Volume 16 — South Carolina Law Reports

The execution of the note was not denied; but the Defendant contended that it was given for-negro'es, to which the payee was not entitled; and that consequently there was a failure of' Consideration. It appeared that the negroes in question were the descendants of a woman, who was sent, with some others, to this state about twenty-seven years ago, by a Mr. Butler, ■who was then residing in Virginia.

This was a rule on the Clerk, to shew cause why he didnot admit to the benefit of the Prisons Bounds Act, Isaac Norton. The Clerk shewed for' cause “ that the said Isaac Norton was a free man of color, and therefore not entitled to the bener fit of that act.” The rule was made absolute by the Circuit Court. From that decision an appeal was submitted to this Court.'

This action was brought to charge the defendant as executor de son tort. The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against Thomas Stewart, for eighty one dollars, in 1820. Not long afterwards Stewart died, leaving his widow on his farm, who continued in the undisturbed possession thereof for several months, when it appears the defendant purchased or got some corn from her, which he took away in his waggon,,and credited the estate for die same, on a note due him by Stewart..

This was an action of debt, on a judgment entered up Hi t822o To Meat the action, the Defendant moved, to set aside the judgment, on the ground that when it Was obtained, the Plaintiff consented to take it subject to the plea of plene ad~-ministravit or plene administravit prater. This fact, or agreement, was not however entered upon the record.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, founded on a written contract, whereby the plaintiff agreed to put her son, Wiley, to work with the defendant for one year: “ That the said Wiley was to work as a constant hand in the field, according to the directions of the defendant, and receive one-third of the cotton and one-fourth of the grain, &c. for his services.” The plaintiff proved that lier son, Wiley, worked with the defendant from…

<p>Note of hand after due, endorsed 1st November, 1819. At the time of endorsement, endorser informed that immediate demand ■ would not be made of drawer; and promised himself to write to drawer and inf orm him. Demand made of drawer, residing in Georgia, about 10th December. Held that demand was made in sufficient time. Indulgence given to drawer after demand, on his promise to pay; and suit afterwards brought against him. Notice of non-payment given to endorser, March, 1820. Held that endorser was discharged on account of the credit given to drawer, and for laches in giving notice to endorser. No sufficient evidence of a promise to pay, after notice of dishonor; which must be explicit and clearly proved.</p>

The defendant, Griswold, in the month of February, 1820, placed in the hands of John M. Felder, Esq. attorney at law, for collection, two notes of hand, drawn by William Wes% in favor of said Griswold.

Tins action was instituted by the plaintiffs, as guardians of negro Charles, to- establish his freedom, under the will of his- former owner, Wm. Hutt, late of Westmoreland county, Virginia, deceased. The followingis the clause in the will, “ It is my will that negro boy Charles shall continue with James Piggott, for four years, to learn the tailor’s trade, after which time he shall be free.” His will bears date the 18th November, 1799.

<p>The facts set forth in the. plaintiff’s brief are as follow;' That the plaintiff, by his agent, issued a bail writ against one Abner M‘Dearmin: tliat, at the instance and request of the-defendant, and by the consent of the agent of the plaintiff, the writ was placed in tlie. defendant’s hands to he executed; the sheriff having conferred no him a special deputation for that purpose; that the defendant, in the presence of the agent, arrested M‘Dear min, and suffered him to escape: that M£ Dear-inin remained for several days in the neighbourhood, and tlie defendant was requested by the agent to retake him, who refused, unless the agent would accompany him.</p> <p>The presiding Judge, in his charge to the Jury, drew a distinction between the case of the sheriff, acting in a public capacity, and a private agent of the plaintiff; in which character, !it was thought the defendant had acted; holding that a less degree of responsibility attached to the latter than the former.</p> <p>The Jury found for the defendant.</p> <p>A new trial was moved for on the following grounds:</p> <p>1st. Because the defendant undertook for a reward to perform the duties of a public officer, was cloathed with all the powers of that officer and is liable to the same extent:</p> <p>2d. Because the rule laid -down by the Judge, K that a .bailee for hire is answerable for gross neglect only,” is not law, and was calculated to mislead the jury:</p> <p>3d. That the evidence of neglect was sufficient.</p>

The defendant set up, by way of discount, that the note on which the action Was founded, was given for a negro: that the negro before the sale had Committed a burglary, for which he was afterwards tried, convicted, and punished; by reason of which punishment, his ears being cropped, his value was greatly impaired. The fact of the commission of the offence was un-ksbwn to both parties at the time of the sale.

This was debt on judgment, which was referred to the clerk, at an extra'court, May, 1819; who assessed the damages on 24th Mayr 1819, at $ 98 39; and stated' the debt at $ 378, 17. Judgment was signed on 21st. June, 1820. The Constitutional Court set aside this judgment, in May term, 1822; because the reference to the clerk was ’irregular. At fall term, 1823, a motion was made to the Circuit Court, to enter up judgment, nunc pro tunc.

<p>Grant ta A. of two hundred acres; not including an adjoining portion of land, which was in dispute in this case. Convey* once to defendant, of one hundred and sixty acres, part of A’e-grant, in 1800/ huí-so describing its boundaries as to include, the disputed land. Defendant had been in possession, within, the lines of Ah grant, ttoenty five years, and the person under whom he claimed, since 1794. Land in dispute granted to plaintiff in 1819. Held that defendants possession could not be extended,, by construction, to the land in dispute/ the conveyance to him, restricting Ms claim to Ah grant, though erroneously describing its boundaries; and consequently, that no presumption could arise of a grant of the disputed land, to Mm, from the state.</p>

This was an action brought on an Administration Bond,, given by Sarah Humphries, Administratrix of T. Humphries, with George Brown and another, sureties. The defendants are the administrators of George Brown, deceased.

This was an action of assumpsit brought on a note drawn by the defendant, in favor of the plaintiffs, dated 9th Dec. 1819. It was admitted that the note was given for two patent clocks* The defendant offered the evidence of P. P. Taylor, to prove that the contract was conditional, i. e. that if the defendant’s father did not like one of the clocks, the plaintiffs were to take it back.

The plaintifi’brought an action of debt, as Sheriff of New* berry District, against the defendants, on a bond given in conformity to the requisitions of the Act of Assembly of ’88, commonly called the Prison Pounds Act. Henry Robinson, one of the defendants in this case, had been arrested on the 23d February, 1821, by virtue of a Ca. Sa. at the suit of M'Creléss and Ducket, and taken into the custody of the sheriff.

This was an action of covenant, for the breach of the warranty of soundness of a female negro slave, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff- The proceedings were by process of attachment, on which Some property of tire defendant’s, who lived in the state of Alabama, had been attached. The property was replevied by the agent of the defendant, and bail to the action was put in, according to die act of assembly, and the defendant came in and pleaded to the action.

Trover for two negroes, Hannah and Anderson. Elizabeth Sims died in 1820, and by her will hequeathed all her property to the plaintiff, and appointed him. her executor. The plaintiff proved that the negroes were purchased by her many years ago, and that they had continued in her possession up to the time of her death. The defendant's claim grew out of the following circumstances: James Sims, the husband of Elizabeth.

This was an action of debt, on a penal bond, to which the following condition was annexed, “ The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bound Hugh Harshaw, do make good and lawful titles to the above Hugh Walker, of one hundred acres,-or all that remains after two hundred acres of land, whereon the said Walker now lives, including the improvements of the said Walker, on or before the 1st day of March next, this obligation to bo void hsA Some time after the…

The declaration in this case contained two counts; one for money had and received, and another for a certain quantity of cotton, delivered to the defendant, oil a contract that he should carry the same to Charleston, sell it, and pay over the proceeds to plaintiff, on his return; and the breach assigned, was, that defendant had not paid, over the proceeds. The day was left blank in both the counts; nor was there any bill of particulars'filed •with the .declaration.

This was assumpsit on a note, drawn by the defendant, and payable to to the plaintiffs, by the name of “ Chappell and Cureton,” and the declaration was in the name of ChappeJUgnd Cureton, omitting their Christian names. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The note was in the usual form of promissory notes, but the words 4! value received” were wanting.

The defendant, John A. Folk, was arrested under a warrant issued by a magistrate, on a charge of being the father of a bastard child, of which the plaintiff was delivered. When he was brought before the magistrate, the plaintiff’s father and himself had a private conversation, and reported to the magistrate, that they had agreed' to settle the prosecution; and the defendant gave the note on which this action was brought, which was Nr fifty dollars.

