Volume 12 — South Carolina Law Reports

THIS case was tried rn the City Court, before the Re» corder, and was brought up on appeal from bis decision. The facts as stated in his report, are as follows : The plaintiffs, residents of Paisley, in Scotland, consigned some packages of goods to Mr. IValter McCoul% in Charleston, for the purpose of sale; Mr. Me Coul being a merchant who both imported on his own account, and sold goods on account of others.

'Ti-ilED before the City Court of Charleston, September Perm, 1820. The question in this case was, whether an account due by Pains, one of the partners, to the defendant, coukl he set-off against the debt, due by the defendant to the plaintiffs l The book-keeper of the plaintiffs proved that the entries were made in the usual manner ; that according to them, the defendant appeared to be the debtor of the firm.

<p>A defendant imprisoned under an execution in a case of slander, is er.ti»tied to the benefit of the insolvent debtors act.</p>

T JLillED before Mr. justice Richardson, The brief stated in this case, that this was an action of replevin, and that the defendant liad avowed for rent in arrear. The plaintiff pleaded “ no rent in arrear,” and ÍS' sue was joined thereon.

Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock. This was an action of slander. The declaration charged in the three first counts, certain slanderous words spoken by the wife of the defendant against the plaintiff, and in other counts, certain slanderous words spoken against the plaintiff by the other defendant, James, the husband.

TfilS was an action of detinue to recover a horse. The property was proved the plaintiff’s; and a demand of him on the defendant was made: It also appeared that the plaintiff had been long deprived of his use. The verdict was for the plaintiff for the horse, or if he could not be had, for g 100, which was fixed as his value, and also for $ 100 damages.

<p>It is not necessary that a special notice of áissolution should be given tfc persons who are accustomed to deal with a firm. And it is a question for the jury to decide whether there was such evidence of the dissolution of the co-partnership as to induce them to believe that the party knew it.</p> <p>Notice published in a Gazette is conclusive on those who have had no dealing with the co-partnership; but as to such as have had dealings it shall,not be so considered, unless under circumstances it appear satisfactorily to the jury that it operated as a notice.'</p> <p>An authority to one of a co-partnership to settle the affairs, receive and pay the debts, does not warrant him to draw a bill, or give a note in the co-párlnership’s name.</p>

TCtflS was an action of assumpsit, to recover back g 150, paid the defendant on account of the purchase of a negro man slave, called Charles..

TC*HE defendant, by an express agreement, contracted to pay the plaintiff 55200 for'superintending the fixing of the mill-stones, pestles, and mortars of a newly erected steam-rice-mill.

^SL HIS was an action of trover, for a negro woman called Sally, and her children. The plaintiff owned a negro woman called Sally, who ran-away from him in June, 1809, which he alleged was the negro now in the possession of the defendant. In an advertisement published by the plaintiff in the City Gazette, under date of 1st March, 1810, offering a reward for her apprehension, among other descriptions, she is said to be of the Angola country, and Co speak the French Creole.

TlilS was an action of, debt, tried at Charleston, June, 1820, on a replevin bond, to which the defendant was security. The jury found fov the plaintiff the amount of rent due, and interest from the date of the judgment against the principal. A motion was marie for a new trial on two grounds: 1st. Because interest is not allowable on a replevin bond. 2d. If allowable, it can only be computed from the return of elongata.

THE defendant was arrested on a ca. sa. at the suit of the plaintiff, in an action of detinue, for a watch, and petitioned the City Court of Charleston to be discharged, under the prison bounds act. The Recorder reported that his discharge was objected to, on two grounds : 1st. That the schedule rendered in by bim did not contain a sufficiency of property to pay the debt for which he had been arrested. 2d. Because he had not returned a watch which belonged to bim.

TTílIED at Williamsburgh, Fall Term, 1820. The defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment for attempting to suborn Thomas Yarborough to commit a perjury.

<p>TFhE plaintiff, stiling himself relator, by bis counsel, made a motion in the Circuit Court for leave to file an information, in nature of a quo wafranto, against the defendant, with a view to cont. st the regularity of his appointment to the office of Sheriff of Charleston district, which h'e then exercised and enjoyed.</p> <p>This proceeding grew out of the following state of facts: In January. 1820, an election was held for Sheriff of Charleston district, at which both the parties were candidates, and on counting the votes, it appeared that the defendant was elected by a mujoiity of thirty-eight votes overthe relator, who was the next highest candidate. The; relator entered a protest against the election, and a majority of the managers convened, heard the grounds of the protest, and decided in favor of the defendant, and certified to the governor that he was duly elected, who thereupon commissioned him accordingly'.</p> <p>The Circuit Court rejected the motion for leave to file the information, and it was now renewed in this court in the form of an appeal from that decision.</p>

This was an action brought to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money, which it was alleged he had received upon the sale of goods deposited in his hands for sale as “ vendue-master.” The object of alleging that he was vendue-master, was to give the plaintiff a preierencc on the docket, pursuant to the provisions of the act of the 15th December, 1815. The defendant denied that he had sold the goods as vendue master.

HP JL di E D at Charleston, May Term, 1820, before his honor Judge Colcock. This was an action of debt on bond against the defendant, as one of the securities of Mr. Peter Trezevant¡, treasurer of the Soath-Carolina Society. The following are the facts of the case as appear from the pleadings and testimony: Mr; Trezevant was elected treasurer of the South-Car olina Society, 4th October, 1808, to fill the unexpired term of Tobias Gcimbridge, deceased.

TillS was an action of assumpsit, tried at Charleston., Spring Term, Í830. Tbe cause had been between three and four years at issue, when the defendant’s attorney, without any notice to the opposite party, tendered the plea of the statute of limitations, which was filed by the cleric.

1 A f' appeared in this case that an election had been held for sheriff of Charleston' district, pursuant to the act oi 1808, C2 Brevard^ 225,J which transfers the election of sheriff from the… Held: not more than one of the managers was present.

jL HIS was an action of trespass for cuttihg down a gate, which the plaintiff had erected across an avenue running-through his plantation-. It appeared in evi4ence that Isaac, Rivers formerly owned the two tracts of land on Jamen’ Island, marked on the plat hereto annexed, B. and C. then being an entire tract. He afterwards purchased the tract A. lying on the not'd side of a public road which -divided it from the other land.

TniS was án appeal from the ordinary, tried October Term, 1820. It appeared by the report of the ordihary, that letters of administration had been granted to John White, on the estate of Henry Bradley, on the 27th day of September, 1819. On the 10th of November following, a paper, purporting to be the last will and testament of Henry Bradley, was offered for probate.

HtííED before the City Court of Charleston, September Term, 1820, Debt on judgment, suggesting a devastavit. The following is the report of the Recorder : In this case a judgment by default had been obtained against the defendant as administrator of Best, The plain - tiff therefore brought an action of debt upon the judgment,, suggesting a devastavit, in order to render the defendant individually responsible.

TLrIED at Coosawbatcliie, April Term, 1820. The defendant and his co-partner, Jacob P. Henry, trading under the firm of Minis &? Henry, of Savannah, recovered a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, for Beaufort district, against Saúl Solomons £s? Co. for S 9000; arid afterwards, for a valuable consideration, assigned that judgment to the Bank of the State of Georgia.

Tried before his honor Judge Colcock, Charleston, IV! iTr Te f-m MS 20 • This was-an actTSlLoi debt, on a joint bond of one Thomas Nichols, and dc-fenchtBt- An appearance was entered for defendant; but as to T/i'ciinas Nichols, the sheriff returned that he was absent from th'S, State, and could not be found.

Tried before Mr. Justice Huger. This was an action of debt, on bond, given by the defer,, dant and two others to one Alexander Henry. It was joint and several j the defendant alone was sued. The bond was assigned by Henry to John Stoney, the plaintiff.

.i-HIS was a rule against the sheriff, heard before Mr. Justice Gantt, at November Term, 1820, for Beaufort: district.

