Volume 22 — Georgia Reports

In Equity, from Spalding Superior Court, November Term, 1856: Decision on demurrer, by Judge Green, This was a bill in equity filed by Thomas Henderson, complainant, against Nolan Touchstone, defendant, for the recovery of a negro boy named Willis.

<p>In equity, from Spaulding Superior Court. Decision by Judge Green, May Term, 1856.</p> <p>The bill alleges that the complainant, Adam B. Dulin, pri- or to the year 1850, was an extensive cotton buyer in the town of Griffin, and had the reputation of being a good judge of cotton, as well as a safe and prudent purchaser — well knowing rvhen to enter the market, how much to buy, and at what prices it was safe to invest — and had been for many years in the habit of purchasing, annually, large quantities, and shipping the same to commission merchants in the cities of Savannah, Charleston and New York ; and that he had made consignments to the firm of Robert and John Caldwell, commission merchants, in said city of Charleston,, who were thus well acquainted with the business habits and successful operations of complainant; that after the year 1850, Winthrop B. Williams became a partner in the house: of Caldwells, which after that time did business under the> name of R. & J. Caldwell & Co.</p> <p>The said firm of R. & J. Caldwell & Co., the defendants, in order to secure the profits arising from the sale, storage and commissions on the cotton bought by complainant, entered into an agreement to furnish any amount of monied facilities to him to buy cotton in the said city of Griffin, which “ his prudent purchases of cotton at Griffin would require during the years from 1S50 to the end of this business,” and that he was to consign to said defendants all the cotton which he should purchase, and after deducting their commissions of 2| per cent, for selling and discharging, and paying off the amount advanced by them, the balance of the proceeds of sales was to go to the credit of, and belong to complainant Afterwards, defendants established a branch of their business in the city of New York, and discounted a draft for complainant against a shipment of cotton made to the New York house, and gave to him a letter of credit to draw upon said house to the amount of $15,000, at from 60 to 90 days after date or sight. With this facility complainant entered into the “ cotton speculation contemplated by the contract,” and agreed upon as aforesaid. Afterwards defendants gave to complainant authority to draw upon their house in New York for the further sum of $3,000, at from 60 to 90 days, against cotton shipped.</p> <p>Under this agreement complainant consigned to defendants all the cottou he bought, as long as defendants performed their part of the contract. Pie shipped to the house in New York four hundred and eighty-three bales, on which defendants realized profits to the amount of twenty thousand dollars, or other large sum; but defendants not only withheld advances, which, under said agreement, they were to make, but secretly and fraudulently furnished means to another party in Griffin to buy cotton, and misled complainant as to the propriety of continuing in the cotton speculation at the city of Griffin; and complainant, about the 8th of March, 1852, seeing that he could not buy in Griffin, more cotton, in a short time, than he was authorized by defendants to draw for, and most of the crop being sold and shipped, and having-confidence in the market, and believing that a great advance in prices, would, in a short time, take place, proposed to defendants to furnish him facilities to make a special operation in the city of Savannah — the cotton to be shipped to their house in New York. This proposition defendants declined, unless f bonus was deposited, or an indemnity given; and to indemnity- defendants against liability or lesson account of the funds and facilities to be furnished him to bity cotton in Savannah, complainant executed and delivered to them a bill of sale of twelve negroes, worth $9,000, and which was absolute and to operate as a sale, only in the event of a loss to them on said speculation; and he gave his note to defendants payable five months after date, for the hire of the negroes thus sold — they undertaking to have said cotton operation closed within that time. A time was appointed at which defendants were to meet complainant in Savannah to buy the cotton, or famish him with the money or facilities for buying the same, to the amount of one thousand or fifteen hundred bales ; but defendants failed and refused to carry out said agreement, withheld the facilities to by the cotton, and entered the market themselves, and made purchases secretly, by their agent; refused to accept the drafts drawn by complainant upon cotton shipped from Griffin, and concealed from him information in relation to the cotton market, and furnished information to others. That said 1500 bales of cotton could have been bought for the sum of fifty-one thousand dollars, and sold in the city of New York within the five months agreed upon, for the sum of seventy thousand dollars clear of all expence, and complainant thus realize nineteen thousand dollars; which he was prevented from doing by the fraud of defendants; and that prior to the year 1850, he gave to said R. & J. Caldwell a large number of blank signatures, to be used as occasion might require, and these were retaiued by defendants, J. & R. Caldwell & Co., to enable them to use complainant’s name at pleasure in the proposed cotton operation in Savannah.