The plaintiff declared in assumpsit, on a contract made Jay defendant's intestate. The defendant pleaded non assump~ sit and plene administravit prester. The plaintiff confessed or .allowed the last plea and went to trial on the general issue; which was found against the defendant.

The defendant was indicted under the statute of 1. Ann, St. 2. c. 9. made of force in this state, as a receiver of stolen goods.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of land, in which the jury found the following verdict: “ We find for the plaintiff, with one dollar damages: we also find that the old hedge row, beginning at the river, and a line rimrfing along the same, to its termination, and a line to be drawn from thence, so that it will intersect the course of an old line, re-surveyed by A. B. Stark, in 1813, in the centre of the gut next to the river, and then along said last…

<p>Prisoner indicted under the Act of Assembly, 1736, 7, for for-gcry, and passing a, forged bank note. The charge in the indictment, is “ did dispose of and put away:” the words of the act, “utter and. publish.” Judgment arrested. The words of a statute, describing aft offence, should be pursued ivith. the uimosit exactness. - ,</p> <p> An officer of the bank ought to have been examined, ta prove that the note was forged. </p> <p> Evidence of the prisoner’s having had in his possession other notes, supposed to be forged, was properly admitted in evidence, to shew his knowledge that the note passed by him was a counterfeit. </p>

<p>T'/iat a witness merely believes himself interested in the event of the suit, does not render him incompetent.</p>

<p>Action on, the case, against a Justice of the Peace, for ini* properly issuing an execution, and causing plaintiff’s horse to be seized and sold. The acts of 1812 and 1817, “for giving landlords and lessors a summary mode of regaining possession, b/c. requires two justices to execute it.” Defendant acted alone, i.v.d issued execution for the costs. Held, that defendant was Hable to an action, having acted without jurisdiction: But,</p> <p> Thai trespass, and not case, ivas the proper remedy; the in* jury being direct. </p>

<p>Trespass Quare clausum fregit, plaintiff loas in possession of' a tract of land, part of which was covered by an older grant; of this part defendant was in possession. Held that plaintiff’s possession could not be construed to extend to the land covered by the older grant, though within the lines of Ms own.</p>

In this case it appeared that the defendant, was the wife of the tenant to the plaintiff, and the presiding judge refused to permit her to question the title of plaintiff; and a verdict was giv-eh for plaintiff, A motion was now mads for a new trial, on the ground, that the rule cannot apply to the wife of a tenant; that by death, the connexion of husband and wife being dissolved,, she must be considered as a stranger to the plaintiff.

It appeared in evidence in this case, that the plaintiff had iSrecovered a judgment against James Kendrick, on which he bad sued out execution, which was placed in the hands of thé defendant, who was then sheriff of Laureif s district'. He levied on a wagon and three horses, but suffered them still to remain in the hands of Kendrick, to he produced when he should require them.

It appeared in the case, that a domestic attachment had been issued, at the instance of Danniel Brennan, against the effects of Burrell M£Lamore. At the spring term, 1823, a motion was made, on the' part of the defendant, to have that attachment set aside, on account of some irregularity, and the property attached, delivered up to the defendant. Thai motion was overruled. An order was then obtained, that the plaintiff have leave to file his declaration.

This was an action of trespass, to' try titles to a tract of . land, claimed by the wife of thé plaintiff, as heiress to her two children, William M. M’Donald and Charlotte E. McDonald, devisee of William M‘Donald jun. deceased, The defendant claimed in right of his wife, formerly Tliirza McDonald, daughter of the same Wm. M‘Donald, jun. by a former wife, and de-visee under the same will.

<p>A motion was now made for that purpose.</p>

It appeared iu evidence, that John Fausset, who was the principal in the bill, being about to enter into business, applied to the plaintiff to borrow money.

It appearing in evidence that the defendant being about to build a bouse and the necessary out-buildings, wrote to bis friend in New York to procure .him a good mechanic to undertake the work. The plaintiff agreed to undertake,' provided he could be made sure of a job which would justify him in going such a distance from home, and subjecting himself to suck inconveniences as he must necessarily incur by-such an undertaking.

These actions were brought against the defendants as the securities of James M‘DanieI, late tax collector of Greenville district, on the bond for his faithful performance of the duties of that office. The defendants pleaded no plea, and the cases went to the jury on a writ of inquiry. The default alleged against the tax collector was, the not paying over to the treasurer a large amount of money collected for the taxes of Green-ville district, for the year 1821.

The prisoner was tried and convicted on an indictment for horse-stealing; and this was a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground, that the jury by which he was tried, were improperly and illegally summoned by the sheriff of the district.

This was an action of debt, on a bond, made by the de* fendant to the late general William Fishburne, and assigned by • him to the plaintiffs. It was admitted on all sides that the bond was given as the price of a tract of land lying on the Horse Shoe, containing 500 acres, which was conveyed by general Fishburne to the defendant, in fee-simple, by deed bearing date the 1st. January, 1819.

This was a qui tam action of debt, to recover against the defendant, a penalty of £1,000 currency, for having taken upon himself to exercise the office of magistrate, without being duly qualified. The act of 1778, Pub.

The plaintiff brought an action on-the case against the .defendant, for harboring a slave, and recovered a verdict for $ damages. He was then surrendered by his bail, •and he gave security to keep tbe prison bounds. In this state of things, he presented his petition, accompanied- by a schedule of his property, duly sworn to, praying.the benefit of the-act •for the relief of insolvent debtors.

Assumpsit, oh an account due by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate. Amongst other grounds of defence, the defendant offered, by way of discount, a due hill for $150, made by the intestate, payable to John Egleston or hearer, which had been transferred to the defendant after the death of the intestate.

This was an action of .assumpsit on the following notes, viz. “Charleston, 8th November, 1814. Sixty days after date, 1 promise to deliver Mr. Justrobe, or order, such number of barrels of new rice as will amount to the sum of two hundred dollars, value received this day, atone dollar, per. cwt. (Signed,) T. W. Price.” Sixty days after, date, I promise to deliver Mr. Justrobe twenty-five barrels of rice, at one dollar and one quarter per cwt. 28th December, 1814.

The plaintiff declared in trespass on the case, against the defendant, for heating his (Plff’s) slave. Defendant demurred •generally, and plaintiff joined issue in demurrer.

Trover to recover the value of a slave, named Cuffy. It was admitted on all sides that • Cuffy, originally belonged to Sophia Packrow, ■ and the plaintiff claimed as her administra-trix, with the will annexed. The claim of the defendant arose out of the following circumstances: - In 1796, Sophia Packrow made her will, and died somc-time after.

This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, for disturbing' the plaintiff in the use of a pew in St. Philip’s Church, in the City of Charleston, and evicting and turning him out of the same. The declaration was in every respect in conformity with the most approved precedents of declarations in an action on the case for such an injury, except that it charged the act to have been done with force and arms.

An order was made to quash the proceedings in this cáse, on the ground that an attachment will not lie against an absent executor, for a debt which was due by the testator; and an appeal taken from that order. The attachment is a proceeding in rem., and was'intended to come in stead tif the proceeding in personam, when the defendant cannot be found.

This was a motion to discharge tlic defendant under the. act for the relief of insolvent debtors; which was opposed by the creditors on the ground of fraud: and they filed a suggestion containing various charges against her, and produced a number of affidavits in support of them, which induced the court to send the case to a jury; who found her guilty of the second allegation in the suggestion; namely, that she the said Eliza Smith, “fraudulently, secretly,' and in the night…

In this case, a judgment was entered up in the court of Common Pleas, in favor of John Langton, the avowant in re-plevin; but previously to the verdict and after avowry, Andrew Miller, the plaintiff in replevin, had died.

<p>trover for a boat. . Defence, that defendant had taken her-up adrift and had a lien for salvage and, repairs; which plaintiff had promised to pay to the amount of forty dollars. JYo proof of defendant's having saved the boat, but plaintiff's promise. Held that defendant had no claim for salvage; that if he had, it ivould not have authorized him to repair, and ihatpiain- ■ tiff's promise gave him no lien.</p>

This was añ action on an open account, the last item of which is dated the 7th October, 1815. ■ The defendant filed his pleas of the general issue and the statute of limitations.

This was a motion for a rule against the defendant, to shew .cause why an information in the nature of a writ of Quo Warranto, to enquiré by what authority he exercised the office of sheriff of Georgetown District, should not be issued against him. The facts on which the motion rests are these. That there are six places of election, established by law, in the judicial district of Georgetown, viz: Georgetown, Santee, Sampit, Pee-Dee, All-Saints and China Grove.

