who were to labor in the crop.

Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Johnson. *Tho demandant’s late husband was, in his lifetime, and during the coverture, seized of an entire square of land in the city or Charleston, which was sold under the decree of the Court of Equity; and the defendant became the purchaser of one of the lots.

This was an action, within the summary jurisdiction of the Court, to recover eighty dollars, the value of a horse, which the plaintiff had delivered to the defendant, and which had not been returned. The only witness sworn on the trial, stated that he was present when the parties entered into a contract, by which it was agreed that the defendant should take the horse on trial, and if he liked him, he was to pay for him the sum demanded.

This was an action of slander, on the following printed publication: “ Whereas many insinuations have been advanced and promulgated, much to my injury, by individuals, in asserting that I was sent to jail for having a correspondence with the enemy off the bar.

Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1818. The plaintiff was master, and the defendant owner, of a vessel called the Young Sea Horse ; and this was an action to recover certain freight, which had been received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, and for which it was admitted,'he was liable.

The plaintiff brought an action in the Inferior City Court, against the defendant, to which he set up, by way of discount, the amount of a promissory note, made by the plaintiff to himself.

<p>Where words in a will are susceptible of reference to two objects, viz., a freehold in the lands, or rents which had previously accrued, parol evidence may be admitted to show to which they apply, (a)</p>

Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1819. The plaintiff, who was a tailor, had debited the defendant with clothes, made for and delivered, by his directions, to his ward, Richard Gough ; and the plaintiff, alone, was called to prove the entries in his shop book.

This was an action against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, given by Lewis Bryer to Thomas Price, deceased, payable 26th October, 1816. The haudwritin'g of the endorser was admitted. The plaintiff called a witness, who testified, that Price, the payee, died in June-, 1816, and Bryer, the maker, in September following.

<p>Tried before Mr. Justice Grimke. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit.</p>

<p>AR marriage settlements, whether made before or after marriage, must he recorded in the Secretary of State’s office.</p> <p>Marriage settlements made since 1785, must he recorded within three months from their execution.</p>

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson. Summary process, on bill for medical attendance on William James Knauff. *It appeared in evidence, that William James Knauff was an apprentice boy, bound to the defendant, and while in his employment, being sick, he went home to his mother’s house ; his mother employed the plaintiffs to attend him during his sickness.

This was a motion to set aside the return of the sheriff on the original writ as to J. A. Alston, one of the defendants, and consequently the subsequent proceedings. The sheriff’s return was, that having been unable to serve this defendant personally, he had, by his deputy, left a copy of the writ at the most usual place of the defendant’s residence. The motion was supported by sundry affidavits.

<p>The office of the Register of Mesne Conveyance is the proper place to record mortgages of leasehold estates.</p>

Assumpsit on a foreign bill of exchange, tried at Charleston,-18 — •, before Mr. Justice Grimke. Term, The bill was drawn by the defendant, in Charleston, *on the seventh of April, 1807, on the Messrs. Lees, at Liverpool. It was payable at sixty days, and accepted to be paid í>y John and Alexander Andrews, and protested for non-payment on the 12th. August, 1807.

Summons in dower: tried before Mr Justice Grimes, January Term, 1818. This was an action to recover dower in a tract of land, lying in the parish of Christ Church, of which John Gough, the husband of the demandant, was, in his lifetime, seized in fee.

justice Colcock. The defendant had been sued and held to hail by the plaintiff. Judgment had been obtained against him, and execution issued, and returned nulla bona. He was then surrendered by his bail to the Sheriff, and thereupon petitioned the. Court for his discharge, under the insolvent Debtors Act. His application was opposed, on the ground of fraud.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Charleston, in May Term, 1818. This was a motion for a writ of prohibition to restrain the proceedings of justices and freeholders, who, under the Acts of 1812,1 and 1817,2 for affording to landlords and lessors a summary mode of regaining possession *from tenants and lessees in certain cases, had directed that Benjamin Elfe, the landlord in this case, should be placed in possession of the premises leased by M’Donald and Bonner.

<p>Case on a policy of insurance, tried before Mr. Justice Nott, May Term, 1815.</p>

<p>The defendants were severally indicted under an Act of the General Assembly of this State, passed on the 23d day of August, 1769,1 entitled “ An Act to encourage the discovery and apprehending of housebreakers and buyers and receivers of stolen goods.” Each indictment concluded, “ against the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided.”</p> <p>Mr. Justice Johnson tried the cases at May Sessions, 1818, for Charleston district, and a verdict of guilty was found by the jury in each case.</p>

Tried before Mr. Justice Nott, Charleston, Spring Term, 1815. This was an action brought by Thomas Barksdale against the defendants, to recover the proceeds of a quantity of rice which had been delivered to them to sell, as factors, with instructions to sell for cash. The defendants sold and delivered the rice to a Mr. Powers, who shipped it on board of a vessel, and went off without paying for it.

