Volume 13 — South Carolina Law Reports

The suggestion stated a. variety of grounds, but the motion was granted, on the ground that the act under which the fines were imposed, had been repealed by a subsequent act of the Legislature. A motion was now made to reverse the decision of the presiding Judge, and to dismiss the rule, because the act has not been repealed, so far, at least, as fines had been imposed, prior to the passage of the. last act, which is considered as the repealing act.

TRIED before his honor Judge Colcock, in Charleston, May Term, 1821. This was a summary process to recover fifty dollars, with interest, on account of so much money had and received by the said Susannah, before her marriage with the said Seth, from the father of the petitioner, on his account, and to be paid to him. The date of the account sued for was in 1803. Picas, non assumpsit and statute of limitations.

IN the city court, June sittings, 1821. — This was a scire facias against bail. Plea, that the plaintiff, after entering up judgment, took out a fi. fa. against the property of the principal, before taking out a ca. sa. against his person, and the bail is therefore discharged. Replication, that the fi. fa. was returned nulla bona, and the bail is not discharged in law. To this there was a demurrer.

IN the city court, July Term, 1821. — This process was brought for the recovery of an account, amounting to $ 33 au'^ for $ 15 50, the balance on a note, making together $'tS 50. The note was originally given for $ 65 50, with interest from-1817, a receipt for $ 50 was indorsed upon it by the plaintiff on the 2d of April, 1819.

FORGERY. — The prisoner was indicted for having passed a counterfeited note of the Bank of the State of South-Carolina, knowing it to be a counterfeit. The note .in question was a two dollar hill, altered with much skill fa twenty dollars. It had been passed to one of the witnesses near dark, on a Saturday evening, who Was requested to change it to enable a captain of a ship, as was pretended by the prisoner, to pay off his men.

THIS was an action brought to recover five per cent, commissions on the sale of several lots of land. The defendant, as executor of his father, wished to sell property to a considerable amount in the city of Charleston. He agreed to allow the plaintiff, who was a vendue master, twelve and a half per cent, on so much as he should sell. Several lots were accordingly sold at different periods, and the purchase money was received by the plaintiff.

ELIZA SMITH, an infant orphan, was bound apprentice to Mrs. Belcher, by the commissioners, in the mode prescribed by the act of assembly. Some time after, the commissioners conceiving that they had just cause of complaint, applied, as directed by the act of 1740, (see 1 Brevard, 37, sec. 7,) to two justices of the peace for Charleston district, who, after having- heard the parties, directed and ordered that the said apprentice should be discharged from her apprenticeship.

<p>A war puts art end to all executory contracts between the citizens of the belligerent nations, (a)</p> <p>When the law has been solemnly settled by the com-t, if it were possible that a thousand verdicts could he given against the decision they wouldstill be wrong-, and thecourt must either adhere to its opinion or suffer the juries of the country to become the expositors of the law.</p> <p>As a general rule, this c,(nn-t will not hear a question which has not been ’ made m the courtbelow, but many exceptions to it have been allowed ; and where the jury found three verdicts against the opinion of this court, a nonsuit was granted, though not moved for below.</p>

THE defendant was arrested on a bail writ at the suit of the plaintiff, and applied to Mr. Justice Bay, at Chambers, tp be discharged under the prpvisions of the act of assembly of 1788, usually called the prison bounds act.

TRIED before Mr. Justice Richardson,. at a special court held in Charleston, July, 1820. The plaintiff levied a. distress on the goods of his tenant James D. Cogan for rent in arrear. Cogan replevied the goods and entered into the usual bond to the sheriff with the present defendant as one of his securities or pledges.

In support of this motion it was contended, that all fines imposed by a company court martial, ought to be paid over and be subject to the disposal of the captain of each company, to be by him appropriated to the purposes of said company in the purchase o farms, drums, colours and other •articles necessary for military purposes.

<p>A horse sent to a Jivery stable, to be fed and taken care of, is not liable to be distrained for rent.</p>

MOTION to reverse an order of the City Recorder, in a case under the attachment law. January Term, 1822. This case was briefly as follows: — “ An application was made to the Clerk of the City Court of Charleston, to .sign a writ of attachment against the defendant, who, if was alledged, was out of the state, and a bond was offered in the usual form. But he refused to issue it, on the ground that the City Court had no jurisdiction under the attachment law of the state.

THIS was an application brought before Judge Bay, at Chambers, for a prohibition to restrain the officer from levying a militia fine.

<p>Where a verdict in debt was for damag-es beyond tlie amount of damages laid in the writ, the court ordered a venire de novo, unless, a remtlifes. was entered for the surplus.</p> <p>13ut after such order of the Appeal Court, and before final judgment is entered, a judg-e may, at Chambers, grant leave to the plaintiff to amendhis record by Increasing his damages from $10 to $1000.</p> <p>Formerly it seems, when the record was once made up, no amendment copld be permitted; hut now the courts have become mote lib..ral, and when justice requires it, will idlow of amendments at anytime while the suit is depending, till judgment be given.</p>

THIS was an application on the part of Mrs. Crafts -for her dower in certain wharves in Charleston. It was admitted that Mr. Crafts had been seized of the wharves in question during his intermarriage with the demandant; but that they had been mortgaged, and that' the time of redemption was past previous to the marriage.

<p>The act authorizing the tax collector to issue executions against persons who shall make default in returning their taxable property and paying their taxes is not unconstitutional.</p> <p>The act of 1820, which imposes a p enalty of ten thousand dollars on any person who shall sell any lottery tickets within tins state, or shall keep any office for that purpose, so far as it goes to authorize the lax. collector to iásue an execution for the same, without a conviction I>y a jury is unconstitutional and void, although, by the act, it is called a tax and not a ¡penalty.</p>

<p>iThe jurisdiction of magistrates is taken away in all cases arising from torts and trespasses; and therefore the penalty against a free negro for harbouring- a slave under- the act of 1740, cannot be recovered before a magistrate.</p>

<p>CHARLESTON Court of Appeals, January, 1822.—</p>

<p>COURT of Appeals, May, 1821. Trover for a negrqt July.</p>

TRIED before Mr. Justice Richardson. — This was a summary process to recover rates of wharfage.

Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Colleton, No^ vember Term, 1822. THIS was an action of debt against the defendant as security in the official bond of Berkly Ferguson, late shexv .iff of Beaufort district.

THIS was a motion for a habeas corpus, before Judge Richardson. Mr. J. B. White, as justice of the quorum', in two cases tried before him, the one John Smith vs. D. Cregier ; the other Street fy Starke vs. D. Cregier, decreed for the plaintiffs to the amount of #16 6-100. On the 13th of August, 1821, he issued executions which were placed on that day in the hands of William, Applegate, a state constable, to be levied.

Tried before his honor Judge Johnson, in Charleston, May Term, 1831. THIS was an action of assumpsit to recover for a total Joss on a policy of insurance on goods for the schooner La Carmen, Captain Martelo, from Havana to Charleston. The plaintiff proved the policy, which bore date December 37, 1816, and was for $ 6,500, also his interest on the property on board.

CHARLESTON Spring Term, 1822. — Tried before Mr. Justice Nott. The defendants in this case wei'e indicted for a riot. — ■ The prosecutor, Captain William Cattell, swore that on the night of the 11th, or rather about 1 o’clock on the morning of the 12th of January, 1821, he was roused from his sleep by the report of a gun. Immediately-after he heard another; he next heard one of his servants running round the house, enquiring if he was awake.

Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, at Colleton, April Term, 1822. THIS was an action of assumpsit on an account for thé freight of 2225 bushels of rough rice, at 8 cents per bush,el, from Mrs. Elliott’s plantation on Ashepoo, to a mill on Ponpon river. The defence was deficiency in the quantity delivered at the mill.

TRIED in Charleston : — The defendant was indicted for it nuisance in obstructing Coming’s creek, a branch of Ashley river. ''The indictment charged that this was a navigable creek and public highway ; and the first count charged that the defendant erected and continued a dam across it. The 2nd. Count charged that the defendant maintained and continued a dam across it, which had been before erected.