Tins was an action of assumpsit, on a note drawn by one-Happoldt and made payable to the defendant, Nelson, who en-: dorsed it; and it was afterwards indorsed by one Christopher Happoldt. Plaintiff afterwards got it into his possession and brought this action for its recovery.

This-- was an action of debt, by process of attachment, brought by the- plaintiff, as assignee of Alexander Henry, ¡against the defendant, one of three co-obligors. Held: and so the jury found, ■on the second trial of the case of Lickbarrow vs. Mason, “that indorsements in blank, that is to say, by the shipper or shippers, with their names only, may be filled up by the person or persons to whom they are so delivered. 5 T. R. 683.

Antonio Larumbo, together with one Cassada, was in May term last, for Charleston district, tried on a charge of grand, larceny. Cassada was found guilty of petit larceny and La-rumbo of grand larceny. The defendant, Larumbo, appealed-for a new trial, on the ground, that the verdict was inconsistent, in as much as the defendants being indicted together fors grand larceny, and, the same evidence against both, both were, •alike guilty.

This was an action of trespass, to try title to a plantation called Green Grove, described in the declaration as lying on the N. E. side of the road to Ashley ferry, but no metes or bounds were set forth. The case had been placed on the writ of enquiry docket.

<p>The act of assembly of 1822, authorizing sheriffs to seize ufree negroes or persons of color” on board vessels coming into port, and to detain them Hill the vessel is ready to depart, does not reíale to slaves.</p>

This was a summary process, upon a note and account, copies of which were endorsed on the copy proces s, together with the following notice, viz: The defendant will take notice, that he will be required, upon the trial of this case, to answer the following interrogatories upon oath, or judgment will be given against him by default: . - 1st. Interrogatory.

This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the following -promissory notes, which were proved at the trial: $2,000' Charleston, 2d October, 1813. Twelve months after date, I promise to pay Tabitha Sin-gletop, or order, two thousand dollars, for value received. (Signed) F. Bremar. $2,000. Charleston, 2d October, 1815. Twelvemonths after date, 1 promise to pay Tabitha Singleton, two thousand dollars, value received. (Signed) F. Bremar.

This was an action on a replevin bond. The bond processed to be taken in pursuance of an act of the legislature, passed in the year 1808, 1st. Brevard 243, which contains the following provisions, “that from and after the passing of this act, the plaintiff or plaintiffs in all actions of replevin shall be bound to declare within one month from the lodgment of the writ in the sheriff’s office,.without any rule or notice for that purpose; and on failure of the sheriff to make…

This was an action of assumpsit. The object of the suit was to recover the difference between the sale and re-sale of property sold at auction. The defendants were the purchasers at file first sale and had refused to comply with the terms of the. ■gale. The goods were, therefore, sold a second' time at their risk.

This was an action of trespass to try title. After the plaintiff had closed his case, the defendant offered in evidence the copies of a'grant and plat older than those under which the plaintiff claimed. The first was certified by Samuel Burger, deputy secretary of state, in Charleston, the other by Thomas Willison, deputy surveyor-general, in Columbia.

This was an application for the benefit of the prison bound’s act.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, against the sheriff, for false imprisonment, by his deputy, Singletary. The evidence adduced, was as follows: Mr. M‘Cants swore, that the witness and plaintiff were arrested by John I. Single-tary, on a capias ad respondendum, with an order for bail.

<p> Action of debt, on bond given for land. Defence, title not in plaintiff and unsatisfied judgments against him, at the time of sede. </p> <p>Held that proof of a third person, whose descendants are living, having been many years ago in possession of the land, long enough to acquire a title by the statute oj limitations, without shelving the extent of such possession or claim, was not ■sufficient to establish the defence.</p> <p> Defendant having since his purchase been in possession long enough to acquire a title by the statute, could not avail himself of such defence. </p> <p> Unsatisfied judgments against plaintiff at the time of sale, did not constitute such a defect of title as would be a defence to the action. </p>

This was a policy of insurance on the schooner John “at .and from Charleston to Marseilles, and at and from thence to Havanna.” The schooner was lost on her voyage from Marseilles to the Havanna.

The defendants George Hall and William Hall, trading at the time under the firm of George Hall and company, endorsed the note of one Andrew Moffett, for ‡27 0,. and it was discounted with the plaintiffs for his benefit. Before it beeame due, he stopped payment and executed an assignment of all his effects, for the benefit of such of his creditors as should, within three months, accept their proportion under the assignment and give him a full discharge.

This was an action of assumpsit brought on a bill of Exchange for one thousand dollars, dated the twentieth of Juno t81G, drawn by the defendants upon Mr. Willink of Ne\v York, in favor of the plaintiff's testator. It was protested for non-acceptance on the 31st. August and for non-paymént on the 18th Sept, and notice of both was admitted to have been, .given in due time.

This was an action for money laid oui and expended for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant resided in Havanna, and applied to the plaintiff, the owner of a vessel, for a passage to Charleston. She was in bad health and required the attendance of her negro servant. Some apprehension was entertained, by both plaintiff and defe ndant, that the serva- The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to recover the wh -Ie amount from her.

This was a process to recover $53 87, the amount of actual injury .to a box of books shipped in the Steam Boat from Columbia to Charleston.

Tíié plaintiff proved that the children of the defendant ¿entered his school, on the day of and continued to attend it one quarter and a part of another. The defendant offered to pay for the time the children were actually at school, but the plaintiffs contended that as the last days were part of a new quarter, they were entitled to be paid for the whole, and produced one Or two witnesses to that point, and the presiding judge ruled the custom a valid one.

This was an action on an open account, by a shoemaker, for boots and shoes, said to be de ivered to the defendants, The plaintiff produced his books; and the clerk who made the entries, on being sworn, stated that the entries were copied from a slate kept in the store, on which the original entries were made.

This was an action by the endorsee of a promissory note against the endorser. The defence was a want of notice of the maker’s default. The plaintiff proved that the drawer of the note was notoriously insolvent at the time of endorsement, and contended that from .the circumstances it appeared that defendant could not be ignorant of the fact, and that such insolvency dispensed with the necessity of notice.

The plaintiffs were the factors of the defendant* and for several years advanced monies and furnished articles for plantation use and sold defendants cotton. On the 16th October, 1812, the account was stated, leaving a balance in favor of plaintiffs of $203 86.

This was a rule upon the Sheriff, to shew cause why the proceeds of the sale of a schooner, made under the execution jn this case, should not be paid over. The sheriff shewed for cause, that the defendant had mortgaged the said schooner to William A. Caldwell; that the mortgage bore date and had become absolute, before the judgment was obtained by plaintiff, and that the sheriff had been notified and proceeded against in due form, to make the money liable to said mortgage.

The defendant kept up a dam or bank across little Cumming’s creek, which is a public high way, to obtain water for his mill. In consequence of stopping the creek, the plaintiff sustained some special injuries to his mill, for which this action Was brought. The witnesses on the part of the p.aintiff proved that damage hadbeen occasioned to the plaintiff’s mill by the dam erected by defendant, both before and after the bringing of the action.

This was an action of trover, against an officer of the United States’ army, to recover damages for the detention of ten negroes.

This was a case tried before the Recorder of the City Court in July Term, 1823. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Pleas, non-assumpsit and discount. The plaintiff proved the hand writing of the defendant and of the endorser, and here rested his case. The defendant’s counsel offered Nelson, the endorser, as a witness to prove the payment of the note. This testimony was rejected.

The above cases are presented upon one brief, because they were brought upon the same bond and depend upon the same evidence; being actions of debt on an administration bond, ¿signed by John Moncrief (who had taken the administration of the estate of one John Gaborial,) and also, by Daniel Stevens and Benjamin Cudworth above named; said bond bearing date, 19th March, 1785, in the penalty of £2000.

This was an action of debt on bond for the purchase money of a tract of land. The defence was a deficiency in the number of acres, for which the defendant claimed a deduction.

Trespass to try titles to land. Both parties claimed the land in dispute under John Dickie. He Was indebted to both, andón the 10th February, 1819, the plaintiff filed a bill in the court of equity against him for an account. The decree of the court was pronounced on the 17th June, 1820; execution lodged in the Sheriff’s office, 30th June; levy 2d August sale, 6th September following. Plaintiff was the purchaser, and the Sheriff’s deed to him bears date the 13th Sept. 1820.

Trover for sixty pounds of picked cotton. The defen■dant alleged the loss of a quantity of picked cotton and' obtained a search warrant.