TTfliS was an action of covenant to recover certain rent and damages, for having detained the premises after the expiration of the lease, and was tried before his honor Judge Huger, Charleston, July, 1820. The plaintiff, by indenture between him and the defendant, entered into on the 3d of November, 1796, leased to the defendant four lots of land in Boundary-street, for the term of ten years, at £ 15 per annum, payable quarterly.

JL HIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. .. • ' The sale and delivefy to the defendant were proved.— He was to have given his own note, endorsed by Bows Bascóme, in payment. When, howe.ver,-the agent of plaintiff called for this note, he found that defendant had sailed. Botas. £5? Bascóme then off. red their note, which was accepted by the. agent. The plaintiff had not been consulted.

T:iis was an action of debt on a judgment* entered Ne The defendant sat up a discount, consisting of the fob lowing sums, viz. § 136 68, paid to M. Simons, on the 23d April, 1811, and §48 95 to the sheriff, in full for all costs prior and subsequent to the judgment. The plaintiffs relied on a receipt of the same date and, to the same amount as that produced by the defendant, for % 136 68, and insisted that he was not entitled to credit for it.

m ■JL iilS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered to one Matthew Leonard, at defendant’s request. 1 Itere was no promise in writing by the defendant. The witness on the part of the plaintiff, proved the delivery of the goods to Leonard,, who was charged with, them in plaintiff’s books.

HE ^defendants were sued as executors de soil tort, under the following circumstances. Acting as auctioneers, they had dealings to a considerable extent with Stephen Lacoste, and had sundry goods in their hands belonging to the said S. Lacoste, on which they had made advances. These goods consisted of wines and coffee, the value of which did not equal the advances which had been made.

.A.CTION of assumpsit on a note. In this case the defendant’s attorney was called, and did not appear. He had not obtained permission of the Court ‘in be absent. The case went to the jury on the proof of the hand writing of the defendant. Verdict for plaintiff. Before the verdict was recorded, the defendant’s attorney appeared in court, and obtained the consent of the opposite attorney to open the case, and proceeded to read án affidavit to support a motion for continuance.

ThIS was an action brought on a due bill, of which the following is a copy: “ Due Mr. John Geyer one hundred pounds, paper me* dium. “28th September, 1793. “ For Frederick Kohne, “ Peter Patterson.” The plaintiff claimed as assignee of John Geyer, who made the assignment for the benefit of his creditors.

<p>a judgment and execution in attachment against the garnishee will net be set'aside on the ground of the negligence or ignorance of his at. torney. And it seems his only recourse is against his attorney, if he neglects to do his duty. And an order made by the circuit court to set aside the judgment, and to give the garnishee time to make his return, will be set aside, (a.)</p> <p>The garnishee has no right to question the regularity of the proceedings against the absent debtor. .</p> <p>As a security to the absent debtor, the plaintiff in attachment is required to make oath to the debt or sum demanded’; but it seems the oath is not required to be recorded or filed; it is only a’ part of the evidence oh which the Court is to bottom its judgment, (b.)</p>

JL HIS was an action brought against the defendants as Vendue Masters, for the proceeds of certain goods, wares and merchandise, sold by them for the plaintiff. By an act passed on the loth December, 1815, vendue masters are excluded the benefit of the insolvent debtor’s act, and a preference is directed to be given on the docket to all such cases.

<p>Where a tract of land had been sold by the Master in Equity, and re» presented upon a map as containing more acres than it was discover» ed upon a resuivey to have, an abatement will be allowed for the de^ ficiency in the quantity, accbrding to the nature and extent of the defect. — (a.)</p> <p>The riile of caveat emptof does not apply to sales by the master in. chancery, for he being the agent of the parties, for whose benefit the. sale was made, they are as much bound by his representations as they would have been by their own.-(b.)</p>

m JLHIS was an action of debt, on a Bail Bond, tried in Charleston, June term, 1820. Judgment had been recovered against the principal in February term, 1813, but suspended by appeal until June, 1817, when the constitutional court affirmed the judgment.

ThIS was a case in partition. — The parties were tenants in common. The defendants had been in possession for six or seven years before this action was commenced. No rents or profits had been demanded during that period.’ — . One of the witnesses (whose credit was extremely doubtful), stated that the possession of defendants had been adverse; but why he thought it adverse, he did ri'pt state, nor when it became so. • The jury found for defendants.

Th-IS was an action on the case. It appeared that the plaintiff was the widow of defendant’s testator. The whole estate had been left to her for life. She had continued in possession of the whole property for two years after the death of her husband. Among other things she had possession of a mare and colt, which the executor ordered to be sold to satisfy an execution against the estate.

In’ this case the parties had referred their differences to íVve arbitrators, three of whom concurred in an award in favor of the plaintiff; the other two dissented. To a'n action brought on the avvard, the defendant demurred, on the ground that the five arbitrators should have concurred The Circuit Court overruled the demurrer. A motion was now made to reverse that decision.

In this case a summary process had been brought on a breach of warranty, as to the age and soundness of a horse purchased of defendant by plaintiff. The damages were laid at 8 85. The case was submitted to a jury on the motion. .of defendant. A verdict for 815 was found for plaintiff. The clerk allowedfull costs, and $5 36 for special matter and argument, as in other cases tried by a jury.

*TííIS was an aGtion of debt, against the sheriff, on the act, to recover SO per cent on a sum of money collected by him and not paid over,. A verdict was had for the plaintiff. A motion was submitted to arrest the judgment, on the ground that no breach was assigned in the declaration.

TRESPASS to try titles. — Greenville district. The plaintiffs produced a grant to Alexander Ray, of whom they were the heirs, dated 1783. The defendant relied on a grant to Moses Wood, the deceased husband of the defendant, dated 1784, and possession from 1794, The plaintiffs in reply proved that Alex. Ray died about 1797, leaving the plaintiffs minors, who brought this action immediately after they all came of age.

*ThIS was a summary process against the defendant as administrator of the estate of the father and mother of an infant, about five or six years old, which the puhiiijn, í. poor woman, had boarded and taken care of for a year.— There was no administration at the time the cljild was taken.

HdCHLAND district. — Spring Term, 1821. Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. This was an action on a bond, bearing date 2nd January, 1802, payable in 1802 and 1803, signed by the defendant and John Bostick, for the payment of six hundred mid forty-nine dollars and 97 cents. It appeared in evidence, that on the 27th July, 1812, Bostick was sued on this bond, and that judgment was obtained on the 10th May, 1815.

m JL HIS was a case within the summary jurisdiction of the Court, founded on a magistrate’s judgment. Exception was taken by the counsel for the defendant, that inasmuch as it appeared in evidence, by an entry oft the execution, which had been issued on the judgment, that a levy had been made on the goods of the defendant, and that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to shew in what manner the levy had been disposed of before he could entitle himself to a decree.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand, given in the life-time of the intestate to the plaintiff for 55 810. On the part of the defendants, a discount for professional services rendered by the deceased, and amounting to Si,500, was relied on in the defence. The following facts were satisfactorily established by the testimony, vizThat the deceased had been employc-d by the plaintiff as counsel in tht celebrated cases of the Jews land, in Abbeville district.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover one hundred and twenty-five dollars, for fees due the plaintiff as sulicitor in the court of equity. The demand consisted of three distinct items ; one for drawing two answers in equity, in a case wherein the defendant and his wife were defendants, and separate answers were required.

K.SRSHAW district — Spring Term, 1821. Tried be,fort.- Mr. Justice Johnson, This was a summary process, to recover the value of some articles lost out of a cart, in attempting to cross-« ferry», then 3cept by the defendant Johnson, The plaintiff was an old man, blind in one eye, and see-, ing badly with the other.

Marion district — ‘March Term, 1821, Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson.

Chester district — Fall Term, 1820. Tried before M$. Justice Johnson. JPlIIS was a case of partition to divide certain lands among the respective persons entitled to shares therein.— The applicant, after the distribution, taxed costs as in a case of trespass, to try title. Upon motion, the presiding Judge ordered the taxation to be set aside.