<p>TRIED at Charleston, May Term, 1821. — This was an action by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. To prove a demand on the maker, and notice to the defendant, the plaintiff offered in evidence, after proof of Ihe hand-writing, the protest of a notary who was dead. The presiding Judge rejected this evidence as inadmissible, and no other being offered, the plaintiff was non-suited, and a motion was now made to set aside the non-spit, on the ground that the evidence was admissible.</p>

TRIED before the City Court, January Term, 1833. Assumpsit upon a promissory note by the indorsee against •the indorser. recorder’s report. This was an action brought by the indorsee of a promissory note against the indorser for $356 80, dated on the 11th January, 1819, payable 30 days after date : all the parties to the note resided in the city.

TRIED before Judge Noit, Januai*y, 1822. — Verdict for the defendant. The following is the statement in the brief. The suit was brought by the plaintiff as assignee of the sheriff, upon a bail bond given for the prison bounds hjJohn Smylh, at the suit of the same plaintiff. The execution, (ca. ca.) was lodged on the 10th November, 1819, and the bail bond, dated 24th of November, of the same year. It was assigned on the 2d January, 1820.

THIS was an action of debt on bond. The subscribing witness being dead, his hand-writing was proved, and the plaintiff there rested his case. It was objected that the'proof was insufficient without proving also the hand-writing of the obligor to the bond.

MOTION in arrest of judgment. — -Tried before Mr, Justice Huger, at Charleston, May Term, 1822. These were two actions of scire facias on bail bonds, and as they involved nearly the same points, they were tried together.

Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, May, 1822. THIS was an action to recover the amount of certain goods bought at the marshal’s sale. . The marshal was examined by commission, subject to any objection to his competency, and proved the purchase by the defendant, of certain prize goods, sold by order of the Court of Admiralty. The plaintiffs were the agents of the captors, and sued in their own names. A motion for a non suit was made and overruled. Verdict for the plaintiffs.

BY process of attachment. — This was an setion of assumpsit, by process of attachment, to recover back the price paid for a negro (Jack,) who turned out to be unsound. The defendant had pleaded the general issue, and at January Term, 1821, he obtained an order of the court, granting-leave to plead the statute of limitations.

THIS case was tried before Mr. Justice Huger, at Coosawhatchie, April, 1822, in which there was a special Verdict, submitting to the court, the distinct and specific question, “ whether notice of the existence of a marriage settlement, previous to' the contract, on which the-, cause of action arose, would bar the plaintiff, (who was a creditor seeking to make the property settled liable,) although the settlement had not been recorded within the time prescribed by the act;…

— Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, May Term, 1822. This was an action for money had and received ; paid, laid out,'and expended, &c. The particular filed was for short charge on check of the defendant, at Planters & Me-. chanicsBank, $2000 on 5th October, 1815. The first witness produced was Mr. Prince, who testified that he had searched the bank, and could find no check of 1¿he description alleged.

Barnwell, Spring Term, 1822. THIS was an action of trespass to try title. The plaintiff produced a grant to himself for the land in dispute, and proved that the defendant was in possession . at the time that the action was brought; and here he rested búscase. The defendant produced a grant to Arthur SimJeins for the same land of anterior date to that of the plaintiff.

CHARLESTON, Spring Term,' 1831. — These were th'ree actions of replevin. The two first against Oclavius Cripps and Solomo?i Moses ; the third against Octavius Cripps and John Jt. Groves. In one case, Oclavius Cripps issued a warrant of distress in his own name, as administrator of John S. .Cripps, and as agent for the heirs. In another, he states himself administrator only ; and it does not appear in what character he issued the third, as the warrant is not produced.

ASSUMPSIT. — Tried in Charleston, Spring Term, ¿821. This was an action brought to recover back the purchase money of a negro man slave, who was alleged lo he unsound, by reason of which the consideration had failed. The declaration contained two counts, one for rreney had and received, and the other for money paid, laid out and expended.

<p>This court has the power to direct the commissioners of the poor to discharge the duties which are imposed on them by the various acts of assembly, when they fail to do so; but whenever a discretion is given, the court will not interfere, unless it be clearly shewn that this discretion has been abused.</p> <p>This court will not by mandamus enforce a contract with the Commissioners of the Poor; the parties must be loft to their usual actions at law.</p> <p>The Commissioners of the Poor are not bound to support children paupers who have left the district; for had they remained in the dis^ wict, they might have bound them apprentice to some trade.</p>

THIS was an action by the indorsee, against the indorser. Plea, usury. The note was drawn by John Evevingham for $ 2250, payable to J. Lazarus, jr. at sixty days. It was indorsed, 1st. “J. Lazarus, jr.” and 2nd. “ B. Mulligan,” the defendant. In this shape, it was sent into the market.

IN the City Court, April Term, 1832. — Assumpsit on a promissory note — defence, usury. The following is the report of the Recorder. “ John D. ITir&^leposed that he went to King to borrow tnón^y, that King told him if he would deliver to him a. note for $ 100, dr'jwn by the witness, and indorsed by Mrs. Bnvyimer, he would give him $ 75 for it: that this note was accordingly drawn and delivered to King, upon which he gave the witness $ 75.

IN the City Court, April Term, 1822. — Motion to discharge an insolvent debtor. Report of the Recorder. “ The defendant applied for the benefit of the insolvent debtor’s act. He was opposed by the plaintiff’s counsel upon the ground, that being imprisoned under a ca, sa. in ■an action of trespass for an assault and battery, which was a case of “ wilful and malicious trespass,” he came within the exceptions of the act.

— Refused. An acLion was commenced in the City Court, on a note, by John Gordon against Charhs FT. Doyley, executor of Daniel Doyley. A discount was set up by the defendant, which exceeded the jurisdiction of the court.

Tried before Judge Richardson, at Charleston, in January Term,1822. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the holder of two promissory notes, against the representative of John M. Happoldl, the maker.

THIS was an action of slander, brought against the de-i fendant for calling the wife of the plaintiff, “ a thief,” “ a bloody thief,” words uttered by him with some heat, while an altercation was had between him and the said wife of the plaintiff, relative to some liberties taken with a young woman, whom the defendant attempted to kiss.

Tried before Mr.. Justice Richardson, Georgetown* April, 1S22. On the day of 1820, Raul Trapier entered a caveat to prevent the emanation of a grant for 500 acres of land, upon a location made the 19th day of April, 1820, to John L: Wilson, because the said Paul Trapier claimed all the said land under a grant to Daniel and Thomas Laroche, dated the 11th day ofMay, 1739.

IN the City Court, April Term, 1822. — Process to recover $ 57, the difference between the value of sound and damaged cotton. The report of the Recorder. The fapt of the damage and of the quantum of the injqry, were clearly proved.

Tried, October Terra, 1821. MR. SARGEANT made the following motion : “ On motion of the plaintiffs attorney, it is ordered that he have leave to .file a declaration against Thomas Middleton, garnishee,” which motion was refused by the presiding Judge. The case was, that William F. Shackelford and Thomas Middleton were copartners, during which, as it is said, John Barre placed certain wine in their hands and departed from the state.

<p>TKIEI) before Mr. Justice Gantt, Camden, Fall Term, 1822.</p> <p>James Williams, the plain tiff in this motion, had obtained a judgment against Barwell Evans for one hundred and eighty-eight dollars ; subsequent thereto, Bar-well Evans obtained a judgment against the said James Williams, for the sum of two hundred and forty dollars, in an action of Trover. Williams, instead of moving to have his judgment set off against the larger judgment which had beep recovered against him, issued a capias ad satisfaciendum against Evans. After the ca. pa. war' is-ictl against him, he assigned his judgment to Colonel If icon for a valuable consideration ; Evans was taken on the cu. sa. and put into gaol, where he remained until he died. At the next succeeding court, Williams moved to have his judgment set off against that obtained against him by Euans.</p> <p>Tne presiding Judge ordered the set off to be made.</p> <p>Tips was a motion to rescind that order.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass for false imprisonment, in rulieioüsíy causing the plaintiff to. be acreded on a ca. ca. The dovoudanlts bad obtained a judgment in the Common Pleas, against the plaintiff in this action, and subsequently, about February, 1821, the defendant, S. Hell, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, by which, he was to allow him one and two years to pay tlie money.