Action of trespass to try title.. The plaintiff claimed tinder the sheriff's deed; he produced a judgment against Birch-more, but not-the execution under which the sale was made. He proved an ineffectual search, for it. The sheriff was sworn and examined on the part of the plaintiff, who proved that be had the execution in his hands, at the time of the levy; that his levy book was lost, but that he had levied upon the tract on which defendant lived; not the mill tract.

The defendant was indicted for having committed perjury, on the trial of an action of slander, (George Reed, vs. James M‘Wright.) The peijury assigned, was in swearing that Reed had been seen by the defendant in a certain position, which indicated that he was in the act of bestiality, he. The testimony need not be recited; but George Reid swore to his own innocence, and that lie never was seen in the situation described by the defendant.

This was an action of assumpsit upon an open account, to which the defendant had pleaded the statute of limitations. The account was raised in 1S13; the testator died in 1815, and in 1822, one of the executors acknowledged the account to be still due to the plaintiff.

Action oí assault and battery. The defendant pleaded a submission by the father, aqel next friend of plaintiff, who was an infant, and an award thereon. Plaintiff demurred geneivally. The court overruled the demurrer. The plaintiff moved to reverse the decision, on the ground that a father, as next friend, cannot bind his infant child, by submitting to arbitration her claims for injuries to her person.

This was a suggestion for prohibition. The suggestion sets forth that on the 17th September, A. D. 1823, information on oath was' given by Edward Broughton, before Thomas Anderson, esq. justice of the peace of Clarendon county, in Sumter district, charging that Sam Mitchell, a negro man slave' ©f Colonel James B. Richardson, had shot at him, the said Edward Broughton, in the said county, with intent to kill him.

TmsHvas a rule against the Sheriff, to shew cause why he Aid not pay over the money which was in his hands, and which he had collected from John Ballard, in satisfaction of an execution which Wm..Clarkson had obtained against the said John Ballard., The sheriff shewed for cause, that there wejre older ■executions in his .hands against tire said Ballard, which would take the whole of the money.

IN this case, the defendant was indicted for hog stealing. It appeared that the bill was found against him two years after the offence was committed. He therefore contended that the prosecution was barred by the lapse of time. The solicitor produced the warrant on which he had been taken, and which had been issued in less than six months after the commission of the offence. But the warrant was not sealed.

<p>This was an appeal from the Ordinary of Spartanburg district, who admitted to probate a paper dated the 29th October, 18Í7, which was executed in due form, to pass real and personal estate, and purported to be the last will and testament of General Thomas Moore, deceased. It was contended before the Ordinary, that the will liad been revoked by the acts of the testator in his life time, and the same question was brought before the court below, on an issue by suggestion.</p> <p>The will on its production to the court appeared perfect in all its parts, and free from all marks of burning, tearing, cancelling of obliterating, except that in one clause, the wort) “ man” was scored through with a pencil and the word “ woman” inserted in pencil above it. It was stated however that several interlineations had been made in pencil which did not there appear, with a view to alter the will. This evidence was objected to, hut the objection was overruled.</p> <p>A witness, Major Andrew Berry, was then called, who proved that he went to the house of the testator, during his last illness and a few days before his death; that he learned, in conversation with the testator about the state of his affairs, that he had made a will, and that it was at Dr. Moore’s.' The witness then asked him. if he had provided in it for his youngest-daughter, (who it appeared had been born after the execution of the will.) The testator was uncertain; the witness then asked Jiim if he should procure the will to ascertain that fact, to which the testator assented. The will was accordingly procured, and the (estator began to read it, but soon desisted from weakness, and requested the witness to read it over aloud, 'which witness did, and when he had finished, the testator said, ^it is true slieis not provided for.” The witness then said to him, tc you must make another will,” and urged upon him the necessity of it, to provide for his youngest daughter; and asked if he could be of any use in preparing a new will or in making the necessary alterations. The testator replied in the affirmative, and directed the witness to get a pencil, and he would give him directions for making the memoranda necessary to draw the new will. The witness procured the pencil and made certain interlineations in some of the clauses of the will; the solo and express object of which was to enable the witness to draw another will. In making . them, the witness did not use the words of the testator, but the substance only; and they were all made thus — That certain property in such clauses as were interlined, “ is to be stricken out” and other property “ is to be put in.” After going through several clauses in this way, the testator said he was too weak to go on, and told the witness to stop: he then desisted and proposed to call on the testator the next day to finish the business; to which the testator assented. The witness attended accordingly, hut found the testator ui>able to resume the subject, and nothing more was done.</p> <p>The testator did not direct the witness to erase any Word or' to make any obliterations, nor did he know that any erasure or obliteration was made. The witness did not read to him what he had interlined, nor did the testator see the will after the in-terlineations were made. The testator did not say that he revoked the will or intended to revoke it; nor did he direct it to be cancelled of destroyed; many of the clauses were untouched, and no attempt was made or intention expressed, to alter the disposition of tbe real estate. The testator’s motive was to provide for the youngest daughter, and the alterations proposed, were calculated and intended to accumulate a legacy for her. Some three or four years before his death, the testator in -conversation with another witness, said lie had made a will but was not satisfied with it and wished to alter it. He said his youngest daughter was unprovided for in it, but he did not care for that, as the law provided for her; that his property had increased and that Mrs. Berry, one of his daughters, had certain negroes in her possession, not bequeathed to her in the will, which he wished to give her.</p> <p>The jury, under the charge of the presiding judge, found .that the will was revoked.</p> <p>A motion is now made to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, on the following grounds:</p> <p>1st. That no act of revocation was apparent on the face of the will, and that the evidence of such act cannot be supplied by parol.</p> <p>2diy. That the acts done by the direction of the testator are not embraced within the statute of frauds or act of assembly, and do not amount to a revocation.</p> <p>3dly.- That the intention to revoke, (if there was any) was not absolute but conditional; it depended upon the execution and substitution of another will which was never perfected, and therefore no revocation took place.</p> <p>4thly. That the revocation was partial only and not totaIt</p> <p>For the. motion, it was argued: Our statute authorizes the . revocation of wills, by destroying or obliterating. There must be an intention to revoke, with an act of obliteration. Was there any thing which amounted to an act of obliteration. An interlineation is not a defacing,, nor does it necessarily interfere with the sense, as obliteration must. If immaterial words or unmeaning marks be made between the lines of a will, it will hardly amount to the substantial act of obliteration which the- • statute intends. -Interlineation may add to and thus alter the sense; but the alteration is not made by obliterating. Sutton, vs. Sutton, Cowp. 812; 4 East, 417; Jackson vs. Halloway, 7 Johns. 398.</p> <p>If the act was not intended to apply to the whole will, •but only to make partial alterations, the cases already cited, shew that it will not operate, a revocation of the whole. A testator may alter or strike out a particular clause, and it will have no effect on the rest of his will. 3 Bos. and Pul. 16; 6 Cruise’s .Dig, 66; Bac. dbK Tit. Devises; Poiv. on Dev. 644. If there was any present intention of altering the will, it was only with a view of making a provision for his youngest daughter*</p> <p>But there was no present intention of altering the will} memoranda were made with á view to a future will, and the intention to alter in future was conditional and dependent on the execution of the new will. Onions vs. Tyre.r, 1 JV.. Bm, 343. The execution of a new will does not revoke a former, unless by its express terms .or by inconsistent provisions. This seems rather to have been intended for a codicil. We do not contend that it is necessary to erase the whole will, m order to revoke; a very slight act will be sufficient, if it be accompanied with the present intention of revoking the whole. Were further cited, Brailsford, vs. Johnson, 2.JV. Sf MiG. 272; Doe ex dem. S. Perices, vs. E. Perkes et al. 3 Barn. Si Aid. 489.</p> <p>The making of the pencil marks was certainly an act of the nature of that intended by the statute. The slightest act will be sufficient, and it is not necessary that the will should be rendered illegible.. The tearing of seals or a corner of thepaper, is a sufficient déstroying, if the animus re-vocandi exists. The court will regard the will as if the pencil marks which have been rubbed out were still upon it; and if the intention with which they were made be equivocal, parol testimony will be admitted to explain. Coiop. 52; 1 Bob. on Wills, 321; ib. 325, Brailsford, vs. Johnson; Witherspoon', vs. Wi-therspoon, 2 0.521.</p> <p>The question of intention ivas .a matter exclusively for the jury and they have found the intention to revoke. The finding of jury was not without evidence. The testator on more occasions than one expressed himself dissatisfied with his will and determined to alter it. He had strong reasons for this dissatisfaction, one of his children being unprovided for. The jury were expressly charged by the judge, “if you believe the testator preferred this will to dying intestate, you ought to find in its' favor.”</p>

<p>The act of the Legislature of 1822, requiring the Governor, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the office of Sheriff, to issue his writ to the managers of elections for the district, requiring them to hold an election to fill the vacancy, does not repeal that part of the act 0/T8O8 which directs elections for Sheriffs to be held by the managers, in all districts in which vacancies exist, f>n the second Monday in January andt he day following in everij-year; nor is the writ of the Governor necessary to the validity of these elections.</p>

Alexander Corrie, the late clerk of the court for Beaufort district, being about to retire from office and having a large amount of outstanding costs due to him, employed an attorney in the collection of them. He issued executions and placed them in the hands of the sheriff for collection. The attorney charged $1 28 for each execution; the sheriff also charged his usual fees.