Cowberry — March Term, 1821. Motion for a new trial. Tried before his honor Judge Gantt. £*HIS was a suit by summary process on an open account. The plaintiff being a merchant proved the account from, his books. The defendant pleaded infancy. To support this plea, the defendant introduced a witness who proved his infancy, but stated that he bad acquired his knowledge from a family register, or a memorandum in a family bible.

Spartanburg].! district — -Spring Term, 1821. Tried be* fore 'Mr. Justice Huger, TCniS was an action of trespass for an injury to a horse, aud two cows. There was but one count in the declaration, alleging the trespass to have been committed on the. same day on the horse and cows. The'plaintiff proved the trespass on the horse in 1817, and offered to prove the trespass on the cows in 1820.

SUMTERj March, 1821. was an action of trespass to try titles to land. The ■parties clainled under' different grants, from which then titles were admitted to have been derived ; so that the on»' 1y question was the location of the plaintiff’s grant.

The plaintiff had originally brought an action of debt on a penal bond, conditioned for the payment of money, in which he recovered; and in May, 1308, entered up his judgment for the penalty. At which time the principal and interest was equal to, if it did not exi ee l, the penalty.

Tried at Sumter, March Term, 1821. A. MOTION was made before Judge Johnson, at the last term for Sumpter district, to strike this case from the writ of enquiry docket, on the ground that the declaration was not filed on or before the first day of the second term, after the return of the writ, as required by the rule of Court.

Tried at Sumter, March, 1821. IIJÍrS. Drake, tbe wife, had a separate estate, and this was a summary process to charge that estate, which was? in the hands of the husband, as trustee to the wife, with an account for goods sold to the wife for her own use, and for the benefit of the separate estate. The pleadings presented to the Court below, the question, whether the Court had or had not jurisdiction of the pase ?

ThIS was a rule against the clerk to shew cause why he should not be attached, for refusing to sign and seal both a Ca. Sa. and a Fi. Fa. which h,ad been presented to him for that purpose, in the case of Haire vs. Raiford. The defendant shewed for cause, that these two executions could not legally exist at the same time, in the same-case, and that the defendant was bound to make his election.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to land. In-tracing the plaintiff’s title from the original grantee, he off Jeted in evidence, after proving very satisfactorily the loss and destruction of the original, the copy of a deed from Vanderhorst and Waring- to John Miller, certified by the clerk of the court, who is also register of mesne conveyances, as a true copy from the records in his office.

Laurens district — Spring Term, 1821. Tried before Mr. J ustice ■ Huger. THE defendant had been convicted of a misdemeanor, for trading with á slave, arid had been afterwards pardoned by the governor, upon the condition of leaving this state in the course of two weeks.

Sumter, April Term, 1821. S AMUEL Boatner had been arrested on a Ca. Sa, at the suit of the present defendant, and this was a summary process to recover the Gaoler’s fees during his confinement. The plaintiff was the Gaoler, and tlie process con tained two counts.

Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, March Term, 1821. ThIS was an action brought upon the sheriff’s bond, against his securities. In some other case á judgment had been obtained against the sheriff, execution issued, and returned, nulla bona. Upon this statement, the defendant claimed the right of imparlance, which was refused by the court,- in virtue of the act of Í795.

Newberry — Fall Term, 1820. Tried before Mn Justice Gantt. fin A HIS was an action of debt, on a bond given by the defendant, an attaching creditor, to the plaintiff’s garnishee, to indemnify him against any claims which might be made by the absent debtor, upon him for a note of hand belong» ing to the debtor, which he the plaintiff gave up to the defendant. The defendant pleaded performance.

JL HIS was a summary process to recover certain costs, which the plaintiffhad been subjected to under the following circumstances s The defendant had given his note to the plaintiff, who endorsed it to one Bowers,• before it became due, telling him at the time to push the note when it became due against the drawer, or he, Richardsoni would not be responsible as endorser.

Richland, March Term, 18&1. This was a rule against Eli Kennedy, Esq. late sheriff of Richland district, to shew cause why he should not be attached, for not collecting the amount of a fi-fa. lodged in his office in this case.

ThE plaintiff was the en.. dorsed by the defendant, at The plaintiff demanded pa] but without giving notice oi this action against the endo (Huger,) holding that the ;ee of a promissory note, en-the note had become due. it of the maker of the note ; refusal to pay, commenced . : And the presiding Judge ■ice of a refusal to pay was unessential, in such a case, gavina decree for the plaintiff ; Whereupon the defendant moved this court to reverse the decree, and for anon-suit…

<p>fit an action of slander, where t|ie witnesses were doubtful whether the words spoken were, “you are a damned mulatto son of a bitch,” or « you are a damned mulatto looking son of a bitch,’’ and the words laid were, “you are a damned mulatto son of a bitch,”, the court Held, that the words proved did not support the plaintiff’s declaration ; although at the time of uttering the words, the defendant, after the witnesses were called upon by the plaintiff to take notice of what he said, repeated, “I never eat my words; if you are. not a mulatto, your looks belie you.”</p>

m JL-HIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, tried at Columbia, Spring Term, 1821. The defendant pleaded that he had not promised to pay within four years.

Pendleton, March Term, 1821. Tried before Mr. Justice Huger. TfilS was a special action on the case for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife, without any uc etiam. clause in the writ. The declaration contained a count for harboring the plaintiffs wife, as well as for criminal conversation. The plea wás the general issue.

Tried at York, Spring Term, 1821, before Mr. Justice Noti. The plaintiff in this case had agreed; Verbally, to sell to the defendant three or four small tracts of land adjoining each other, at a stipulated price per acre. A surveyor was appointed by the parties to ascertain the quantity of land. He made a survey and returned a plat, with a description of the land by metes and bounds, estimating it at one hundred and twenty acres, more or less.

T^HE plaintiff had issued a writ in case, and declared in covenant. The defendant put in a special demurrer, and assigned for cause the variance between the writ and declaration. The Judge on the circuit overruled the demurrer. This was a motion to reverse that decision.

HP ’ JL HIS was an action of Trover for a negro woman, tried 3,t Winnsborough, Spring Term, 1821. It appeared in evidence th’trt the defendant’s wife way the daughter of the plaintiff’s testator. She had been mar» ried to a former husband, and when she first went to keeping house, her father lent her this negro girl; but the hus= band sent her back, and refused' to accept of her upon such terms. He sent her a second time, and the husband returned her again.

Tried at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1821. TPhIS was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of land, containing thirty-nine acres, being that part represented by the letter C. in the plat hereunto annexed. The plaintiff claimed under a large grant which covered the ‘ land in dispute, gnd all the adjacent land for a considerable extent.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1821. It purported to be founded bn a pro», mise made by the defendant to the plaintiff. But by the account filed with, and annexed to the declaration, it appeared to be a debt originally due to John McKenzie, and assigned by him to the plaintiff.

<p>An implied warranty does not extend to the moral qualities of a sla\c.</p>

<p>The only question in this case was, whether a feme covert could, by her last will and testament, made with her husband’s consent, bequeath her choses in action to him.</p>

<p>A deed is not void against a subsequent purchaser, merely because it ip voluntary, even though the person making it should owe 6ome inconsiderable debts at the same time.</p> <p>"Where personal property is conveyed by a husband to a trustee, for pi¡benefit of his wife' and children, the subsequent possession of Use husband is consistent with the object of the deed, and is ho evidence of fraud in beliaif bf a subsequent purchaser. (a.)</p>

HL HIS was an action of tre Sumter, Fair Term, 1821. s to try titles. Tried at \e The case depended altogctl sing the defendants lines.