<p>A promise by A.toB. that if B. woulddiscontinue an attachment against C. that he A. would pay B. the debt, is void, under the statute of frauds, not being in writing-.</p> <p>A domestic attachment, it seems, cannot be levied on land.</p>

ASSUMPSIT. — Tried before Mr. Justice Noll, at 7-iaurens, Fall Term, 1822. This was an action oh a promissory note. The promise was alleged to have been made to the testator. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, to which the plaintiff replied a subsequent promise. It appeared in evidence, tbat after the death of the testator, the executor presented the note to the defendant.

<p>THIS was an action on a promissory note, payable to one Wooley, or bearer, for $1500, of which there remain-, ed due a balance of @ 350 ; the note had been passed to the plaintiff by delivery after it became due j the defence was that it was given for the price of three negroes, one of which (Rose,) it was alleged had the venereal disease at the time of the sale. The defendant offered to give in evidence, the declaration of Wooley, that the defendant had supplied him with funds to purchase the negroes, and that they were to divide the profits : That evidence was not admitted by the presiding Judge.</p> <p>One Williams, who so]d the negro to Wooley about three months before, was offered by the defendant to prove that she was sound at that time. This witness was objected to, but was admitted by the court.</p> <p>The defendant then offered to prove that this woman had communicated the disease to others of his negroes, by which he had incurred great losses and expense : That evidence was rejected by the court, unless it was made to appear that the plaintiff knew that she was diseased at the time of the sale, of which there was no proof. The defendant put her under the care of a physician, and after having gone through a course of medicine, she appeared to have got quite well. At length lie determined to sell her, and sent her off for that purpose. The agent had not returned, and whether her health was perfectly restored, or whether she had been sold, was not known.</p> <p>The presiding judge instructed the jury that the defendant was entitled to a deduction for the actual injury sustained, which consisted of loss of labour, expences of her support, care, &c. That they ought not to enter into any calculation as to the possible injury which he might have sustained, the evidence of which had been excluded.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict of two hundred dollars, making an abatement of $ 154, on account of the unsoundness of the negro.</p> <p>This was a motion for a new trial, on the following grounds :</p> <p>1st. Because the presiding judge rejected the declarations of Wooley, the payee of the note.</p> <p>2d. Because the testimony of Williams, from whom Wooley purchased the negro, was allowed.</p> <p>Sd. Because the evidence of consequential damages was rejected.</p> <p>4th. Because the presiding judge misdirected the jury, in charging them that they should allow no abatement except for the actual loss, positively proved to have been sustained by the defendant.</p>

ASSUMPSIT — Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, Fall Term, 1822. . The declaration contained three counts — one on an order, a copy of which is given below. One on an account stated for goods sold and delivered, and one for money had and received.

<p>Tried at Abbeville, Fall Term, 1822.</p> <p>THIS was an action of slander brought against the defendant for charging the plaintiff with'subornation of perjury. The words Hid in the declaration were as follows, ic whereas the said John Power obtained the testimony 6f one Dabney D. Wilkinson, by affidavit, before a judicial officer, duly qualified to administer such oath,” the said. Charles Miller intending to injure, &c. “ falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the affidavit and testimony so obtained as aforesaid, these false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory .words following, that is to say ; he (meaning the said Dabney D. Wilkinson,) had sworn falsely, but that he did not blame him for it, for he was induced to do it by John Power.”</p> <p>The declaration further contained the necessary inuendoes with regard to the meaning of the words, &c. but contained no colloquium by which it could be seen that he referred to any judicial proceedings.</p> <p>A Mr. Dobbs, before whom the affidavit was made, Was called as a witness ; he swore that the defendant asked him if Wilkinson had sworn to such an affidavit before' him. He informed him he had. He then replied in the words above mentioned. It did not appear from the testimony that the affidavit was taken in any judicial proceeding or 'for any judicial purpose. The plaintiff said when he procured the affidavit to be taken, that it was in-fended as the foundation of an action, but of what action or how it was to be applied, did not appear.</p> <p>The plaintiff having closed his evidence, a motion was made for a nonsuit, on the ground that the words as laid-in the declaration and proved did not amount to a charge of perjury, and therefore was not actionable.</p> <p>The presiding Judge being of that opinion, granted the motion.</p> <p>This was a motion to set aside that nonsuit.</p>

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, Newberry, Fall Term, 1822. • THE plaintiff in this case had obtained a domestic attachment against the goods and effects of the defendant, and had summoned James Bruton, as a garnishee, to declare how much he was indebted to the absconding debt- or ; he neglected to appear or to make any return to the summons, and a judgment by default was ordered ’to be entered up against him for the amount of the plaintiffs debt.

TRESPASS, quare clausum fregit. — Tried at Abbeyille, Fall Term, 1822, before Mr. Justice Nott. This was an action of trespass, quare clausum fregit. The defendant pléaded liberum tenement-urn. - But in tracing up his chain of title, it appeared to have' occurred since the bringing of the action, and subsequent to the trespass which he was attempting to justify.

THIS was an action of trespass, vi et armis, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for taking away her daughter, a girl about twelve or thirteen years old, by which she lost her services, &c. It appeared, in evidence, that the plaintiff was a woman of ill fame and had gone off and been absent from the state about a year ; this' daua;hter was left in the family of the son of a man with whom the mother cohabited and with whom she had gone away.

Tried at Winusborough, Fall Term,' 1822, before Mr. Justice Colcock. THIS was an action of slander alleging that the defendant had accused the plaintiff with keeping a whore house.. The testimony was very voluminous, but as the court supported, the verdict on all the grounds taken in the brief, sxcopt two, it is only necessary to report so much of the evidence as relates to those two.

Tried in Kershaw district, November Term, 1822. AT the last sitting of the court, holden for the district of Kershaw, Mr. Justice Gantt, upon a motion to take the examintion of William E. Hayne, by commission de bene esse on the part of the plaintiff, granted an order to that effect; Mr. Hayne being President of the Branch of the Bank of the State of South Carolina, at Columbia. The defendant appealed on the ground that there was no law to warrant such an order.

TRIED before Mr. Justice Johnson, Fall Term, 1822. Richard Saddler had summoned Benjamin Cohen to appear before a magistrate to answer for a bleach of contract. lie charged that Cohen had warranted his watch to run for one year, after his doing some repairs to her. — - That the watch, before the expiration of a year stopt: that he called on Cohen to repair, who refused to do so : that he employed another watch-maker, who repaired the watch, and charged him five dollars, to…

THIS was an action on two notes drawn by the defendants, payable to G. D. Lester, and indorsed to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. The defence was that the notes were given for a gaming consideration. To support this defence, evidence of the subsequent declarations of Lester was offered by the defendants, and objected to by the plaintiff; but the presiding judge overruled the objection, and the evidence went to the jury.

THIS was an indictment for hog stealing, to which thé statute of limitations was pleaded in bar. The presiding judge did not think that the statute operated as a bar to thé prosecution, and the defendant was convicted. This was therefore an application for a new trial, on the ground that the statute operated as a har in this case, six months having elapsed' before any prosecution was commenced.

Tried before Judge Colcock, Fairfield, November Term, 1822. SUIT was brought before a justice by S. Clement, against R. Bagley, on two subpoena tickets, served upon S. Clement by Robert Knox, in the case of said R. Bagley vs. R. Knox, and on which 8. Clement proved, twelve days attendance. The justice gave a decree for S. Clement, and R. Bagley appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The suit between R. Bagley ¿y R. Knox, in which 8.

Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, Richland district, THIS was an action of assumpsit on note, in the following words : “ On demand, I promise to pay B. %• I). Harrison the sum of eighty five dollars, 50-100 cts. foe value received, this 9th March, 1822. James Cammer.” The writ was issued on the same day the note was given. No demand ivas made before the action was brought.

IN this case the indictment imported to set forth the words, according to the substance, and not according to the tenor of the libel.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Kershaw, November' Term, 1822. A SUMMONS was issued by the plaintiff against the defendant, charging that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff #57, and interest, for money had and received.

TRESPASS to try title — tried at Abbeville. This action was brought by the plaintiffs es trustees for Frances Eleanor Henderson, (late l.m-.rcns,) a feme eovert and devisee, under the last will and testament of Col. Henry Laurens. Mr, Justice Gañil directed a non-suit, on the ground that the legal estate was in the cestui que use, and not in the trustees ; and that the action ought to have been bro’t in the name of the legal owner.