The action was trespass for taking two guns from tiie plantation of the plaintiff, on Lady’s Island. The defen* ¿fonts and others assuming to aet as a patrol, went into the house of the plaintiff and took from thence two guns, proved to be' of the value of twenty-five dollars.. The plaintiff was not then living in his house, but it was in the possession of a colour-ed man, who took charge of, and acted as overseer of the plantation.

This was an action by the plaintiff, as the assignee of a note not negotiable. ■ On the trial it appeared that the note had not been assigned in writing, it had passed by' a mere verbal assignment or transfer. The defendant’s counsel moved for a non-suit, on the ground that such an assignee could not maintain an action in his own name, which was ordered.

The plaintiff having been fined by the board of commissioners and having failed to pay the fine, the commissioners issued an execution against his goods and levied on them. He obtained a writ of replevin and the sheriff re-delivered his goods. A motion was .made before Mr. Justice Colcock to quash the writ, which was granted. • A motion is now made to set aside that order, on the ground that replevin will lie in this case.

This action was! brought to recover damages from the de~ fendant, for illegally distraining upon the plaintiff’s property, for rent in arrear. The plaintiff alleged, 1st. That at the time of the distress, no rent was due; 2nd. If rent was due, that the plaintiff distrained illegally, as the property levied upon was in another house, not on the demised premises, and not taken until after the expiration of five days from the time of its removal; 3rd.

<p>This was amotion at chambers for a prohibition, to restrain the City council of Charleston and its officers from levying a tax imposed by a City Ordinance upon the six and seven per cent, stock of the United States, belonging to the plaintiffs.'</p> <p>The counsel for the plaintiffs moved for a prohibition, upon the ground that the ordinance of the city was illegal, unconstitutional and void. Judge Bay, after hearing the counsel on both sides, ordered that a writ of prohibition should issue sgainst the City Council and its officers, as prayed for in the suggestion filed by the plaintiffs.*</p> <p>The City Council appealed to the Constitutional Court from this decision, upon the ground on which the motion for a prohibition was opposed at chambers..</p>

This was an action on a due bill or note, drawn by defendant in Boston, 10th. October, 1802, for $394 87, in favour Win. M'Neil h Son, and assigned to the plaintiff. The hand-, writing was admitted, but defendant pleaded the statute of limitations; and to take the case out of the statute, a new undertaking was alleged by the plaintiff.

<p>From the brief which was admitted to be a trae state of ílie case, it appears that this was a summary process against the sheriff, for the amount ofa ca. sa. lodged in his office against the-body of one William Wooley deceased, which the defendant omitted to execute in due time, ptr qiiod the plaintiffs lost their debt.</p> <p>It came out in evidence that the plaintiffs, after having obtained judgment against the defendant Wooley, ■ lodged two executions in the sheriff’s office at the same time, viz: a Fi. Fa. and Ca. Sa. and that these executions were lodged ou -the 25th July, 1822. That about four days after the lodging oT the executions, the plaintiff’s attorney left orders with the clerk of the sheriff to proceed on the fi. fa. When the plaintiff’s attorney called at the sheriff’s office again some days after, in order to give directions to proceed against the body of the defendant, the executions were not in the sheriff’s office, but were in the hands of the deputy sheriff, Bonner; who had made alevyon defendant’s goods before he received instructions to proceed against the body of defendant. It appeared that when Mr. Bonner received in-' structions to proceed on the ca. sa. against the defendant, he said the money sh.ouldbe forth coming. From the testimony of the deputy, Bonner, it appeared that the levy was actually made on defendant’s goods, before be received the order to proceed on the ca. sa. though the levy was endorsed on the fi. fa. as of the 14th of August. The goods were not removed from the store until after the death of Wooley, which happened about the middle of Sept. 1822. The proceeds of the goods, after sale, were paid over to prior executions, and it was admitted that Wooley died insolvent. The presiding judge decreed for the plaintiffs against ihe sheriff, the amount of the debt and costs, and the present was a motion to set aside that decree and for a new trial.</p> <p>argued that in an action for an escape against the sherifi', plaintiff can recover no more than to the amount of the injury actually sustained. 1, Johns. Re. '214. Wooley was insolvent and therefore plaintifflost nothing. The death of Wooley insolvent, strengthens the conclusion that the neglect of the sheriff, if there was such neglect, was damnum absque insuria. ■</p> <p>The presumption is in favor of the officer, and the plaintiff should have proved that it was in the power of defendant to have arrested Wooley before his death.</p> <p>The witness Bonner was inconsistent with himself, he is contradicted by his own return and does not deserve credit. It is the duty of the sheriff to return the goods levied on, by endorsement on the fi. fa. 1 Bay, 314; there is such a return and the levy was contrary to instructions.</p> <p>The sheriff is bound to execute process in the most effectual way. If defendant do not abscond, but remains at home in his usual occupations, the return of non est inventus cannot be justified; and if the party turns out insolvent, the sheriff will be answerable for the whole amount. In this case the party remained at home until his death; if the sheriff had arrested him it is almost certain that the debt would have been saved. Cited, 1 Esp. Rep. 475; 6 Bac. Jib. 165; 1 Day, 128; 1 Sir. 650; 1 Bos. Sf Pul. 27; 1 Johns. Rep. 215.</p>

Assumpsit upon a written promise; tried before the city court, May Term, 1824. Upon the 4th February 1822, Mr. Robert Ogden gave to the plaintiff the following note; “Charleston, February 4th, 1822.

This was an action of trover, brought for property the Value of which was alleged in the declaration to be within the summary jurisdiction of the courts tho’ the damages were laid somewhat higher. The jury gave á verdict for five dollars, and the clerk taxed the full costs of an issue. A motion was made in the court below to re-tax the costs, which was granted, with directions to tax the costs of a summary process only. This was a motion to reverse that decision.

Ix this case the plaintiff had issued an attachment against the property of the defendants, who were without the limits oftho state. At the return of the writ, the defendants caused a common appearance to be entered by an attorney. The plaintiff nevertheless went on to file his declaration and to obtain an order for judgment, in the same manner as if no appearance had been entered.

The location and trespass were admitted. The plaintiff exhibited his claim of title from Dorcb, the grantee, to' Kirkland, from him to Patton, and from him to the plaintiff. The defendant then .exhibited his claim of title from the same grantee down to Phillips, ¡and from the sheriff, (who sold WJ 1813, under a judgment of 15th December, 1812, and execution against Phillips) to Aaron Smith, the lessor of defendant.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts; one on a promissory note for one hundred dollars; the other for fifty dollars lent to the defendant. It appeared in evidence that B. H. Allen procured the defendant to join him in a note for one hundred dollars, for the purpose- of raising money upon it. It was made payable to , four months after date. The plaintiff, Charles Fowler, lent Allen fifty dollars, and his name was inserted in the note, as payee.

The plaintiff claimed a slave, who was the subject of the suit, by a parol gift from her grandfather. Testimony of a somewhat inconclusive character, was offered to establish the gift and delivery of the slave, and declarations of the grandfather, made after the alleged gift, admitting the fact of his having gh en, were also -introduced.