<p>The tenure by which an office is held, does not depend upon the com mission which the governor may think proper to give. It is only evidence of the appointment. The tenure must depend upon the pro - visions of the act creating the office, or upon the Constitution.</p> <p>No office exists in this state by prescription.</p> <p>As the Constitution has not prescribed the tenure by which a solicitor shall hold his office, the act creating the office is the proper source from which that information is to be derived.</p> <p>The act of 1791, has given to the solicitors all the privileges, emoluments and advantages of 'the Attorney-General, and subjected them to all his duties; and the tenure by which they hold is the same.</p> <p>By the Constitution of 1776, the Attorney-General held his office during’ good behavior. By the Constitution of 1778, it was declared, that the Attorney-General should hold his office for the. term of two yeai’s, and until a successor should be appointed. The Constitution of 1776 was repealed by that óf 1778, and the Constitution of 1778, as far as it concerns the Attorney-General, was not repealed by that of 1790. Tlie Attorney-General therefore must have held in 1796, under the Constitution of 1778, and the act of the legislature of 1791, giving to the solicitors all the privileges, 8tc. of the Attorney-General, must have intended to limit the solicitor’s office to two years, and until another was appointed.</p>

Chester district, Spring Term, 1821. TfjHIS was an application to the court for a rule on the defendant, to shew cause why an information in tbe nature of a quo warranto shop!cl not be granted against him, to shew by what authority he exercised the office of ordinary of Chester district.

Beaufort district, April Term, f82'l.- Tried before Mr,, Justice Colcock. Held: which having taken place, the defendant’s commission had expired.

<p>Where a person was indicted for horsestealing', and the jury found a verdict, “guilt) of petit larceny,” the court heklt that judgment ^;' petit larceny could not be pronounced upon the prisoner; but oiclct-ed him back for trial. .</p>

This was an action of trespass to try titles. Tried at Sumter, Fall Term, 1821. The whole case depended upon the manner of closing the plaintiff’s lines.

!HriIE plaintiff by her next friend brought this process against the defendant for the rent of land, for the years 1317 and 1818. At the hearing, it was in evidence that the defendant: had the use of, and planted the plaintiff’s land in 1816, 18Í Í', and 1818.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Marion, March Term, 1821. This was an action of trespass to try titles. The plaintiff produced, at the trial, a grant to John Hughes, for 386 acres, dated 5th December, 1796, also, a conveyance from Hughes to John Deer, for the above tract, dated 15th May, 1813, and recorded 18th May, 1813, and a conveyance from Deer to the plaintiff, for a part of the above mentioned tract, dated 1st March, 1818.

Newberry, Spring Term, 1821. rp JL HIS was a sunpmary process, founded on a former decree of the Court of Common Pleas, for Newberry district, against the defendant, as administrator of Adam Tid more, deceased. After deducting those expenses which are to be first paid, it appeared in evidence, from the return made by the ordinary, that the amount of estate in the hands of the administrator was |§320 65 1-2. That the debts due by the estate amounted tog 553 58.

Trespass to try titles, tried at Columbia, Spring Term, 1821, before Mr. Justice Gantt. ^ILíIIS action was brought to try titles to a tract of 1000 acres of land. The plaintiff produced a copy plat- and grant to William Currie, dated Oth june, 1775, with an affidavit of the loss of the original, under the act of the assembly.

m. . JLHE plaintiff made out the same title in this case, as in the case against ffcnvkhis, to which the same exceptions were taken, and in like manner overruled. The defendant then produced a grant to Stephen Smithy dated 2d February, 1789, which included a part of CurrieV .grant, but the whole of it did not lie within Currie7e grant. lie then proved a conveyance to the defendant from Stephen Smithy dated IGtfc May, 1807.

Tried before the City Court of Charleston, May Term, IS 20. 3b ROM the report of the honorable Judge Drayton, Recorder of Charleston. “ No argument was made before me in the latter of these cases, but I believe it was intended by the counsel that the decision in the first case should govern both. In the first cáse, the statement was, that Mr. John Haslett, the agent of the plaintiffs, sold to t.he defendant á quantity of cotton bagging for the price of gl'553 02.

This was an action on a Replevin Bond, tried in Charleston, Spring Term, 1820, circumstances of ih The City Council of Charleston had caused certain good.-: of John Barron to be distrained for rent in arrear. Hi? procured a writ of replevin to be issued; at which time he gave the bond in quest!on, with the defendant as security, to prosecute the replevin to effect, &c. Having failed in his action of replevin, a writ of Retorno habendo cumf. fa. was issued against him.

fíIIS was a feigned issue made up to try the question, whether certain goods which had been attached by the defendants were the goods of the plaintiff in this issue, or belonged to Joseph Guerrineau, who was absent from and without the limits of the state ? Several creditors, among whom were Brown &? Moses, merchants, had issued attachments against the estate and effects of the said .Guerrineau.

<p>TlilS was an action to recover the amount of the disbursements of the British brig Mary, Robert Bibly, mas - ter, owned ■ by the defendant. On th^ 17th May, 1817, the Mary arrived at Wilmington, North-Carolina, from Kingston, with a cargo of rum, sugar and coffee, on account of Palmer. She was to return with a cargo of lumber. Tlie plaintiffs were consignees. They sold the rum, sugar and coffee, and purchased and shipped a cargo of lumber.</p> <p>Ou the ,7th June, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant in Charleston that the brig had arrived; that she was hove ■ 'flown and required some repairs : the amount of disbmse* ments bad not yet been ascertained; that captain Bibly appeared attentive and economical, and would write, they presumed, by the same mail, to the defendant. The plaintiffs further stated, that they were unacquainted with the particulars of the charter party.</p> <p>On the 9th they wrote to the defendant, that by the same mail, captain Bibly would advise him of particulars relative to the brig; and, “ as it is possible he may require some funds for his disbursements, and is disappointed in receiving facilities from Messrs. L. and M. -he wishes us to point out a mode to you to remit here. This can be done readily by your friend in Charleston, authorizing our draft on him at GO clays. We do not yet know the amount of the disbursements, perhaps 6 or 700 dollars. Captain Bibly has attended closely'to her repairs. Every economy, we presume, will be practised.”</p> <p>On the 17th, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs, acknowledging the receipt of their letter of the 9th, and directed them to take captain Bibly's draft in their favor, on Charles Edrnonsfon of this city, for the disbursements of the Mary, and then states that he was about to leave Charleston for Liverpool, and begged that he may there hear from them.</p> <p>It appeared from the account filed, that the disbursements amounted to $>2,195 85, leaving a balance of S 1,790 48-100 against the brig; for which balance, a bill was drawn by Bibly in favor of the plaintiffs, on Charles Jidmonston, who refused to acccqrt it, as only 700 dollars had been left in his hands for that purpose by the defendant.</p> <p>The plaintiffs then produced a witness, who, on exami • nation of the account, declared it to be reasonable. That it was very common for the disbursements of vessels to overrun the estimates. That the plaintiffs were a very reputable house in Wilmington. The witness further stated that he knew Roach, who was the confidential clerk of the plaintiff’s in 1817; he left the city of Charleston in ISIS, and was reputed dead.</p> <p>Another witness, who was the under clerk of the plain» tiffs in 1S17, proved that the account filed was a correct copy from the books of the plaintiffs, that the entries were in the hand-writing of Roach. He further stated, that large sums were paid by the captain for seamen’s wages t that on the arrival of the. Mary, her crew were paid off, and advances made to such as re-shipped.</p> <p>In conformity with the charge of the court, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs to the full amount of the bill, with interest.</p> <p>A motion, was now submitted for a new trial on several grounds, all of which are embraced under the three following :</p> <p>1st. That the defendant’s letter of the 17th of June, cannot be considered as an. agreement to accept a bill for more than $ 700.</p> <p>2ndly. That the defendant is only responsible for necessaries furnished.</p> <p>3d!y. That the account of the articles furnished is not sufficiently proved.</p>

Summary Process on open account for a set of harness sold in 1815; price 060, to which the statute of limitations was pleade.d* Gresham Smyih testified that the defendant admitted that he had bought a set of harness from the plaintiff, but stated at the same time that he had paid for it by an order drawn on the house of Graves cs? Son, in Charleston, and the defendant said he would produce to Smyth the receipt.