IN this ease, the defendant was indicted for trading With negroes, without the permission of their owners, and for receiving stolen goods. His name was Montacue, ánd not Montague, as was written in the indictment. — - The,plea of not guilty was filed ; but after the jury were, cbargedj amotion was.made in behalf of the prisoner to plead a misnomer, which was refused. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. A motion was now made for a new trial.

THIS was an action to recover the amount of an account for goods furnished by the plaintiff to Benjamin? Eobeins. An order or note addressed by the defendant to the plain* tiff in the following words was produced, viz : “Mr. Duke Goodman, Should Benjamin Eobeins want any goods, on a credit, you will please let him have them, and I will be accountable.

<p>When a writing is offered in evidence, so antiquated as to render It difficult if not impossible to produce a witness who had ever seen the person write, whose signature is in question, a comparison of hand-writing is allowable: So the signature of a receipt by the Surveyor-general, given 40 years back, may be proved by a comparison with his signature to the plats and grants from his office.</p> <p>To make out a color of title, to show the extent of a party’s possession, it is not sufficient to show a receipt from the Surveyor-General to the party for the fees of the grant, which was taken out in tile name of another person, as the receipt night Isave been to him as agent for the grantee.</p> <p>To enable a party to succeed in liis statutory claim to land, he must prove that he lias had possession of the land the full time required by the Statute; lie must show the extent of Ids possession, and that it was adverse.</p>

IN this case a ft. fa. had been lodged with, the sheriff who levied upon a tract of land by directions from the defendant. The land was put up and bid off b3r the plaintiff; immediately after, he discovered that the land did not belong to the defendant, he so informed the sheriff and refused to receive titles. At the succeeding court, a rule was taken out by the defendant, and served upon the plaintiff to shew cause why Satisfaction should not be entered upon the judgment.

THE defendant was arrested at the suit of the plaintiffs, upon a ca. sa. on the 25th of March, 1822. The sheriff, on the 11th of April following, took security from the defendant for remaining within the bounds, and rendering to the clerk of the court a schedule of his property within forty days. On the 8th of August following, the defendant filed a schedule, and then applied to the court for a discharge.

THIS was an application for the partition of the land of Archibald Roberts, deceased, among his heirs. The defendant had been in possession of a part of the land for fifieen years, which he claimed under the statute of limitations. The part he claimed was designated by 1'nes known to the father of the applicants, and acknowledged by him.

THIS was an action of trespass to try titles to land, called for trial at Columbia, in the Spring Court of 1822. To enable the plaintiff to substitute an office copy of the grant and plat, for the original, under the act of 1803, he offered an affidavit of the loss of the original, sworn to on the 9th August, 1820, when the case was first ready for trial.

THIS was an action brought on a joint and several note. The note had been originally signed by Pickett fy Oats ; some (ime after its execution, and without the knowledge of Pickett, Rachel Griffith signed it, in consequence of some agreement between the plaintiff Oats and herself. — ■ The plaintiff declared upon a joint and several note by the three. The defendant contended that the plaintiff must fail, inasmuch as he had only proved a contract by Pickett and Oats.

THIS was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of land in Laurens district. The plaintiff proved a regular paper title from the original grantee' of the land through James Wright to himself. The conveyance from James Wright to the lessor of the plaintiff, was dated in the year 18 — , neither the plaintiff nor his lessor Lad ever been in possession of the land in dispute.

THIS was an action on a joint and several note given by the defendant and William Hays, to the plaintiff, The original process had issued against both, but the sheriff had returned non est inventus as to Hays. On the part of the defendant, Harp, it was contended that the plaintiff, by issuing his process against both, had elected to bring a joint action, and could not, therefore, proceed against him until his j.oint payer, Hays, was made a party.

TRIED at Chester, August Special Term, 1822. Trespass vi et armis, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close and taking away and removing 250 panel of fence, enclosing a field of seventeen acres. The plaintiff had a verdict.

TRIED at Newberry, October, 1822. — These were summary processes on notes, the amount of which was within the summaiy jurisdiction of the court at the time the action was brought, but by the accumulation of interest pending the actions, the amount exceeded this jurisdiction at the time the cases Were called for trial. On the part of the defendants, it was objected that the demand being above the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment.

' Tried at Richland, October, 1822. DEBT on arbitration bond.

TRIED at York, August, Special Term, 1822. Slander for the words, “ he, (the plaintiff,) stole a cart lire and gets his living by stealing.” — “He is a thief and will swear a lie.” These words variously modified were the basis of all the counts in the declaration.

Tried at Union, Spring Term, 1822. TRESPASS to try titles to land. The plaintiff derived his title from a grant to his father, John Earring ion, da? ted in 1787. There was an old field on the place at the time, consisting of four or five acres, and the plaintiff proved that John Harrington had possession by his tenant, William Harrington, for two years) immediately subsequent to the grant.

THIS was a summary process on a note given by the defendant to George Miller, in which the plaintiff sued in the character of the assignee of Miller, who was an insolvent debtor. Miller, before the bringing of this action, had been arrested at the suit of the present plaintiff, and had taken the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, usually called the “ prison bounds act,” and had made an assignment of his effects, including the note in, question.

Tried at Union, Spring Term, 1822. THIS was a sum. pro. on the following note, to wit: aQa or before the 1st day of April next, I promise to pay .Ezekiel Birdseye, or bearer, forty five dollars, value received, in a clock which he warrants to run and perform well. If it does not, he agrees to make it, or furnish one that shall.

Tried at Richland, October, 1822. THIS was a prosecution against the defendant for bastardy.

Tried at York, August, 1822. A SPECIAL court was held at York in August lastf in pursuance of the act of the 18th December, at which the prisoner was indicted, tried, -and convicted of the erirne of horse stealing. The indictment commenced “ at a Court of Sessions, &c. without setting out that it was a special court, and contained two counts.

Action of slander, tried before Justice Johnson, at Lexington, November Term, 1822. THIS was a case of slander. Verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved the Constitutional Court in arrest of judgment. 1st. Because the first count did not set forth the slanderous words to have been spoken or published by the defendant. 2nd. Because the 2nd and 3rd counts did not set forth the particular slanderous Words. 3rd.

ON the 26th July, 1821, the Ordinary of Charleston district granted letters of administration on the personal estate of John Phillips White, deceased, to the defendant.

Tried ¿t Charleston, May Term, 1822. THIS was an action against the defendants as copartners and proprietors of the Steam-boat “ Charleston,” on an account for supplies furnished that vessel. The service of the writ was accepted, and an appearance entered by Messrs. 0‘Hara §■ Gibson, as attornics for the defendants. When the case was called for trial, Messrs. Cross 8?

<p>Where a jurj rejected a bond, eleven years old, as paid, and stated in court that they did so on account of obliterated marks upon it, \\ liich marks had not been observed by the opposite party or the court, a, new trial was granted to enable the obligee to adduce evidence in explanation, and that he should not be surprised.</p> <p>./is a general rule, facts unknown to the court are not perfnissible to influence the finding of the jury.</p> <p>Surprize alone, it seems, arising out of circumstances unknown to the party, and without his control, is of itself, sufficient to authorize a new trial.</p>

Tried at Charleston, May Term, 1830. THIS was an action of debt on a bail bond, entered into by the defendant, as bail for Sandoz, in an action at the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued out a ca. sa. on the 'jdgment obtained against Sandoz, on which the following memorandum was endorsed : “ N. E. I. per Jackson.^' • And also the following return : • • “ I baye, by my deputy, John T. Smart, made diligent-search for the defendant, but could pot- find him. John.

AT this term, the plaintiff, Bloomstock, obtained a verdict against the defendant, John Duncan, foi’ the sum ®f two hundred dollars. In. July term, 1821, of the City Court of Charleston, the present defendant, as plaintiff, had obtained a judgment against the present plaintiff for two hundred and ninety one dollars. This was a motion to compel the plaintiff here to discount one against the other.