<p>This was an action of trover for two slaves; It was admitted that the slaves at one time belonged to Washington Blassingame. John Nance, the first witness called, proved a bil of sale to which he was a subscribing witness, from Washington Blassingame to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of* August, 1820 He said the consideration of the bill of sale was a debt whici Blassingame owed Willboúrn and himself, as partners in trade, of about $130; as well as other debts which Willbourn paid for him: That Blassingame had frequently applied to him and Willbourn to purchase these negroes, and he believed it was a fair, bona fide transaction: He had heard Blassingame several times afterwards say he was satisfied with the sale. Flemming B. Nance was also a subscribing witness to the bill of sale. He saw no money paid, but he heard Blassingame afterwards ac knowledge that he had received the principal part of the consideration money.</p> <p>The bill of sale was for foür negroes, and for several articles of household furniture; indeed, it appeared to contain all the property that Blassingame owned. The negroes were not present at the execution of the bill of sale.</p> <p>Daniel Michel, said he was the sheriff of Union District at the time. He had levied executions on the negroes, to the amount of six hundred dollars and had the negroes in his posses-4 sion. They were advertised for sale on the first Monday in August' 1820, which was the 7th of the month. On the morning of that day, Washington Blassingame and Willbourn, the plaintiff in this action, came to him. They informed him that Mrs Blassingame, the mother of Washington, wished him tc purchase her land; pay off these executions, and let her have the negroes. He told them that he would postpone the sale until the next day: in the mean time, he would inquire into the title, and if he found it to be good, he would accede to that arrangement; provided Mrs. Blassingame would come forward the next morning and make him titles. Upon, enquiry he became satisfied with her title. The next morning, which was Tuesday, Mrs. Blassingame, her son and Willbourn all came together to him. He told them he was ready to accept the proposal which had been made to him the day before, 'i itles were then drawn 'and executed by Mrs. Blassingame: She the®, directed him to deliver the negroes to Willbourn and he did so. The two negroes he thought were worth about ‡ 800.</p> <p>Here the testimony for the plaintiff closed.</p> <p>He said that a few day before the negroes were to be sold, a contract took place between Washington Blassingame and his mother, the purport of which was that she might have the negroes, provided she would sell her land and pay off the debts for which they were under execution. That on Tuesday morning, he came to the court house (where the negroes were to be sold) in company with Mrs. Blassingame, Washington and Willbourn. He did not know that Willbourn Was then acquainted with the contract made between Washington and his mother; he mentioned it to' him as they were riding together and told him that they were then going to the court house, for the purpose of carrying it into execution. Willbourn said he wished to get & bill of sale of them himself, to recover a debt which Blassingame owed him.' When the sheriff delivered the negroes to Willbourn, he brought them and then delivered to Mrs. Blassingame. She took one of them on her horse behind her and got a friend to take the other' and carried them home.</p> <p>Isttac Harlan testified that early in August 1820, on a Thursday evening, he did not recollect what day of the month, Washington Blassingame and Willbourn came to his house and said they were going to Parham’s (the defendant’s) to try and steal away those negroes and wanted him to go with them, but he declined going.</p> <p>Francis Parham proved a bill of sale from Mrs. Blassin-game to defendant for the negroes, dated 16th August, 1820. He saw only five dollars paid; Mrs. Blassingame said that was the last payment. :</p> <p>James Smith said he had drawn a bill of sale for these ne-groes from Washington Blassingame to his mother. The Wednesday after the first Monday in August, 1820, he fell in with Willbourn going to his (Willbourn’s) store. He desired Smith .not to go by the store, for Mrs. Blassingame and Washington were there; Washington was about to execute a bill of sale to his mother for these negroes, and he did not wish Smith to go there as they would wish him to be a witness to it. Willbourn however, told him that he had made himsélf safjp, and that he would persuade Washington to make a bill of sale tó his mother to make her easy. The bill of sale was here produced, purporting to have been executed on the 29th of August, 1820, it was signed “ Washington Blassingame, if he can, thereby seeming to imply a doubt whether he had aright to execute such a deed. Mr. Smith said that on the 25th of the same month, he saw the bill of sale; it was then executed, although it purported to have been done on the 29th. It appeared that Mrs. Blassingame could neither read nor write and might therefore be easily imposed upon in the date of the instrument.</p> <p>Washington Blassingame, was here introduced.</p> <p>The object of his .estimony was to impeach the bill of sale to Willbourn, as fraudulent; having been given to protect his property against his creditors.</p> <p>Two objections were made to his competency; 1st. That he was incompetent to impeach or invalidate his own act; 2nd. That parol evidence could not be given to. contradict a deed. The objections were overruled and the witness was sworn.' He Said he had been imprudent and profligate, and had become much involved and was in danger of spending all his property. He said that Willbourn had pursued him day and night, to persuade him to give a bill of sale of bis property, for the purpose of keeping it from his creditors. He had at length yielded, and that was the sole object of the bill of sale. Willbourn protested most solemnly and pledged his honor as a Mason (they both belonging to the order) that he would never take advantage of him. Willbourn had never paid a cent for them- It was true he owed Willbourn something, he did not know how much; he never had a settlement with him, and if his account had been credited m jyillbourn’s books, it was without his knowledge or consent. Willbourn had paid some debts for him, but they were paid out of his own funds. He said Willbourn was present when the contract, was made between himself and his mother, and that it was in pursuance of that contract that the negroes were delivered to her. When he was about to execute the bill of sale to his mother, Willbourn desired him to do it in such a way as to render it ineffectual, and it was for that purpose he added the words “ if he can.”</p> <p>Several very respectable gentlemen were called to the character of Blassingame. They said he had been imprudent and profligate, but they thought him a young man of a very high sense of honor, and that they would believe him on his oath as. soon as any mao whatever.</p> <p>Mr. Naneo was called again in reply.</p> <p>He proved the payment of several debts by Willbourn for Blassingame. He said the credit given on their books to Blas-aingame was done in his presence and with his consent. He said the hill of sale to Willbourn and' the one to Mrs. Blassin-game were both executed on the same day; — Willbourn’s in the morning and Mrs. Blassingame’s in the evening of Tuesday, the 8th of August. He afterwards said he might be mistaken with regard to Mrs. Blassingame’s; it might perhaps have been the next day that it was executed, but he was very confident that Willbourn’s was done on the morning of the 8th, at his store. Blassingame was here called back. He stud he was sure Willbourn’s bill of sale was not executed until after'the 8tb, for he recollected distinctly that he stayed on Monday night at a Mrs. Woodson’s, and went the next morning to his mother’s; that Willhourn met him there, and they all went together to the court house, and that he was not at Willbourn’s store that day.</p> <p>Verdict for defendant. Motion for a new trial, on the grounds that Washington Blassingame was an incompetent witness, and that the verdict of the jury was against law and evidence.</p>

<p>The declaration in prohibition stated that the plaintiff was seised and possessed of a certain freehold, near the village of Lancaster, and that the commissioners of the roads, without tendering him compensation, were proceeding to lay out many streets which the public good did not require, in violation of his constitutional and legal rights.</p> <p>The commissioners justified under an act of the legislature passed in 1820, — authorising them to lay out, or rather to open certain streets in the village of Lancaster, aeceording to the original plan of said village, recorded in the office of the secretary of state. — The plaintiff replied, that there, was no original plan of the village of Lancaster, by which his lands were liable to the intrusion and trespass of the commissioners, Src. Upon which issue was joined.</p> <p>The plaintiff then exhibited Ins title; a deed from William Parkley for 22 acres, 7th Oct'. 1808; bounded south fewest,by White_ street; 2 a deed from John Simpson, — Nov; 1815, fry land lying in and adjoining the village of Lancaster, calling for several of the streets .of the village; — 3—a deed from Abrn., Perry 2,. Sept. 1809, near the village of Lancaster; 4, a grant. 20 May, 1809, for</p> <p>It appeared that in the year, 1801, a petition was pi'*: seated to the Legislature by John Simpson and William Barb-ley, the owners of the land, praying that a village migh '. be laid out at Lancaster court house. In consequence of which, a resolution was passed authorizing certain commissioners to lay out and make a plat of a village and return the same at the next setting of the legislature. A certificate of the secretary of state was here produced, stating that he had examined the records of his office, and that he could find no plat of the village filed there: That among the miscellaneous records, he. found the record of a plat which had been received as a plat of the said village, by a resolution of the legislature in 1808, and ordered to be recorded. This purported to be die copy oi a plat made out in 18Ü2, and signed by the commissioners ap-s pointed by the resolution of 1801. When it was returned to the Legislature did not appear.</p> <p>Mr. Samuel Dunlap was called. This witness was a very old man: — He said that during the time the county court was held at Lancaster, a village was laid out there. He did not know by what authority. John Simpson, William Simpson, William Barkley, Eli Alexander, and himself were the commissioners. He afterwards understood that another plat was made out; whether according to the former he did not know. Some of the streets in the first plat were named differently from the latter.</p> <p>Mr. Ingram, saw a plat of the village seven or eight years ago. Mr. Belli saw one eight or nine years ago; does not know what became of it, except by hearsay; was once present when Purdy applied to M‘Kenna, the plaintiff, for the plat; he refused to let him have it. Mr. Bar was present when the public land was first laid out for the county court. The mash stfeei was then run out</p> <p>It ought here to be remarked that it did not appear that any of the streets were ever actually run out during the time of the county courts, except the Main-street, and perhaps one. cross street; nor were there any buildings except on those streets. Mr. Crocket saw a j.lat of the village about twelve years ago.</p> <p>Mr. Perry built a house in Lancaster about twenty years ego, on Gay-street; the lot was 99 feet front and 164 feet deep.</p> <p>Thomas Lee received the original plat of the village from John Simpson, about 14 or 15 years ago.. The writing attached to it' was in the hand of Mr. Eli Alexander; does not recollect who else had signed it. A deed was here produced, dated 2813, referring to the plat of the village.</p> <p>Mr. Daniel was employed by Mr, Purdy (who is since dead) to lay off a piece of ground for him. He wanted the plat of the town for that purpose, Purdy told him he once had it and had let M'Kenna have it. He went with Purdy to M'Kenna to get it: Purdy demanded it of him, but did not get it; some warm words -passed between them on the occasion. He heard M'Kenna afterwards regret what had happenéd; hé acknowledged that he-had it, but said that it was mislaid and he could not then find it.</p> <p>CoL Montgomery once saw a plat of the town in the hands of Mr. Purdy; whether the original or not, he did not know: It appeared to be a very old paper and much broken.</p> <p>Mr. John Richardson had seen the plat of the village á great many years ago. A deed was here introduced, dated in 1802, referring to a stx'eet called Jefferson. No such street appeared in the plat recorded in the secretary’s office. A deed of John Simpson was introduced, calling the village ville or Lancaster. - #</p> <p>A great many witxxesses were introduced to gh¡% theiff-' opinions with regard to the necessity of opening the stusátK» Most of the persons living in the' village were of opinion that? there was' a necessity for opening some of the streets, and/ that opening the others was a convenience to the'village. Other persons experienced no inconvenience from the'streets being enclosed. Upon this evidence ,lhe jury found the'followihg verdict: « We find the plan shewn to be a copy of the original" ordered to be made by the legislature.” That fact being found, the court dismissed the prohibition. This was á motion 'for a new trial on the several grounds stated in the'opinion.</p>