<p>Case on Bill of Exchange.</p> <p>m X HE defendant in Charleston, on the 11th of June, 1816, drew a bill of exchange on Anthony Belany, of New-York, payable three days after sight, in favor of the plaintiff. It does not exactly appear when the plaintiff sailed for New-Yorkj but it is certain he did so some time in the month of June. On his arrival in New-York, he resided with Be-lany, and it was not until the 24th of August following that the bill was protested for non-payment; at which time, notice was transmitted to the defendant ,• Belany having-on that day failed.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict for the defendant, under the charge of the court, that due diligence had not been exercised by the plaintiff, from which the ,plaintiff appealed.</p> <p>The case was tried before Mr. Justice Huger, at May Term, 1820, for Charleston district.</p>

Jn the City Court of Charleston, July Term, 1820. As-sumpsit for goods sold and delivered. THE report of the Recorder is as follows : “ That the plaintiff was a citizen of, and 'a resident in the state of Rhode-Island; the defendant, a citizen of South-Carolina, and a resident of the city of Charleston. The defendant ordered certain goods to be shipped to her in Charlee-ton.

<p>Judgments by default are interlocutory or final; and although in actions of debt, the judgment- by default is commonly said to be final, still where the action is brought on a judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of enquiry, after a judgment by default, to récover interest byway of damages'i’or the detention of the debt.</p> <p>In an action of debt upon a judgment, which judgment had been fot damages to the amount of the penalty of the bond upon which the . action had been brought, the court Held, that the plaintiff in his ac • tion upon the judgment could recover interest by way of damages beyond the penalty of the bond, upon which the judgment was founded.</p>

IMioTION to set aside a foreign attachment at October Term, 1820, for Charleston district, before Mr. Justice Bay, who refused the motion. This was therefore an ap*r plication to reverse that decision.

THIS was an action in the City Court to recover a penalty imposed by a city ordinance, on persons riding or driving faster than a walk in turning the corner of a street. The same ordinance provides that if the party offending shall prove to the satisfaction of any one of the city wardens, that be was compelled to ride or drive by urgent causes, he should be exempted from a prosecution for that offence.

This was a special action on the case against the defendant as a wharfinger, for the price of two barrels of rice, alleged to have been lost whilst in his custody, and tried before the Recorder of the city of Charleston.

This was an actioil of false imprisonment, tried before Mr. Justice Bay, Fall Term, 1819. The defendants pleaded not guilty within four years next before the suing out of the original writ. The plaintiff replied that he hadsued out the writ within the time required by the law.

TlilS was an action of assumpsit for wages earned as mariner and master on board of the coasting sloop’ Sally, belonging to the defendant. In support of the charges for his services as mariner, the plaintiff offered a decree of the court of admiralty in the case of Archibald Mf Pharl vs. Angus MyEachern, master of the sloop Sally. By the proceedings in that case it appeared, on the application of the . said Archibald, a common sailor,- a summons was issued against the sloop.

np JLH1S was an action by the Executrix of tbe indorsee, against the indorser of a note» The note was made by Bryer to the defendant on the July, 1816, payable 26th October following. Bryer died in September, 1816, Price died in tbe Jane preceding. Notice was given to the defendant some day between the tenth and fifteenth of November. The plaintiff and her husband lived on James island and the defendant in town.

'Charleston district. Tried before the Recorder 'in the' City Court, July, 1819.

Charleston Court of Appeals, May Sitting, 1821. Motion for a prohibition to restrain defendants from levying a tax on the salaries of the Relators as officers of the said Banks.

Charleston Court of Appeals, May Term, 1821. Motion for a new trial. Fin r 11 HIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the holder of a note of hand against the. indorser, tried before Judge Bay, in January Term last. The note was drawn by George K. White, at GO days, for 500 dollars, in favor of Robert Dorrell, the defendánt, and indorsed to the plaintiff.

JL HIS case came up by way of appeal from the City Court, in which an indictment was found against the defendant, Mrs. Collins, for selling spirituous liquors in the city of Charleston without a license.

‘'-lotion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Ver diet for the plaintiff, Tried before Mr. Justice Cclcocl’. y«i The plaintiffs adduced, ihe bill of lading, or receipt for the rice, signed by the master of the vessel; by which he engaged to deliver the rice in Charleston, “ the dangers of’ the sea excepted.” They adduced, also, an affidavit of John.

,.l scr.mpsit for money said Ico be overpaid by the plaintiff, ( Fica non asaunipnit, asid a balance ctdl due the defendant. Tried before Mr. justice Gantt. ij.?J this case, it appeared that the plaintiff had, at two different timer,, borr> ¡wed money from Mrs, Ann Joyner, and tvtd, at each time, given his bond for the payment of the same, with interest at a future period.

<p>TMed before Mr. Justice Colcock, at Barnwell, April, 1821.</p> <p>m X HIS was an action of assumpsit on a note, in the following words, viz. “ Due Thomas Nexornan, Esq. on ■ demand, three hundred and ten dollars, 1st November, 1810,” signed by the defendant, and indorsed to the plaintiff. On this note there was a credit for % 109 50-100, paid 5th December, 1815.</p> <p>The only question in this case was, when interest should commence ?</p> <p>His honor, the presiding Judge, charged the jury, that interest would only commence from the time of a demand made ; of which the only evidence was,- the payment on the note, from which it may be inferred or presumed a demand was made, and the jury found interest from that time only.</p> <p>The plaintiff appealed, and moved for a new trial;</p> <p>1st. Because his honor erred in charging the jury, that a demand was necessary to entitle the plaintiff to interest.</p> <p>2d. Because this note or due bill, (differing from com-iaon notes, payable on demand,) acknowledged a debt due at the time, and therefore ought to have carried interest j since, (as it is submitted) the demand had relation to the payment of the principal, and not to the accruing of in* terest.</p>

lYlIS was an action of c'-bt brought by the plaintiffs, the assignees of the she; 1-f, agobio.: the defendant, as security of John Self rid, o.i r-. bond taken by the city sheriff, pursuant to the direction.; of the insolvent debtor's act; the condition of which w;n that John lidjYtd should remain within the rules, limits, or hounds of the gaol, and should within forty days from its date, render to the clerk of the City Court a schedule on oath of the whole of hia e.t •…

<p>Motion to discharge the defendant from Bail.</p> <p>This was a motion to discharge the defendant from bail on the ground that.he had been discharged under the insolvent debtors act in 1819, from confine:..ct.f, tit li,;-: suit of the present plaintiff, and therefore was not again liable to he sued by the same plaintiff.</p> <p>There were two descriptions of debts for which the plaintiff was now suing the defendant.</p> <p>Int. Debts which had been paid by the plaintiff as iho defendant’s indorser ¿hice hiu discharge, but which notes were in existence atibe time of his discharge.</p> <p>2d. Debts due by the defendant directly to tin pkir.dfh but i;ot sued for.</p>

<p>Tl HIS was a rule served upon Joseph Holding, an attorney at law, to shew cause why he should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys. The rule was ordered in October Term, 1820, at Williamsburgh, by Mr. Justice Richardson, in the following terms :</p> <p>•“ Whereas, Mr. Joseph Holding, an attorney at law, of the Court of Common Pleas and Sessions of this Slate, has been convicted of the crime of attempting to suborn a witness to commit perjury ; whereupon, by reason of the said conviction, and of the evidence adduced in support of the indictment for the said crime, against the said Joseph Holding, it is ordered, that the said Joseph Holding do shew cause at the next session of the Constitutional Court of Appeals, to be holden at Charleston, why he, the said Joseph Holding, should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and be deprived of his commission as attorney at law. It is further ordered that this rule be served upon the said Joseph Holding, and the service be certified by the sheriff of this district,, and endorsed upon the said rule and transmitted to the said Constitutional Court of Appeals, at Charleston.”</p> <p>After the' conviction upon the indictment,for an attempt to suborn a witness to commit perjury, the defendant moved this court for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment upon several grounds. But these were unanimously overruled by the court, and the judges were satisfied that'the evidence adduced at the trial, fully supported and justified the conviction of the said Joseph Holding,</p>

UTv -Í.íII3 v*-;ts a motion made in October Term, 1820, before 2\,r. Justice Richardsoti, to grant further time to issue a writ oí certiorari, which writ had been before granted to the defendants.