<p>' THIS was an action of assumpsit to recover the balance of an account of $ 395. The defendant produced a receipt in full against the account, and Contended that the plaintiff ought not to be permitted to controvert it by parol evidence. The presiding Judge, however, permitted evidence to be given of any error or mistake which would shew that the balance now claimed was still due. Tho plaintiff’s then produced their books and proved their ad-count. It appeared that they had given credit for all the receipts produced by the defendants, which left the balance now sued for. There did not appear tobe any eiror Or mistake in the previous settlement except what might be inferred from tlie fact that the receipts produced, and for which credits had been given, did not amount to the sum of the goods purchased. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and this was a motion for a new trial on the grounds,</p> <p>1st. That parol evidence ought not to have been permitted to contradict or explain the receipt.</p> <p>2nd. Because the evidence was not such as to authorize the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs Contrary to a receipt in full.</p>

<p>IT appeared in this case that the plaintiff had purchased a ship, tackle, guns, &e. of the defendant. It was alleged by thé plaintiff that some of the articles which he had purchased had not been delivered, and that others were not such as they had been represented. This was an action of assumpsit to recover the value of the articles which had been withheld, and to recover back the money which had been paid for those which were defective in quality. After the evidence was closed on the part of the plaintiff, and the defendant had commenced his defence, it appeared that the defendant had given a bill of sale for the ship and other articles purchased. The defendant’s counsel then called on the plaintiff to produce that bill of sale, and cpntended that as it had been shewn that there was highen evidence in his possession, he ought not to recover on the evidence which had been given to the jury. The presiding judge was of opinion that the objection came too late, and that if the defendant wanted the bill of sale, he should have given the plaintiff notice to produce it. He was not taken by surprize, for he had gi ,'en the bill of sale himself, and. therefore knew of its existence. The objection was overruied, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict.</p> <p>This was a motion for a new trial, o.n the ground, that £8 it appeared in evideuce that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was reduced to writing, and a bill of saie executed, the plaintiff could not maintain this action without the production of that paper.</p>

<p>3'pon an action for money had and received, against the defendant, it «as averred, that he received it as vendue-master, which allegation was not replied to, and verdict was had for the plaintiff, Meld, that the defendant was not thereby prevented at any time afterwards from taking the benefit of tlie insolvent debtor’s act; for as the question whether he received it as vendue master or not, was not put in issue, he might waive the question at that time, and he has the right to malte it whenever it becomes important to him.</p>

<p>The books of a school-master reg-ularfy kept are not admissible to prove his account.</p>

Motion before Mr. Justice Bay. IN this case, the defendant had issued a distress warrant against the plaintiff, who occupied a leased lot of land of hers on which he had built a house, for rent in arrear.— It was in the usual form, requiring the bailiff to take the goods and chattels of the tenant. The bailiff found no goods on the premises, nor any person in possession, and returned the warrant as levied on the house.

<p>Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, in May Term, 1822.</p> <p>THIS was an action of assumpsit to recover balances due on several notes ; the first in time dated the 16th of January, 1804, and the last the 11th of June, 1806. The defence set up, was the statute of limitations. The plaintiff proved the hand writing of the defendants intestate to the notes, and gave in evidence an endorsement on each of them, made with the intestates consent, acknowledging the receipt of certain sums of money, in part payment of the notes. These were dated thp 9th of August, 1814. The plaintiff, in order to take the case out of the statute, produced the following testimony : That Asa Foot, the intestate, formerly resided in Boston ; that in 1805, he became very much embarrassed and absconded from that city; that he was brought back by a creditor and absconded a second time ; that he again returned to Boston and kept himself concealed and expressed his intention to do so ; that afterwards, he was absent ten or twelve years ; that witness considered him a transient person. He was in the habit of trading to the West Indies. During the SUIB7 mer in 1810, witness met him in Barbadoes, and they visited in company, several of the West India. Islands. In 1815 or 16, witness met Foot in Charleston.</p> <p>, On the part of the defendant, it was proved by Mr. O’Hara, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, that he knew Foot three or four years during his residence in Charleston ; that Foot arrived there in the spring of 1812 or 1813, about the commencement of the war ; that he was a horse dealer and livery stable-keeper, and owned the livery stables in the rear of St. Philip’s church ; that he was generally in Charleston during the spring and winter ; and in the summer traded to the West Indies ; that this mode of life continued from 1812 or 1813, until his death, which occurred in the spring of 1817, and that he was correct in his dealings. It was also proved by the defendant, that John Foot administered on the estate of Jisa Foot, the letter of administration being dated April 27th, 1817; that this was revoked and administration de bonis non granted to G. W. Vankanst, the present defendant, on' the 27th December, 1817. The present action was commenced February 24, 1820.</p> <p>Verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.</p> <p>A motion was now made for a new trial on the following grounds, viz :</p> <p>1st. Because the testimony adduced to take the case out of the statute, by shewing that the intestate was a transient person and concealed himself from his creditors at Boston, referred to a period long antecedent to August 9th, 1814, the date of the several acknowledgments ' on the notes, from which time the statute began to run, and the testimony was, therefore, jrrevelent.</p> <p>2nd. Because it' was proved that the intestate resided in Charleston from 1812 or 1813,-to, the spring of 1817, when he died, and was a freeholder here ; that ah action might have been commenced in Charleston during all that: time, whereas it was not brought until February 24,; 1820, nine months and fifteen days too late.</p> <p>3rd. Because the verdict was in other respects contrary to law and evidence.</p>

Charleston, January Term, 1823. THE defendant was indicted under the act of 1812, for sending a challenge. The verdict “ guilty.” It appeared that the defendant was displeased with the evidence of the prosecutor in a case pending in the Courts of Equity. It did not appear that the manner or words of the prosecutor had been such as were calculated to give Menee.

Charleston district, May term, 1821. THIS was án action brought for the sum-of $ 7000, heing the insurance on the General Armstrong, from Charleston to Havana, at 2 1-2 per cent, premium, 2nd September, 1818.

THIS was a summary process on an open account for goods sold and delivered. The original entries were made by the plaintiff’s clerk, who was absent from the state. It was proved that the entries were in the handwriting of the absent clerk, that he was the plaintiff’s clerk, and that he was out of the state. This evidence was deemed insufficient by the Circuit Court, and the plaintiff was refused a decree ; from which decision an appeal was now brought up.

Tried at Greenville, Spring Term, 1823. THE action was assumpsit on five negotiable notes of hand brought by the plaintiff as endorsee against the defendant as endorser.

Spartanburgh, Spring Term, 1823. THIS,Was an action brought against the defendant, who as sheriff, had levied upon the musket of the plaintiff, and sold it to satisfy an execution against the plaintiff. It appeared that the plaintiff was a private in a company of artillery, to which was attached no ordnance.

Trespass to try titles; Tried at Pendleton, October Term, 1822.

TROYER for a negro girl Lucy-. The plaintiff, a minor, claimed the girl in question under a parol gift made to her b.y her father John Smith, eleven }?ears anterior to the commencement of this action. The defendant held under a bill of sale from the sheriff who sold by virtue of an execution, in the case of Dawkins Sf Littlejohn vs. John Smith, in which case judg ment was entered up on the 30th of May, 1820.

Tried at Newberry, Spring Term, 1823. THE note on which this action was brought was made by the defendant, ,and payable to Thomas Waters, or 'it was transferred by him to William Otoens, now deceased, by delivery, and it came into the hands of the present plaintiff as one of his executors.

Tried at Sumter, March, 1828. THE plaintiff was confined in the custody of the sheriff of Sumter district on civil p.’«'ces:4, and a].plied to the defendant, who was one of the jus'.hTS of the. quorum for that district, tobe discharged under the prison bounds act.

Tried at Union, Spring Term, 1823. ASSUMPSIT on a promissory note — Defence that the contract on which it was founded was usurious. The plaintiff was called under the act to testify as to the usury. He stated that the defendant applied to him to borrow money, and proposed of himself to give at the rate of 12 1-2 per cent, per annum interest.

Tried at Abbeville, Spring Term, 1823. Trespass to try titles to land. THE plaintiff in deducing his title, gave in evidence a deed made by John N. Newby., late sheriff of Abbeville, to himself, which purported to have been made in pursuance of a sale under execution against the present defendant, at the suit of Wm. Owens.

; Tried at Abbeville, Spring, 1823. THE note on which this action was founded, was drawn by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff, or bearer. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had passed the note by delivery, to Wm. Powell for a valuable consideration. The action was brought by the executors of Powell, who died before the commencement of this lection, who were now prosecuting it.

Tried at Richland, Spring Term, 1823. THE defendant had sold a negro to the plaintiff, an ’ took his note with Joseph May, as security for v. part f the price. He had brought several suits against them ->i this note, and obtained judgments, which were not yr'. ■, - tisfied. This was an action to recover damages br •. fraud in the sale of the negro, and to prove ;1 the phur.'.ih’ offered in evidence the examination of May, taken by commission.