This Was a sum. pro. in which the plaintiff set out his cause of action in the following words: “That Gideon Steen, is indebted to your petitioner in the ■turn of thirty-five dollars and interest, by a note of hand which is •.now lost or mislaid, a copy of which is herewith exhibited.” On the back of the process is written; “copy note — Four days after date, Í promise to pay Armstead Miller or order thirty five dollars, for value received, 18th Feb. 181G.” his fSignedr)…

This was an action of trover, for- two- slaves. It appeared in evidence that the defendant, as sheriff of Lancaster district, had levied two executions on the negroes in question. While they were thus under executions, the owner sold them to plaintiff in this action, subject to the lien which the sheriff had on, them. Previous to the day of s.ale, the plaintiff offered to pay the- money due on the executions, provided the sheriff would .deliver up the negroes to him.

Tins was a rule against Edmond Pooser, esq. sheriff of Orangeburgh district, to shew cause why he had not made the money, under the executions in the above cases.. The sheriff’ shewed for cause that certain negroes, once the property of the defendant Cannon, had been mortgaged by him to Joseph Robinson, on his becoming security for Cannon to one Williamson, at a period antecedent to the lodging of the executions in the above cases.

Action of debt, by the Plaintiff, as assignee of Thomas Pool, sheriff, against Muse Tollison and his securities, on a prison bounds bond. After craving oyer of the-condition of the bond, the defendant demurred generally. The demurrer was overruled On motion to reverse the decision.

This was a proceeding in partition. The defendant, being in possession of the land intended to be divided, was servd with a summons to shew cause why a writ ol partition should not issue. He appeared and pleaded that ho was not jointly and legally seized with the applicants. To thisplea there was a general demurrer; which was sustained by the presiding judge. .

The plaintiff entered into a contract with one Josiah Ha=; ney.

This was an action of assumpsit,' in which it was insisted that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, among other demands* interest ;on a book account, for goods, wares and merchandize.

Daniel M‘Kie gave a promissory note to the administrators of John Satterwhitc deceased, payable in twelvemonths after date; but if not then paid, the note to carry interest from .the date. M‘Kie failed to pay the note when it became due. The administrators commenced an action thereon, and M‘Kie the defendant confessed a judgment, with iaterest from the date of the note;-which was duly entered up and execution issued thereon.

. This was an action on a joint and several promissory note, signed by John Miller and Charles Miller. Separate actions Were brought against them, ant! the writs lodged in' the sheriff’s office, 2d March, 1824. John Miller caused an appearance to be entered for him*» self, at March Term, 1824, but nó appearance was entered to the action against Charles Miller, the present defendant.

At the spring term of 1824, O’Neal for plaintiff, moved'to add another count to the declaration which had been filed in this casé. Caldwell for defendant, opposed the motion, stating that before the rule to plead had expired, a general demurrer had been put in to the declaration, and to which there was a joinder in demurrer.

This was an appeal from the decision of a magistrate; tried at the last Fall Term for York District, before Johnson, justice, who affirmed the judgment. It appeared from the certificate of the magistrate, that the appellant Moore had hired of Gazoway a negro man, and gave for the hire a note of the following tenor and effect*— “ January 6th, 1823. On the first day of January next! I promise to pay to Mr. Gazoway, or order, eighty dollars for the hire of his negro man Abraham.

This was an action of debt, on the act of 1777, Public Raws, 286, to recover treble the amount of a sum .of money lent by the defendant to one William Lyles, on which he accepted and received interest, at ahigher rate than 7 pr. cent per annum. The declaration contained three counts.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. Deféhde — Usury. The defendant’s property was taken in execution by the sheriff ol Spartanburgh district, at the suit of A. Benson, for $1400, and was advertised for sale on the first Monday in September, 1823.

The plaintiff declared in assumpsit, on the following ■written contract: “August 31st, 1820.” “I James Martin do promise to meet said R. Farrow and give ij] (to him rights for one hundred and sixty acres of land in the Missouri Territory, for which I have received a note of him, for one hundred and twenty dollars” (signed) “James Martin.” The breach assigned was that the defendant had not made the title according to this agreement.

Trespass to try titles to land. The land in dispute waá granted to Thomas Black, now deceased. To shew title in the plaintiff, the will of Thomas Black was produced, by which his executors, John and James Black, were authorised to sell the land for die purpose of partition amongst his children. The plaintiff then produced a deed signed by John Black, one of the executors, and by Joseph Steel as attorney for James Black, the other executor.

Thomas Black, the father of plaintiffs, by his last will and testament, directed that a tract of land, of which he died seized, should be sold by his executors and the proceeds divided between some of his children, amongst whom were the plaintiffs, John and James Black, who were appointed executors, agreed to sell the land to defendant, and entered into a bond to make him titles; in .consideration whereof, the defendant with die consent of the executors, gave to the…

The defendant was indicted for assaulting John Spriggs, and taking out of his custody a Cow and Calf, which as one of the constables of Greenville district he had taken in execution. The taking was not denied, but there was no proof of any personal violence to the prosecutor, Spriggs; and the only question in the case was, whether an indictment would lie for thus rescuing goods taken in execution.

This was a summary process, in which the plaintiff set out a mutual agreement between himself and the defendant, and described it as being “ subscribed with their own proper hands.” The agreement produced in evidence was signed on the part of “ Reuben P. Bouíware, per Moses Boulware,” and the proof was that it was signed by Moses Boulware, the agent of the defendant.

The plaintiff declared in assumpsit, for money paid, laid out and expended, &c. To support the count, the plaintiff offered in evidence an exemplification of proceedings of the county court of Onslow, in the state of North Carolina, in a case, wherein the governor, for the use of the administrator tíf A. B. Gregory, was plaintiff, and the parties to this action were defendants.

Trespass to try title. The defendant derived his title from a grant to the Catawba Company, dated in 1789; and the plaintiff theirs from a grant to Robert Elkins, dated in 1805, for 183 acres. The defendant having derived his title from the older grant, the only question in the case was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to hold under the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff declared in debt, on tbe Statute 9th Ann, c. 14. Pub. Laws, App. 1, p. 20, to recover treble the amount of a sum of money, won by the defendant of the plaintiff on a horse race.

This was an action brought .on anote of hand, given to plaintiff’s intestate by defendant. The defendant offered in evidence, by way of discount, the amount of a joint an.d several note of hand, given by intestate and defendant to one Campbell Sffibbs, and proved. by Stubbs, that the defendant subscribed the note as the security of intestate, and .that tlie amount of said note was paid by defendant, since the deatjh of intestate.