Charleston Court of Appeals, May Term, 1821. Motion for a new trial. THIS was a summary process for the amount of a doctor’s bill for medicine and attendance, on the mate of captain Watts', ship, while he was ill of a fever in Charleston. In support of this bill, Dr. McBride's original book of entries was produced and proved in the usual manner.

<p>rri X ii IS was a petition by Mrs. Heyward, for her dower in certain lands lying in the district of Beaufort, whereof her late husband, William Heyward, had died seized*</p> <p>The defendant pleaded in bar a former recovery of ten thousand dollars, in full for' her dower; on which issue was joined.</p> <p>That issue was tried, and a verdict found for the de-mandant.</p> <p>At a subsequent time a motion was made to submit the cause again to the jury, to assess the damages which she had sustained by the detention of her dower. That motion was resisted on the ground, as was contended, that a demandant in dower was not entitled to damages. The objection was sustained by the court, and this was a motion to reverse that decision.</p>

Tried before the City Court, January Term, 1821. As-sumpsit upon a promissory rióte for g 340. THE question in this case was, whether the note declared upon was such as under the circumstances would bind úie partnership ¡ The note was admitted to have been signed by Humphreys, one of the partners. It was subscribed “ Benjamin Mathews and self, by R. ffi. Hum-phreys” and dated on the 26th of April, 1820.

Tried at Charleston, January Term, 1831, before Judge Richardson. Debt on Bond. 13!

Tric'd before Judge Richardson, in Charleston, January Term, 1821. • ¶\ *. .

ims was an action for the articles furnished the funeral of Mrs. Bradley, at the request and by order of the defendant. Mrs. Bradley was the widow of Dr. Bradley, who left her his estate during life, remainder to his ne - phew John Bradley. Mrs. Bradley, prior to her death, expressed a wish tobo bnvb-d in a particular manner.

JL HIS was- an action- of trover by the as&tgneq of Fe-^y oeaux vs. Sullivan, for a negro woman called LizyF^kfáp-peafr-d that Lizy had been the property of ZDtWicw,-and that he mortgaged her to McClure to secure the payment of a debt.' Some time after, Deveaux became insolvent, ■ and took the benefit of the insolvent debtor’s act. The woman Lizy was returned, with other property on his schedule. McClure had her taken, and put into Sullivan's hands to sell under the mortgage.

This was 'a rule on the sheriff, to shew cause why he did not pay to the mortgagee of certain lots of land in the 'city of Charleston, money which had been made by the sale of the said lots under judgments obtained by the other creditors of the mortgagee. It appeared that the lots in question were the property of J. A. Schrooder, who had mortgaged them to Sass, to secure the payment of a bond. The' mortgage had been duly recorded.

Attachment. was ati action to recover the value of a negro, purchased of the defendant. It appeared that the negro was sold for a full price, and there was some evidence of his having been unsound at the time of sale. As the defendant was absent from the state, a writ of attachment was served upon Col. Howard, who had in his possession property of the defendant.

. Indictment for a nuisance in stopping a public highway. fiilS was an indictment against John Duncan, for a nuisance in obstructing a navigable creek, by erecting flood gates across its mouth, and in maintaining these flood gates.

In this case, a writ of Replevin was issued on the 14tfe April, 1819 ; and on the 13th May following, the declaration was filed. No further proceedings were had until the 25th July, 1820, when a rule to plead was posted. The defendant did not plead, and on the 2d of September following, the plaintiff obtained an order for judgment.

<p>A defendant who has not entered an appearance, nor hied a pleá, eal. not move to enter up judgment of non pros.</p>

In this case, a bill of exchange was drawn on the defendant in favor of the plaintiffs by A. B. of New-Yorfc, who had consigned goods to the drawee for sale. Before the goods were sold, the bill war. presented for acceptance, and refused. . Coit however said, that if the'goods -were sold rvhen the bill became due, he would pay-it, and of this, due notice was given to the drawer.

An appeal from the Ordinary of Charleston district. In this case, it appeared that, Robert Haig died, leaving-three testamentary papers. The first was dated in 1810, and was signed and sealed by the testator, and attested by three witnesses. In this will, by which the whole of his property was disposed of. Whitford Smith was left a legacy of $ 500, and was appointed an executor with two others.

Tried in tbe City Court, July Term, 1820. rp JLÍ1E Recorder reports tbe case as follows : a' A rule was served upon the City sheriff, to shew cause, why be should not pay over to tbe actors, a sum of money in his bands, arising from personal property sold by him under a writ of fi. fa. in tbe case of Lowden vs. the same defendant. ri he actors had lodged their executions in the office of the chcrf/ oj Charleston district, before Lowden liad delivered his to the City sheriff;…

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Georgetown district, The plaintiff had obtained a rule against Moses Fort, sheriff of Georgetown district, requiring him to shew cause, why an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt of court, in not making the money under a writ of fieri facias, agreeably to the exigency thereof.

*JjrIIS was a rule to shew cause why certain money collet-tea for fines inflicted in the court oi sessions should not be paid over ; the sheriff having detained five per cent, for his commissions upon the amount collected.

Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, Beaufort district, April, 1820. Motion for a new trial. TlIIS was an action of assumsit upon two notes of baud, one for $300, and the other for ¿200.

m X HIS was a special action on the case, brought for a breach of the following agreement: “ Received of Mr. Peter Cosack, twenty dollars, being on account of a plantation on the Cypress, sold to him this day, for two thousand two hundred dollars, payable in. different instalments as per agreement. Charleston, August 1st, 1816. ■ £>20. Descoudres Sí?

This was an action of trover far. a negro woman, tried in Charleston, Spring Term, 1820. The plaintiff obtained a verdict; and this was a motion for a new trial.

Will. Caveat. Jl HE testimony in the case was as follows : Henry Verner was first sworn, and on being questioned ns to his knowledge of the instrument offered for probate, deposed as follows: That Daniel Leger twice sent for him on the morning of the third of April by two servants; that he hastened to the residence of the deceased, and found him very sick; that after the usual salutations, Leger requested him to draw some writings for him; that be-iievmg Leger wanted his…

Tried at Georgetown, November Term, 1820, before his honour Judge Colcock. JL HIS was a special action on the case by the plaintiff, the owner of a carriage and horses, against the defendant, the owner of the North Santee ferry, to recover damages for injury done to a carriage and for the loss of a pair of horses that were drowned in crossing the ferry. On the part of the plaintiff, several witnesses were examined.

Tried before Judge Richardson, Charleston, October, 1820. OnE count in the declaration set forth, that whereas heretofore in consideration that the said Barelli, Torre Co. would deliver to the said Broxvn Moses, divers goods,- wares, &c. of great value, to wit, of the .value of % 35,000, .to be sold and disposed of by the said Brown Moses, for and on account of the said Barelli, Torre £s° Co. for reasonable reward to them the said Broxvn £s?

Tried April Term, 1821, at Georgetown* before Mr. Justice Richardson. Petition for summons in partition. The plaintiff, a minor, was the half brother of Francis Lawson, deceased. Mrs. Perdriaux was the mother and guardian of the deceased. He left stock amounting to 37,700 at the time of his death in possession of his mother and guardian.

Motion to reverse the circuit decision in this case. Tried before his honor Judge ColcocL This was á motion made by Bauskett and Dunlap, for the defendant, before bis honor Judge Colcock, to set aside the service of a writ which did not require bail, and had been served on the defendant on a muster day by the sheriff of Newberry district.

Tried at Spartanburgh, Fall Term, 1821, before Mr, Justice, Ganii.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Abbeville,, Fall Term, 1821. m A HIS was an-action of debt on a sealed note payable to the plaintiff or bearer, to which the defendant pleaded sol-■jit post diem “ to one John N. Nexvby, who was then the bearer of the said writing obligatory.

Edgefield district, Fall Term, 1821. Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock. -■ ThIS case (or rather the point in it,) was submitted to the court by the counsel on both side on the facts as contained in the notes of the plaintiff’s counsel; by which it appears that the action was brought on a warranty in a deed conveying a tract of land to John Wallace, executed by West Cook, on the'3d February, 1804, for 710 acres of land.