Tried at Spartanburg, Spring Term, 1823. THE prisoner was tried and convicted on an indictment for a forgery ; and a motion was now made to arrest xhe judgment, on the ground that the indictment did not charge that the prisoner did the act.

Marlborough district, October Term, 1823, Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THIS was an action brought on a note of hand, signed Vining 4’ Wilson, and dated 3rd April, 1820. The note was subscribed in the hand writing of Wilson, and it was admitted that the defendant and Wilson had been merchants trading under the firm of Vining 8y Wilson, and that the plaintiff had been one of their customers. G. jB.

Laurens district, Spring Term, 1822. THIS was an action by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, the amount of costs paid by him in consequence of his assignment of a note made by the defendant to him, on which assignment he bad been sued by Wm Cobb, to whom it was passed, and had suffered judgment to go against him by default.

Assumpsit. — Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at-Lexington, October Term, 1822. THIS was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand.

Newberry district, Fall Term, 1822. Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson. THE prisoner was charged with the offence of negro stealing, and on being brought to the bar, moved the court for an order to change the venue, stating on affidavit that he believed he could not obtain a fair trial in that district.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Newberry districtj July-Term, 1822. MOTION to quash the order for bail endorsed on the process, and to discharge the bail, on the ground that the gum sworn to was not sufficient, being only $30 121-2 cents. Motion overruled. The present was an application to reverse that decision, on the grounds, 1st. That $ 30 12 1-2 is not equal to £S0 current money $ and the act must be followed strictly in favour of personal liberty. 2nd.

Tried before Mr. Justice Colcdck, Spartanburgh district, Spring Term, 1822. THIS ivas an action by the father to recover damages of the defendant, for debauching his daughter, whereby he. lost her services. The plaintiff had obtained a judgment, by default. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the declaration, (as it stated,) which was intended to reach a defect in pleading, which was alleged t‘o exist, to wit ; a Variance between the writ and declaration.

Kershaw district, Fall Term, 1822. Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THIS action was brougbtagainst the indorser to the following note — “ Ten days after date, I promise to pay to John G. Ballard, or bearer, the just sum of three hundred dollars, for value received of him this 26th March, 1821. Signed, John Boykin. Indorsed — u I promise to pay the within note if the drawer should fail to do so, to Jonathan Eccles, for value received.

Fairfield district, Spring Term, 1822. Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson. TRESPASS to try titles to land. Held: that the defendant’s possession. must enure to the benefit of his father, and that his-possession could not affect the rights of the plaintiff, because as*executor he had the right to' the possession, and was bound to defend the possession of his testator. Motion for a new trial.

Sci. fa. tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, York district, Spring Term, 1823. THE following was the brief: “ A sci. fa. had been issued against the defendant to shew cause why he should not be fined for his non-attendance as á grand juror, at the special court for York, in August term, 1822.

Debt on a sealed Note. THE declaration in setting out the promise, stated that the defendant bound himself to pay whenever after requested. The note produced in evidence was a promise to pay ninety days after date. A non-suit was moved for on the ground that the note offered in evidence did not support the declaration ; which was over-ruled, and a verdict was had for the plaintiff.

THIS was an action against the defendant, as indorser ®f a note after it became due. No notice of non-payment 'to the indorser was proved on the trial, and on the charge of the presiding judge that the note having been indorsed after due, such notice was not necessary, a verdict was given for the plaintiff; and among a variety of other grounds misdirection to the jury in the foregoing particular, was relied on for a new trial.

Motion to set aside an order for prohibition. Before his honor Judge Gantt, at Chambers. THE commissioners of the roads of Newberry district had imposed upon Y. J. Harrington a fine for not working upon the roads, and were about to collect it in pursuance of the method pointed out by the act of the Legislature.

Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, Fairfield, Spring Term, 1S23. THIS was an action of Slander, for charging the plaintiff with stealing a pen knife and handkerchief. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the first charge, and justified as to the second. Before the commencement of the trial, the defendant’s council moved the court to withdraw the justification, and the court granted the motion, although opposed on the part of the plaintiff.

Motion to set aside nonsuit. ■Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, Spartanburgh court, April Term, 1823. THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, against the late sheriff of Spartanburgh, for executing and selling the property of a third person.

Tried before Mr, Justice Oolcodc, Sumter Court, Spring Term, 1823. THIS was an action brought on a bond signed by Gen. Sumter, for himself and for his son, as his agent. The plaintiff proved the hand writing, and the defendant’s attorney required proof of the agency, (or the special authority, )'to sign this bond.

Abbeville district, Fall Sitting, 1823. Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock. THIS was an action-to recover damages for a breach of covenant in the sale of a negro girl who was sold for 300 dollars, and the title warranted in the bill of sale.— When the recovery was had against the plaintiff, therf bad been an increase both in number and value, and the verdict against him was for ©2,250.

'Pried before Mr. Justice Colcock, Sumter Court, Spring Term, 1823. THIS was an action on a note of hand for $ 400, dated the 5th December, 1815, and payable on the first January following. On the back of the note there were two receipts, dated 14th May, 1817. The one for $300, and the other for fifty dollars. To this, there was a plea of the statute of limitations. Replication — payments made.

Sumter district, Spring Term, 1823. Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock.

Tried, before Mr. Justice Noté, Richland district, Spring Term, 1823. The defendant Mounce, was indebted to the plaintiff McClure, by bond, on which the plaintiff got judgment, and issued execution. The sheriff levied on Mounce’s land ; sold it, and Kinsler became the purchaser at $200. The sheriff was ruled to pay the money to the plaintiff, and shewed for cause, that he had an older execution against Mounce in his office, belonging to one Smith.

Darlington district, Spring Term, 1823. — Tried before Mr. Justice Colcock. THIS was an action to recover the sum of one hundred dollars, which it was alleged the defendant had received from the sheriff of the district for the plaintiff, and had neVer paid it over.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on an open account. Tried before Mr. Justice Nott, Lexington, Spring Term, 1823. The plaintiff was a merchant living in Charleston, and, pursuant to the provisions of the act of 1816, authorizing persons who live more than a hundred miles from the court where the cause is to be tried', had produced the wit-' ness who made the entries to be examined upon commission, to prove the account.

Columbia, Spring Term, 1823. — Tried before Mr. Justice Nolt. Held: that the piaintiii’ was not entitled to roe..ver on that, count. The plaintiff however was permiued to take a verdict, subject to the opiricn oí the comí on that point. This was a motion to reverse the

<p>Tried before Mr. Justice Noli, Newberry, Spring Term, 1823.</p> <p>THIS Was an action of assumpsit on a note of band, for five hundred dollars, which had been given for a negro fellow. The defence set up, was that the negro was unsound. The witnesses all agreed that the negro was lame, that there was a large scar on his hip or thigh. Whether that was the cause of his lameness or not, they did not know. One witness who was present at the contract, said that the defendant was aware of the lameness when he purchased, and said that if the plaintiff would warrant him sound in every other respect except the lameness in the leg, he would take him. He thought the negro sold at a reduced price on account of his lameness. Such á negro, if sound, would have been worth at thai time, from eight hundred to a thousand dollars. One witness said he appeared disordered in the breast. The breast bone appeared sunk in. Another witness said he appeared tobe injured in the arms. Several of the witnesses said he complained often ; was able to do but little work, and they thought him entirely worthlesss. It appeared that four hundred dollars had been paid on the note. But that it had been paid by the defendant’s wife when he was from home, and that he expressed his dissatisfaction at it when he returned.</p> <p>It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that the defendant was not entitled to this defence, as he had not tendered back the property.</p> <p>The cause was tried at Newberry, Spring Term, 1823.</p> <p>The presiding Judge instructed the jury that it was not necessary to return the negro or to tender him back. And that if they were satisfied that he was sound or that he answered the description given of him at the time of the sale, they ought to find for the plaintiff, otherwise for the defendant.</p> <p>The jury found for the defendant.</p> <p>And this was a motion for a new trial on two grounds,</p> <p>1st Because the verdict was contrary to evidence.</p> <p>2nd. On the ground of misdirection of the court.</p>

Newberry, Spring Term, 1823. — -Tried before Mr. Justice Nott. WHEN this cause was called for trial, a motion was made for a nonsuit, on the ground that it did not appear that security for costs had been given within the time prescribed by an order of court previously made for that purpose. The motion was overruled, on the ground that the question had been decided at a former court.