This was an action brought within the summary jurisdiction of the court The process states that Rody Kenned}7, Lemuel G. Williams, and Lydall Williams are indebted to the petitioner, in the sum of fifty dollars, for illegally beating and • abusing certain, slaves, Hardy and Job, while quietly being in ihe plantation of the petitioner, some time in the month of August, 1824,-and refuses payment.

These were actions of assumpsit on promissory notes.. The defendants and plaintiffs/- were endorsers of the notes; The plaintiffs being the last endorsers, brought the suits above Stated against the defendants as prior endorsers.

This was an action oftrespass, brought against the defendant, for ploughing up the plaintiff’s land. It appeared that the defendant and one Lites were tenants in common of a tract of land in Lexington district. Defendant had cultivated the field in dispute for two years, immediately preceding the alleged tres-, pass, which he had fenced and enclosed. The defendant ana.

In this case an action of assumpsit was brought on an agreement which was was drawn in the form of a bond; but which had no seal attached to it. It appeared that the plaintiff, as sheriff, had taken it as security for observing the rules, under the prison bounds act, The defendants filed a general demurrer, which was sustained by the circuit court; on the ground that the sheriff could not recover, as the instrument produced was not a bond.

Writs of attachment were issued by the plaintiff against the defendant, on the 12lb June, 1823, returnable to the following October Court, when appearances were entered. On the 28th . of the November following, declarations were filed, orders for judgment, for want of pleas, were obtained, and the cases' put on thewrit of enquiry docket.

This was an action of trespass. The injury complained of -was proved to have been committed in February, 1820; but was laid in the declaration, as done on the first day of January,, 1820. The writ issued after February. The .plaintiff was .nog. suited.

This was a summary process, brought on -the following assignment of a single bill or sealed note, given by William Kerr ■to Alexander Miller, the defendant, ■“ May the 9th; 1822, forvaiue received.” “ i indorse the-.within note to James Wilson, which note if not good 1 promise to make good.” Signed, “A. Mill-sfSr.” The plaintiff bad .sued William Kerr, ¡the obligor of the sealed note, recovered a judgment, and had a fi. fa. issued, on which there was a return of nulla bona.

Isaac Attaway, the brother of the defendant, was indebted to Wm. Dendv, the plaintiff’s intestate, in the sum of $ 65 6£ by book account. After contracting the account, he removed to the state of Alabama, where he resided one or two years. Having returned to this state, he deposited some money in the hands of his brother, the defendant, for the purpose of settling his debts, on the best terms he could.

In this case, plaintiff Stephens, had brought an action of ■trespass and false imprisonment against the defendant, in his capacity of a justice of the peace. Op. the trial of the causey the verdict was for the defendant; who entered up his judgment for double costs, and issued execution thereon, la taxing the costs, the clerk adhercd.to the English rule, and for double costs^. allowed only fifty per cent to be added to the usual costs.

Robert Barkley, who had become by purchase interested in a certain tract of land, of which John Miller deceased died seised, instituted in the court of common pleas for Fairfield, procedings in partition against Jane Miller, widow of said John Miller and some of his heirs at law, to divide the same.

This was an action of trespass to try titles. The plaintiff’s grant to the land in dispute was prior in date to defendant’s. On the part of defendant it was contended however that plaintiff’s grant was void; in as much as defendant had first surveyed the land, with the intention of obtaining a grant.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand. The declaration alledged that the defendants promised to pay $ 100 '75, the amount of the note, when requested, according to the tenor of the note, without specifying the day the note became due. The defendants had pleaded the general Issue and also wished to rely on the plea of tender, which had not been pleaded.

This was an action of trespass. The plaintiff proved that he had been in possession .of a negro man called Jim, and that ori the of May, 1822, about 10 o’clock at night, the defendant entered the plaintiff’s house and took him. away. • The plaintiff laid claim to Jim and warned defendant not to take liim. Defendant set up on the trial a title to the negro. For this purpose, he proved a bill of sale for a negro called Jim, from Wm. Shaw to Wm. Smith, dated 1814.

This was an action of covenant, on an instrument of writing by which the defendant had undertaken to deliver to the plaintiff, as sheriff of Union district, a certain number of ne-groes, specifically named, whenever they should be called for. The plaintiff averred in his declaration that they had been demanded, and that the defendants had refused to deliver them according to the covenant.

A writ of capias ad respondendum was issued against the deiendants, returnable to March term, 1824, which was personally served upon one of them (Henry Shultz) during his attendance as a party toa suit in the court of equity, at February term, 1824- There was no affidavit to hold to bail. Henry Shultz, at March term, moved to set aside the service of the writ, on the ground that he was privileged from the service of this writ during.his attendance on the court.

This was an action of trespass, to try the title of a tract ' of land in Chester district. The, defendant, Simpson, having produced a regular chain of title, derived from an older grant than that of the plaintiff, Martin, was entitled to a verdict; but in what manner his survey ought to have been closed,, was the question.

In the above case, .George Dale had attended court as a witness for the plaintiff, being served with a subpoena ticket, but no subpoena writ having issued. The clerk taxed his attendance as if he had been subpoenaed.’ But the court on an appeal from the taxation, ordered the costs stricken out, because no writ had been issued.

Trespass to try title. Both plaintiff and defendant derived their claims to the land in dispute through Needham DaVis. The plaintiff under a judgment,'at the suit of Ainsley Hall against Needham Davis, of the date 30th March, 1818; and the sheriff’s sale under fí. fa. for satisfaction of that judgment, of the third of June, 1822.

This wras an action instituted on two promissory notes, which the plaintiff ailed ged in his declaration were given by the intestate, Michael Kibler: the declaration also contained two counts against the administrator.

The defendant undertook to haul in a waggon and deli-ter goods for the plaintiff, from Charleston to York. The action was brought to’recover for damage done to the goods while on the road. The plaintiff proved the goods were injured to the- amount of about $400; that he kept and sold them at about that loss.

This was a motion to set aside the proceedings, so far as regarded M£Michael. The following facts appeared in evidence: D. W. Pearson, one of the firm of Pearson Sz, M‘Michael, signed the name of the firm, after its dissolution, to a promissory note', drawn in favor of the plaintiffs. H. Loomis f Co. who issued a writ thereon, the service of which was accepted by said Pearson in the name of the firm.

The question in this case arose upon a motion of Plaintiff's attorney, to strike out of the bill, of costs two items: first, “ a commission” in each case, which was taxed by the clerk for the defendant’s attorney; and second, “ special matter and argument” which ivas taxed in like manner.

The actions being brought on a sheriff’s bond, and the general issue being pleaded, the defendant- moved . in arrest of judgment in the two cases, first above stated, on the ground that the verdicts of the juries do not find the bond declared oh to be the deed of the defendant; These were actions on a sheriff’s bond, brought against the defendant, as security for Wright C. Tyson, foi’mer sheriff of Richland district, who came into office in February, and-died before the next…

The plaintiff had sued on a penal bond, conditioned for the delivery of negroes to him as sheriff of Union district. The defendants had only pleaded non est factum, and issue was found against them: this was at spring court, 1824. Plaint tiff entered up his judgment 12th April, 1824, for penalty of bond? execution lodged with the sheriff 13th April, 1824, apd levied on the defendant’s land the 12th of May, 1824.

This was an action of trespass, 'to try title to a tract of land. The plaintiff produced the exemplification of proceedings in the court of equity, Elijah Foster, vs. John Foster, in which was a decree to foreclose a mortgage of the land in disi pute, made by John Foster to Elijah Foster, on 1st March, 1819; deed from Livingston, commissioner in equity, to plaintiff, dated GthMay, 1822. The bill was filed on the 10th January, 1822. Wm.

The action was brought on a promissory note given for tobacco. The defences relied on were, that the tobacco was worthless, and the statute of limitations. The following expression of defendant was relied on to take the ease out of the statute; — {;I gave the note, but it was given for rotten tobacco and I will never pay it; but I will not plead the statute of limitations.” His honor overruled a motion for a non-suit, and under his charge, tlic jury found for plaintiff.

This was an action on the case, against the defendant for Causing and procuring the plaintiff to be illegally arrested under a ca. sa. the judgment for which it was issued having been set aside for irregularity.

This was a role against the sheriff, to shew cause why he hacf not executed and returned the ca. Sa.

The plaintiff gave in evidence a bill of sale from Daniel Porter to Joseph Ingram, dated 1809, and a bill of sale from Joseph Ingram to plaintiff, dated 1810; together with possession from that time till shortly before the action was brought.