Tried at Richland, Fall Term, 1821, before Mr. Justice. Colcock. ri\ A HIS was an action on the case in nature of an action for ravishment of ward, to try the question whether a negro the ward of plaintiff, held in slavery by the defendant, was or tyas not entitled to his freedom. The jury found a verdict establishing the right of plaintiffs ward to freedom, but found no damages, and the question now submitted to the court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs ?

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Laurens, 1821. m J. HIS was an action on a note, and the defence set up was, that the note had been given for part of the purchase money of a tract of land conveyed by the plaintiff’s testator to the defendant, and that the testator when he sold the land, pointed out certain lines as the boundaries, when in fact, his lines were not as represented; and it was alle.dged that twenty five acres of the land did not belong to the testator, and that…

Tried at Fairfield district, Fall Term, 1821, before Mr. Justice Huger. Motion to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court. ¶1:115 was a motion to discharge an order for bail, founded on the following affidavit: “ Personally came Phil.

ThIS was a rule on the sheriff of Abbeville district, to shew cause why an attachment should not be issued against him for not paying over to the plaintiff, monies which it was supposed he had collected on an execution. The presidingjudge, Mr. Justice Gantt, being of opinion that he had not shewed sufficient cause, ordered the rule to be made absolute against him.

The only question in this case, was whether a feme covert could by her last will and testament, made with her husbands consent, bequeath her choses in action to him?

Tried at Marion, Fall Term’, 1821. Trespass to try titles. m JL HIS wás a motion for a new trial on two grounds: 1st. Because the presiding judge mistook the lav/, in charging the jury that nothing but actual and explicit notice of the existence of a deed, would dispence with the necessity of recording it. * 2d. Because the presiding judge charged the jury that what was sufficient notice, was a question for the consideration of the court, and not for the jury.

^FiilS was a rule against the sheriff of Chester district, requiring him to shew cause, why he had not satisfied a fi.fa. in this case with the ¡none}-in his hands, made from the sale of chattels belonging to the defendant. The sheriff shewed for cause, that the rrsopey in hill hands had been made from certain goods of the' defendant sold by virtue of sundry writs of attachment! ol'der than the fi.fa. . The rule was discharged by the presiding judge on the circuit.

The cases were tried before Mr: Justice Gantt, Orange-burgh district, April Term, 1£S21. 1 HESE were two summary processes on open account. Almost all the items consisted of charges for liquors sold in small quantities.

This was an indictment for Hog stealing, tried at Sumter, Fall Term, 1821. THE prosecutor swore that in the fall of 1820, he purchased of the defendant two sows. He let him have one of them back again. He understood from the defendant at the time he bought them, that they were all the hogs he had. The one which he kept, had pigs a little after Chirstmas.

m JL MIS was an action of debt, brought by John Johnson, assignee of Alexander and Price, on a judgment. Plea, nul tiel record, &c. - At the last March Term, the counsel for the plaintiff finding the amount of the judgment was not the same as the sum stated in fhe declaration, moved for leave to amend generally; which was granted by his honor Judge Johnson, who then presided.

Tried at Laurens, Fall Term, 1821, before Mr. Justice Gantt. . - m _ JL HE brief states that this was an action within the summary jurisdiction, founded on a note which the plaintiff held on one Jos. McCray, on a parol promise made by the defendant to Henry Gray„ The defendant pleaded the Statute of Frauds. Henry Gray, the only witness in this case, proved that he called on defendant and informed him that he held a note on his’brother Joseph McCray for $33 40.

fai JL HIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory noteá which had been given for a lot of land in the village of Lancaster. It appeared that subsequent to the execution of the deed, (which was i.n the form prescribed by the act of 1795, 3 Breo. 176. 2 Faust 5,) the plaintiff called for the note, which the defendant hesitated to give, saying that the dower had not been renounced.

Tills was a summary process on a promissory note for g-. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court was said tobe hied, but was not produced. As the sum was within ¿20, and there appeared on the face of the proceedings, nothing to support the plea, it was overruled. A discount was then offered, which had been duly filed; in which the defendant claimed a deduction pro rata, for a deficiency of the land, for which the note was said to have been giyen.

ThIS was an action of assumpsit on an open account, amounting to 8865 59, several items of which were entered in plaintiff’s book, subsequent to tbe date of a receipt in full of his account; and some of the items were charged to intestates children by name, all of whom were living with him, ancí only one of them of age. The items objected to in the account were equal to $53.

1PlflS was a motion to quash or suspend an execution issued at the instance of Joseph Ratcliff vs. William, Vance, on a recovery had in an action of trover, wherein the verdict was given in the alternative, viz,: to pay three thousand dollars, or to deliver up certain negroes, the subject of the action.

m XHIS was an action of trespass to try title. To complete the plaintiff’s chain of title it became necessary to prove a conveyance from Andrew Dewees to James Boatwright. And for this purpose a conveyance was given to James Boatwright, signed by Asa Delozeair for himself, and also as agent for Andrew Dewees.

Tried at Laurens, Fall Term, 1821. ThE plaintiff in this case had a verdict for §40; and the only point submitted to the court, on the defendants motion for a new trial, was, whether a magistrate has jurisdiction in cases of domestic attachment arising out of con-tract, when the demand exceeds three pounds ? If he had not, the verdict was right, but if he had jurisdiction as' far as §20, the verdict was wrong.

This was an action for a breach of contract. The plaintiff had purchased a tract of land, which he held for two or three years without disturbance; he then discovered as he supposed, that the defendant had a better title to the land than his own. To obtain this outstanding title, he opened a negotiation with defendant and ultimately purchased from him, this tract and two others adjoin • ing it. A deed in the form prescribed by the act of 1795, (1 Brev.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Richland, Spring Term, 1821. This case exhibited two questions for the consideration of the court. 1st. Whether, in an action on a penal bond, the plaintiff can recover more than the penalty when the interest exceeds it ? 2d. If he cannot, whether he is not entitled to interest from the date of the judgment to the time of its satisfac- • tion ?

rp JSL i-I7G tvas an action of trover for a horse. It appeared that a few days before the defendant was married to the mother of the plaintiff’s ward, she, in the presence of the defendant and several witnesses, whom she requested to hear witness to the gifts she was about to malte, gave to each of her children some property. To her daughters she gave a negro, a piece, and delivered the property at the time.

JL HIS action was brought to try the title to a tract of land in Greenville district. The land in dispute, had been gold by Samuel Saxon, the sheriff of the former district of Ninety-six, as the property of John Goodwyn, and was purchased lay Jesse Goodwyn, who died immediately afterwards. Part of the purchase money was paid by Jesse Goodwyn, and the balance by John Hopkins, hio administrator, but no title was executed by the sheriff.

1 HIS was an action brought to recover the value of a horse, stolen from the atable of the defendant, wh o v/t;a a;.. innkeeper. The plaintiff when travelling, stopped at the house ol i’k defendant, with three hon;--s and two servants. The horses were put into the stable, which was very open, alltniugls. these was a bar to one door, and a good lock and key t:? the other.

Tried at Pendleton, Fall Term, 1821, ÍL IIS Plaintiffs severally sued out domestic attachments: against tlie defendant, issued by a magistrate on information made before him, (as recited in the attachment,') that the defendant “ was 'about to remove from and without the limits, or so absconds and conceals himself, that the* ordinary process of law cannot he served upon him.” This recital was all the evidence that any information had been made; and the presiding judge granted…

Tried at Laurens, Fall Term, 1821. ThIS was an action of covenant on a deed, in the form of a bill of sale, made by the defendant to the plaintiff, conveying title to a negro man slave called Spencer, and warranting his soundness ; in which the consideration expressed was one thousand dollars, and the breach assigned was the unsoundness of the negro.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Sumter, Spring ' Term, 1821.

Libel. iLHE defendant was indicted for a libel in Fairfield dis - trict, in the Fall Term of 1820. The case was ihen traversed, and not tried before the Spring Term of 1822. After the jury had been sworn to try the case, the defendant’s counsel moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that the prosecutor had been one of the grand jury, who found the hill.