Indictment for Gaming. — Tried before Mr. Justice Noll, at Edgefield, Spring Term, 1823. THE indictment charged the defendant with having committed the act in a certain out house, used as a distillery. And this was a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that a distillery was not such an out house as. was contemplated by the act against gaming.

Edgefield, Spring Term, 1823. — Tried before Mr. Justice Nott. THIS was an action on a bond, with a condition to malte titles to a certain tract of land.

Newberiy July Term, 1822. — Motion to set aside non-suit. Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. AT October Term, and after the cause was placed on the issue docket, an order was obtained at the instance of the defendant, that the plaintiff who resided without the limits of this state should give security for the costs of this case, on or before the next term, or be nonsuited.

Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Charleston, January Term, 1823. THIS was an action for obstructing a light of way.— The plaintiff was the owner of Long Island, which is separated from Goat Island by a bold navigable stream or inlet, called Long Island River. Goat Island is connect ed at ebb tide with James5 Island, by what the witnesses called a hard marsh, which is covered with water at every flood tide.

Charleston district, January Term, 1833. — Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THIS was the case of an appeal from the Ordinary, on a paper offered before him for probate, as the will of a feme-covert.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. IN this ease, there was a judgment be default on the 21st September, 1322, cither for want oi an appearance or plea. It was placed on the writ of enquiry ciockei, r.nd remained on that docket during October Term. In January Term, the presiding judge set aside the order ter judgment, and ordered the plaintiff’s attorney to file his warrant of attorney, and security for costs to be given, or the proceedings to be stayed.

Tried at Barnwell, before Mr. Justice Huger. Assumpsit on Note. THIS was an aetion on a promissory note made by the defendant, and payable to McKennie fy Co. or order, of Augusta, who endorsed it to the plaintiffs. The defence was payment; and with a view of letting in a receipt of Samhins, one of the firm of McKennie Co. it was attempted to prove that the note had been endorsed after it became due.

<p>The acceptor of a bill of exchange, and the maker of a promissoiy note are not liable to an indorser for the costs r which he may have incurred in consequence of default ofpayment By them. •</p>

<p>THIS was an indictment against William Calder, Priscilla Calder, John McJldam and George Keenan,</p> <p>and divers other persons, to the jurors unknown.”</p> <p>The indictment contained two counts; one for a riot, -and the other for an assault and battery.</p> <p>The jury acquitted John McJldam and George Keenan, They found Priscilla Calder guilty of a riot, and Wm. Calder guilty of a riot and assault.</p> <p>It appeared in evidence that Mr. Jtlexandcr Calder, the husband of Priscilla Calder, had let his billiard room, &c. to Jldolfe Bionbergh, the prosecutor. Mr. Calder had left the state, and made his brother, the defendant, his attorney in his absence. Some difference having taken place between the parties, with regard to the execution of the contract, Mr. William Calder and Mrs. Calder attempted to regain possession of the billiard room, books, &c. which lead to the alleged riot. In the course of the examination of the testimony, it appeared that some of the domestieks of Mr. Calder were pro-sent. They assisted in taking away some of the things, and in fastening up the house by the order of Mrs. Calder. But that testimony came out incidentally in the course of the examination, and not by any direct enquiry •as to the part which they took in the transaction.</p> <p>This was a motion to arrest the judgment, on the ground that two persons cannot commit a riot, and that as only two are convicted, judgment cannot be rendered against them.</p> <p>In support of this ground, it was contended :</p> <p>1st. That a negro in this state is not such a person in contemplation of law as can commit a riot.</p> <p>2nd. That the principle does not apply to domestick ■servants, acting under the immediate orders of their master or mistress.</p> <p>In ease the motion in arrest of judgment should'fail, then a motion was made for a new trial, on the ground that the evidence was not'sufficient to establish the fact of any such concert or co-operation on the part of the servants as to implicate them in the riot; and,</p> <p>Also on the ground of surprize in the - charge of the court, that the co-operation of the servants was sufficient to authorize the jury to find any number of the defendants guilty, when, from the manner of conducting the prosecution, the defendants were not induced to believe that any such ground would be relied on.</p>

Charleston district. The following is the report of.the Recorder : THIS was a prosecution against E. Van Raven, a sole-dealer, for á breach of the 13th clause' of an ordinance of the city, passed on the 17th July, 1815.

Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, Colleton district, April Term, J823. THIS case came before the court on a motion to set aside the service of die writ, because the plaintiff' being sheriff of the district, the writ ought to have been served by the coroner and not by the sheriff’s deputy. Which motion, the presiding Judge overruled : Whereupon this court was moved to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, and to set aside the service of the writ upon the above ground.

Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Georgetown. THIS was an action brought to recover wages as an overseer. It was proved that the plaintiff lived asan overseer on the plantation of the testator for twelve, months ; that by the original contract, the wages were to be eight hundred dollars. But it was shewn that after remaining a short time on the plantation under that agreement, the plantin' misbehaved and abused his employer ; in consequence of which he was discharged.

Charleston, January Term. — Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THE defendant was indicted at January sessions, 1823.

Assumpsit on account. — Pleas,-non-assumpsit. & discount. Tried before the City Court, in January Term, 1823. The following is the report of the Recorder. THE only question in this case was, whether an account assigned to the defendant, which was due by the plaintiff to a third person, could be pleaded in discount ^gainst the plaintiff’s action ? It was stated and admitted that both accounts were for the same amount.

Charleston, January Term, 182?. — Tried before Mr. Justice Gañil. John P. Schatzill. John Woodward. Alex, C¡ ansien and Andrew Alexander, were partners in tr An issue was accordingly directed to try the right. To the plaintiff’s declaration, the Boltons pleaded that Cranston 4* Alexander were partners in the Kentucky house; that they were indebted to them, the Beltons ; that the attachment had issued, and a judgment was obtained on the 17th June, 1820.

<p>The Statute of limitations oonfining prosecutions for fines and forfeitures to six months, relates not to the fine infiictedupon a white person for murdering- a slave, nor does it seem to relate to the punishment by fine or otherwise of any felony.</p> <p>The act of 1740, to punish the murder of a slave, is no,t repealed by the act of 1821, taking away clerg-y.</p> <p>Where an act has been repealed or a new act made of force, persons guilty under the first act may be indicted, convicted and punished •áfter it is repealed, for an offence committed before its-repeal. (a.)</p>

IN this case, a rule had been served on the attorney of the plaintiffs to show cause why he did not pay over to' the plaintiffs the money which had been collected on the judgment obtained.

Colleton, Spring Term, 1823. THIS was an action of assumpsit on a note, dated January 18, 1815, and drawn by Archibald Whaley, the defendant’s testator. Four years and eleven months after it was due, the plaintiff applied to a brother of the executrix, who occasionally transacted her business, for payment. He replied that it should be paid.

A suit was brought in the City Court to recover the ..penalty for selling coals within the city, contrary to a city tordinance, passed on the 23nd of August, 1810.