Tried before Mr. Justice Grimke, at Charleston, January Term, 1818.

This was an action of assumpsit on a policy of insurance, tried before Mr. Justice Nott, at Charleston, Spring Term, 1815. The object of the suit was to recover a certain quantity of specie, part of the cargo of the brig Joseph insured at, and from, St. Jago de Cuba, to Charleston, which had been taken by the British, and carried to Jamacia.

<p>On an indictment for perjury, two witnesses are not necessary to disprove the fact sworn to by the defendant; but where there is but one witness, in addition to his testimony, some other independent evidence ought to be adduced.</p> <p>A magistrate who has taken the oaths of qualification before one of the associate judges, is not duly qualified ; and a person cannot be tried for perjury on an oath taken before a magistrate so qualified, and if on srrch oath a defendant is convicted, a new trial will be granted.</p> <p>The statute of 23 Geo. 2, c. 2, is not of force in this State, yet the precedents in perjury have always been agreeable to it, and are sufficient.</p> <p>Where there has been a conviction for perjury, and the words stated in the indictment do not, from the face of the indictment, appear to be material by averment, or by the context of the indictment, or by their own import, judgment will be arrested.</p>

Debt on bond ; plea, non esl factum; tried at Georgetown, Fall Term, 1817, before MLr. Justice Oolcock. The bond was given to the Commissioners of the Poor; the penal sum was sixty pounds. The condition was, that the obligor should pay the plaintiffs five pounds, or should prevent the child from becoming burdensome to the parish. There was no security to the bond ; no other than the defendant signed it. There was an interlineation near the end of the condition.

Assumpsit for two dividends of shares in the Union Insurance Company, for seven hundred and forty-four ^dollars, held by the copartners, during the existence of copartnership, and assigned by the survivor for the benefit of creditors.

Assumpsit, to recover the value of a quantity of crockery and glass ware, which plaintiffs had given orders to defendants to import for them from Liverpool, and which the alleged defendants had afterwards appropriated to their own use. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the present is a motion for a new trial.

<p>In an action of debt against the securities of the sheriff, on his bond given to the Commissioners of the Treasury, the Court will, on motion, stay the proceedings at any stage before judgment, unless the party, for whose benefit the action is brought, will enter into a written consent, that judgment shall he entered up and execution issue against him for costs if he fail to prosecute his action, and if he reside without the State, some person living within the State shall enter into such written consent for him.</p>

This was an action brought on a non-negotiable note, by an assignee, pursuant to tho Act of Assembly of 1798, authorizing assignees of such notes to bring actions in their own names.

Michael J. Budulph had been arrested at the suit of the plaintiff, on mesne process, and the defendant became his security, and entered into a bond to the sheriff', that he should keep the prison bounds, under the AcPof 1788, usually called the Prison Bounds Act. P. L. 55C. 2. Brev. Big. 158. The sheriff assigned the bond to the plaintiff, and an action was commenced in his name, to which the defendant demurred generally.

The defendant in this case was indicted for burglary. The offence was committed in a storehouse belonging to Mr. Maverick, living in Charleston. The store was kept by Mr. Garvin, who lived with his family in a dwelling house on the same lot, and superintended the store as clerk or agent Maverick. The dwelling and storehouses were about thirty yards apart, and no otherwise connected than by a fence, which enclosed a lot of about an acre or more.

Debt on administration bond, tried before Ms Honor Judge Golcook. George Farrar died on the -- day of-, 18 — , leaving his widow and one child, Uaddaway Farrar. On the fifth day of July, 1802, she administered, and Davis Williams, H. Parkman, and John Gibson, were her sureties. She was likely to waste the estate, and her sureties applied to the Ordinary to be exonerated, and her administration was revoked, and granted to Joseph Collier, on the 11th March, 1803.

'Pried before Mr. Justice Oot-cook, at Laurens, Spring Term, 1819. In 1810, the defendants entered into a bond to the plaintiff, the Ordinary of Edgefield district, conditioned that the defendant, Montgomery, should faithfully administer the estate of the late John Dunlap, whose widow he had married, and this was an action of debt on that bond.

This was an action of trover, tried at Beaufort, April term, 1819, originally-brought against the defendant and one Williamson, as to whom it had abated by his death. It was to try the plaintiff’s right to the following negro slaves, to wit, Frank, Arthur, Billy, Sam, Libby and her children, Doll, Grace, *Cloo and Aaron, alg Big Aaron and Caesar, which the plaintiff claimed under a gift from his father, Robert Reid, deceased.