Two summary processes were brought; one on a note for S44 29 1-2 ; the other on a note for t4>7 68 1-4. The defendant moved for an order to consolidate 5 which waft granted. A motion was now submitted to reverse that' order. 1

Tried at Camden, Spring Term, 1822, .A. BILL of indictment was preferred against the defendant and two others for a riot. It charged that they, together with “ divers other persons, to wit, to the number of five,” committed the offence, without, alleging that the live others were unknown or setting out their names. The grand jury found atiue bilí, only against the defendant, and one other.

Tried before Judge Colcock, Abbeville, March Term, 1822. This was an action of trespass to try title, in which the plaintiff produced a plat and grant to James Campbell, for 82 acres of land, dated 5th May, 1800, then a conveyance of the land from Campbell to plaintiff, of 18th Jan. 1820, which was proved. He proved a trespass and rested his case.

Tried at Abbeville, March Term* 1822, before his honor Judge Colcock. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover back the price of a negro woman Rachael, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, on the 8th October, 1819, on the alleged ground that the negro was unsound at the time of sale. There was a bill of sale of the above date, under seal, warranting merely the title.

Tried before Mr. Justice Golcock, Laurens district, Spring Tern), 1822. Tins was an action on a note signed .by the defendant, one Holt-, and another. Plea, statute of limitations. The note was dated in 1808. The last payment made; on the note, was in 1814. It was proved that a settlement took place ; that is, a calculation was made by Holt and the plaintiff, in 1821, and the balance stated on the back oí the note.

Tried before Judge Johnson, Union, Spring Term, 1822. nn A HIS was an action on the case, against the defendant for diverting a water-course from its ancient channel.

Petition for Partition. .... JL HE petition in this case stated that on or about the-day of-in the year 1800, Robert Crawford, the elder, departed this life, having first duly made and executed his last will and testament, in which, after several bequests and devises, he gave to his two sons, Robert and John, the plantation ori which he then lived, in the following words, viz. “ I will and bequeath to my son Robert one half of -the plantation I now live' on, joining Wren Ssf…

Tried before Judge Johnson, Chester district, Spring Term, 1822. Case on attachment. Motion to reverse decision. TTlilS was a motion to set aside the proceedings on the ground, that the plaintiff’s affidavit, filed with the declaration, admitted that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant, but did not state by how much, nor was there an amount thereof sworn to and filed with the declaration, according to the form of the act of assembly in that case made and provided.

Sumter. Motion to set aside judgment and execution. m X HIS was a case of debt, on a judgment which was referred to the clerk at the extra court in May, 1819, who assessed the damages on the 24¡th May, 1819, at $78 39, and stated the debt at $878 17. Judgment was signed on 21st June, 1820, and execution issued.

Trespass to try Title, m X HIS was an action of trespass to try titles to two lots of land in the village of Union. The plaintiff’s paper title was not disputed, but the defendant relied on the plea of the statute of limitations. To which the plaintiff replied specially his minority and residence out of the state, at the time of his coming of age, and a former suit brought within two years of the letting fall of which the present action was commenced.

Tried before Judge Nott, Marion district, Fall Term, 1821. Motion to rescind the order of the presiding judge. fp J.HIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the executors of William Thomas, against the defendants on a promissory, not for S 1600. The defence set up was, that the note was unsound ; and the endorser and one of the principals, James D. Brown, were called to prove the fact of 'usury.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Sumter district, Spring, Term, 1822. Slander. TChÉ words charged and proved* were “ you did steal my brothers cotton and I can prove it.” The words appeared to have been spoken in relation to some cotton, >vbich had been sent to plaintiff’s gin, by a brother of the defendant.

Tried at Laurens, Spring Term, 1822. m JLHE defendant in this case, had been sued by leaving a copy of the writ at his usual place of residence. At the return of the writ, he moved to set aside the service, on the ground that he was out of the state at the time.

This was an action of debt on a sheriff’s bond*, to which the pleas of non est factum and performance were pleaded. Issue was taken in the former, and a replication put in to the latter, setting forth a breach in not paying over certain monies arising from the sale of air estate in a case of partition, pursuant to the order of court. To the replication the defendant demurred, and the plaintiffs joined therein.

Assumpsit. This was a motion to set aside a nonsuit ordered by Mr. Justice Gantt, Because the presiding judge was wrong in confining the plaintiff in this case, in his proof, to the first count in his declaration against the defendant as endorser, saying that as the plaintiff had sued as endorsee, he therefore could not give evidence in support of the second count, which was for goods, &c. sold and delivered, or on the third, which was for their value in the usual form of a…

Tried before Mr. Justice Ganit, Chester district,. Spring-Term, 1822. m X HE defendant was convicted on a charge for rc tailing spirituous liquors, without license, contrary to the act of assembly. He appealed for a new trial on several grounds : 1st. That it ought to have beep proved that the defend ant, either sold the liquorj^jferson, or authorized the sale of it; and 2dly. That it ought also to have been preved, that the defendant had not a license to retail.

This was a summary process, tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Spring Term, 1822, for Chesterfield district. m JL HE following facts appeared in evidence on the trial of the case. The plaintiff had taken out atr attachment against John Braddock, which was levied on a horse. The defendant promised that if the plaintiff would release the'horse, he would pay the debt for which the attachment had been issued. This was accordingly done.

<p>To a claim for work and labor, the statute of limitations does not com' menee to run from the time the contract was made, but .from the time the work was finished. A promise to pay, always continues up to the time the work is done.</p>

J_ HIS was an action on the case against a husband and wife, for enticing away and harbouring a negro in the possession of the plaintiff. The declaration alleged the enticing, harbouring, &c„ to be committed by husband and wife. It was proved that the plaintiff had hired the negro in question, at Si70 per annum.

<p>There is no legislative act in this state declaring which, or whether any, of our rivers are to bfe considered as public or navigable.</p> <p>The rule of the English common law, that no river is navigable except where the tide ebbs and flows, is not applicable to this country; (a.) but that cannot be considered a navigable river, the natural obstructions of which, prevent the passage of boats of any description whatever.</p> <p>A river that is merely capable of being made navigable is considered, as respects the owners ot the adjacent lands, as a mere imaginary line, the claim of each extending to the center of the bed, (~usque adfilum aguce. J But an individual has not such an exclusive right to a river which is capable of being made navigable, that the legislature may not declare it to be a public highway, whenever the obstructions are removed, and it becomes fit for public use.</p> <p>The public may use the waters for the purpose of navigation ; but that does not imphir thé right of the individual to the soil and use of the water, as far as is consitent with the right of the public.</p> <p>A purchaser must be supposed to know as well as the seller what right and title an individual can have to a navigable river. (b.)</p>

<p>Lexington, Spring Term, 1822.</p> <p>JL HIS was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand, given for a body of land consisting of a number of tracts, lying contiguous to, and adjoining each other. The defendant claimed a deduction on account of a deficiency of land, defect of title, &c.</p> <p>It was contended,</p> <p>1st. That in two instances the lines of the adjacent tracts so intersected or ran into each other, that part oí the land had been twice sold.</p> <p>2nd. In another, that one line bad upon actual measurement, been found much shorter than it was represented to be in the deed, by which the defendant had been deprived of about eighty acres of land.</p> <p>3d. That to one tract, the plaintiff had no title.</p> <p>, 4th. That by the loss of that tract, his mill would- be destroyed, or the profits much diminished, by reducing the water which flowed back un m the land.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict of five hundred dollars for the defendant; which in effect, exonerated him from the payment of the purchase money, gave him. all the land and five hundred dollars for accepting of it.</p> <p>This was a motion for a ftew trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.</p>

This was an appeal from a decision made by Mr. Justice Gantt, at Chambers, September 26, 1821. Motion to set aside execution for irregularity. In February Term, 1810, for Charleston district, Jo shut-. Broten obtained a verdict vs. Spencer J. Mann, for the sum of S1640, with interest from 1st. January, 1803. No judgment was had on said verdict, before the-day of-, when under a judicial order, leave was obtained to enter up judgment thereon nunc pro tunc.