<p>THIS was an action on a policy of insurance for 214 bales of cotton, valued at $27 50-100 per bale, shipped per the Swedish ship Crown Prince, at and from Charles-' ton to Portsmouth, in Great-Britain, and thence to the river Medway or river Thames, with liberty of transhipping the same at Portsmouth or Chatham for London, by a regular coasting vessel. The policy bore date the SOth of April, 1812, and the premium was 8 per cent, on $5,SS5. It was written on the policy that the invoice was on account and risk ofBrish-h subjects residing in Great-Britain, bul was the property' of McFec 4' Colder, the plaintiffs. It appeared in evidence that the vessel sailed for Charleston on the 6¡h May, having cleared for Antwerp; that the clearance was published in the daily papers of the city four days before the policy was signed. That her bill of lading stated that she was hound for Falmouth, and the cotton was to bo landed at London, and was consigned to D&nnistown, Buchanan fy Co. it was dated on the 2d May, 1812. The invoice was dated the 28th April, and was on account and risk of Bcnnistown, Buchanan ¿y Co. The protest was signed by one Christian He n neburgh, as captain. It was adduced in evidence and set forth among other things, that they experienced gales and heavy seas on the 13th, 15th and 17th. On "which last day, at half past 3 o’clock, they found six feet water in tire ship’s hold ; they set both pumps at work and freed her. Found she made twelve inches water in fifteen minutes ; that the crew refused to proceed on the voyage, and it was concluded, for the preservation of their lives and of the ship, to bear away for port; that they kept one pump at work constantly, and on the 20th anchored in the Hudson river, and had her surveyed.— The plaintiffs then adduced the examination under commission of the surveyors, who found, inter alia, at suebessíve examinations, that her upper works were open and required calking; that one of the starboard fore-shrouds was stranded; that the scarf of the kelson was open and split about 18 inches from the heel of the foremast abaft; the chain bolts of the main channels on the larboard side worked loose; some of the sheathing of the stern gone ; they then recommended that she should be hove keel out, which being done, they found her false keel entirely shattered from stem to stern; her sheathing Considerably1 worm eaten, and the sheathing nails so much rusted as to be unsafe for her to proceed to sea without having her bottom calked. They found her foremast about one foot below the hounds very rotten, and totally unseaworthy ; also, the heel of the foretopmast very rotten arid’ unfit for use; likewise, two cross trees broken ; the bowsprit was ajso defective and rotten, and the foretop and trussel trees in a similar situation. The plaintiffs, upon hearing that she had put into New-York, offered to abandon to the company, by letter dated 9th June, 1812, inclosing a let» ter from Mr. Jumes Boggs, of New-York, who was agent for the underwriters at Lloyd’s, to H. Bryce, who was the Charleston agent o'f the ship owners, in Which Mr. Boggs stated, that a few days before the Crdwn Prince sprung aleak, she was boarded by the British ship of war Recruit, Captain Senhouse, and on acedunt of the cotton not being included in the licence, as well as from a doubt of her true destination, an officer was put on board, with directions to libel the ship on her arrival in England ; that he (the writer) had written to England to procure a licence for the cotton, but he added, as she could not be safely hypothecated, the cotton must be sold to repair hdr. The examination of Mr. Boggs was then adduced, which ’established, among other things, that the ship having sprung aleak, put into New-York with a British midshipman on board, who had orders to libel her in England for carrying cotton without a licence; that the cargo consisted of lumber and 300 bales of cotton, 214 of which were shipped by the plaintiffs. The repairs of the ship. amounted to $ 5,572 23. To reimburse .the witness these repairs, the cotton was sold and brought altogether $7038 06 nett. The 214 shipped by the plaintiffs brought. $4819 54. In the opinion of this witness, the political state of the country had its influence in determining the captain to sell the cotton. He proved that by*' the navigation laws of Great-Britain, cotton, the produce of the United Slates, could not be imported into that country in a Swedish vessel. The defendants resisted the claim upon the ground, that, the ship was proved to be not? seaworthy when she sailed. That if she had been, yet she was not properly documented, as she wanted a licence to import cotton, the produce of the United States into Great Britain in a Swedish bottom. That her papers were moreover irregular and contradictory, and had actually subjected her to detention, particularly her clearance which was .falsely for Antwerp. That the concealment of this false clearance and the want of the licence for the cotton, were very material and vacated the policy ; that at any rate the Insurance Company were not liable for a total loss, only a partial one, as the plaintiffs under the circumstances had no right to abandon.</p> <p>To prove such of the facts as were necessary to their defence, the defendants produced the examination of Captain Si ¿liman, who denied the existence of the storms, described by the captain and of Mr. Mathews, a passenger in the ship, in that voyage. These witnesses contradicted the protest in important particulars, especially Mr. Mathews, who testified that the ship met with no tempestuous or any such weather as would have done harm to a staunch vessel, and that he had twice crossed the Atlantic in vessels that, made as much water as the Crown Prince, when she went, into New-York.</p> <p>The plaintiffs in reply examined several witnesses who were of opinion that it was customary to procure a licence' for landing the cotton after it had arrived at an out-port in Great-Britain; that false clearances were not uncommon, and were intended to deceive belligerents and diminish-the risk. Several captains of ships, and one ship carpenter were examined, and who were of opinion, on having the surveys read, that she must have been seaworthy when, she left Charleston.</p> <p>Here the case closed, and was argued upon the grounds taken by the defendants, and the plaintiffs claimed a verdict as for a loss by general average.</p> <p>The presiding judge in his charge to the jury told them that he knew no law prohibiting the trade insured ; that he saw no reason why a licence should be adduced before entry into a British port, and the evidence of the course of trade, he thought, established it to be unnecessarj ; that the question concerning the false clearance was one for the jury to determine, and that the evidence had proved it conformably to the usage of trade ; that the object clearly was to evade a search by a belligerent, but that if it increased the risk at the time the contract was made, the policy was void. It appeared to him, however, that the defendants knew or- should have known that under the usage of trade it was a risk to be encountered, and he thought it in fact lessened the risk, or it would not have been done ; that there was no concealment, as the defendants knew the voyage was to Portsmouth, notwithstanding the clearance to Antwerp; that with respect to the partial or total loss, the true question was, was the voyage defeated by one or more of the perils of the sea, covered by the policy? If so, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover; that .selling the cotton in New-York was the best mode by which the repairs could be paid for, but there was no evidence that the lumber was sold for the repairs of the ship, and he believed the truth to be, that it could not be shipped, because the war prevented it. That with respect, to the question of seaworthiness, he was of opinion upon the facts and testimony, that the vessel was unseaworthy ; that the extent of the repairs she.had required was a strong circumstance to show what her situation must have been prior to a storm, which he could not think had been very serious, and to which therefore so much in-.; jury could not be fairly attributed ; be left it to theiri however to decide whether she was seaworthy or not.</p> <p>They found for the plaintiffs.</p> <p>A motion was now made to set aside this verdict.</p>

ÍN January Term, 1883, for Charleston district, on motion of Simons fy Waring, it was ordered, that they be allowed to enter an appearance and plead in the above case, írom this order, the plaintiff appealed on the ground that it was neither consistent with law, nor with the practice of the court.

Charleston district, January Term, 1823. Covenant. — Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THIS was an action of covenant, founded on an agreement between T. Gourdin of the one part, and John Ñ. Davis and Thomas Lehre on the other part; whereby the plaintiff agreed to rent to the defendants th.e place called Nelson’s Ferry, with about 200 acres of land.

Georgetown, April Term, 1823, — Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt. THIS was an action for money had and received. It was proved that the defendant on the death of the intestate possessed himself of two hundred and fifty dollars, money belonging to the estate of the deceased. In the defence made to this action, it was shewn that a paper was found in the trunk of the deceased, which purported to be a will made by the deceased, wherein the defendant was nominated an exeGutor.

THIS was an action of debt on bond, and to prove its execution, in addition to proof of the hand-writing of the subscribing witness, who was dead, witnesses were called as to the hand-writing of the defendant, and the result of this examination was, that it was left doubtful whether it was his hand or not.

Tried at Williamsburgh, April Term, 1823. THE defendant propounded in the Court of Ordinary a ii paper writing, as the iast will and testament of Joseph Witherspoon. The caption which was in the usual form of a will, “ In the name of God, Amen, I, Joseph Witherspoon, &c.” was written by a gentleman in the neighbourhood, and all the disposing clauses were in the handwriting of the deceased, and concluded with a verse which he directed to be engraved on his tomb stone.

Tried at Colleton, April Term, 1S23. A BILL of indictment was preferred against the defendant under the act of 1821, for murdering a slave. In addition to the count for murder, it contained also a count for killing in sudden heat and passion ; and the grand jury found a true bill as tp the last only, and the defendant appeared and demanded his trial ; on which, the solicitor, with the permission of the court, entered a nolle prosequi.

Tried at Charleston, January Term, 1823. THE prisoner was indicted tor a larceny in stealing a pocket-book and sundry bank bills.

Fail-field district, tried before Mr. Justice Colcocle, November Term, 1822. Trespass to try Titles. THE plaintiff claimed under a grant to George Evans in December, 1771, for 3000 acres, and offered evidence to show that Evans had conveyed to John Rutledge. He then produced a deed from Charles Rutledge to the plaintiff, dated 1st June, 1799, for 700 acres, and proved that he was one of the heirs of John Rutledge.