</p> <p>The bill further alleges that in the year 1851, complainant obtained’from said defendants two thousand nine hundred dollars, to enable him to build and finish a steam saw-mill, in the county of Pike ; and to secure this sum he procured his vendor of the land on which said mill was erected, (the same being 100 acres), to convey it to defendants; the said mills and land being worth $5,000.</p> <p>That in September, 1852, defendants brought suit for the recovery of said slaves, sold and conveyed as aforesaid; by virtue of the process issued in said case, (it being bail trover), the slaves were seized and lodged in jail; that in order to relieve said negroes from their confinement in prison, where their health and lives were jeopardized, complainant, gave his three notes, with Archibald A. Gaulding and Augustus Merritt as securities, for the whole amount claimed by said defendants, tobe due from him to them ; said notes amounting, in the aggregate,.to the sum of $5,827 44.</p> <p>That at that time he did not know the full extent of the fraud which had been practiced upon him by defendants, or the state of the accounts as kept by them, and gave said notes, protesting that he did not owe said defendants, and. that he had equitable setts-off which he would oppose to said notes; and at the same time gave to defendants other lands in place of the saw-mill premises.</p> <p>The bill further alleges that since the giving of the said notes the complainant had discovered that the defendants had practiced a further fraud on him, other than .the noncompliance with the aforesaid contracts; that in and for some years before the year 1850, complainant, at the request of R. & J. Caldwell, advanced, money to William H. White and other persons, to ship cotton to said house, and by which consignments they realized commissions to the amout of five thousand dollars, or other large sum, and to a part of which commissions, by agreement, complainant was entitled; but they failed and neglected to pay complainant any part thereof, and have concealed from him the amount he ought to receive, and he has thereby sustained damage to the amount of twenty-five hundred dollars.</p> <p>The bill further alleges that in 1846, complainant having a large amount of cotton on hand in Griffin, which would have made him a profit of $10,000, or other large sum, if he had not shipped- the same until, the railroad began to carry off cotton, and the railroad not being in use or running at the time, the house of the Caldwells proposed that if he would immediately send forward his cotton by wagons, and any loss was thereby sustained, that he should not be injured, but that they would furnish him with money at some favorable time to'buy cotton, and hold the same for him until all losses should be made up by some one large purchase of cotton ; complainant, under this promise, sent forward his cotton by wagons, and thereby sustained a loss of five thousand dollars, and said Caldwells, when there was an opportunity to make up this loss, wholly neglected to furnish the facilities as promised, but always pretended at such a time to be hard run to raise money to hold cotton, and thereby, would put off the complainant from time to time, by promising the money at some future time. That said Caldwells practised further frauds by making sales of cotton for him, under pretence that they were unable to hold, and that fraudulent sales of cotton were made by them, for their benefit, and to the great damage of complainant, and losses charged to him, which did not, in reality, occur or exist; and that the defendants have applied the proceeds of the cotton shipped to them, to pay off the unjust and fraudulent charges made by Robert and John Caldwell against him prior to 1850.</p> <p>The bill further alleges that these frauds and fraudulent concealments, have come to the knowledge of complainant since he gave his notes in 1852, and which were then unknown to him; that said defendants have realized twenty thousand dollars, or other large sum in commissions from the consignments and business of the complainant; and that they have, by their failure to perform their agreements, and by their frauds and fraudulent concealments, inflicted upon him losses and damages to the amount of twenty thousand dollars, and for which they should account. That defendants have commenced suit against complainant and his securities upon two of the notes which have become due, and are still the owners and holders of the other note, not yet due. That defendants reside out of the State, and have no property in the same, sufficient to satisfy the demands of complainant.</p> <p>The bill prays' for a settlement and account; that the action at law upon said notes be enjoined; that defendants be restrained from disposing of the note not yet due, until the adjustment of their accounts ; for discovery, general relief, &c.</p> <p>The bill was sanctioned and the injunction granted, at chambers, 21st October, 1855.</p> <p>Defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity.</p> <p>At the same time they filed their answer, admitting that complainant resided in Griffin at the time stated in the bill, and was a cotton buyer and shipper. That defendants, in their capacity as factors and commission merchants, received, at various times, consignments of cotton from him, but they deny that there was any such agreement as that set forth in the bill; nor did they agree, in any wise or manner, to furnish him facilities to pay for cotton he might purchase; nor did complainant bind himself to ship to them all the cotton he should purchase in Griffin; nor did they ever consider him so bound. That he did send to them of his own mere motion, and without their solicitation, a written paper, by which he agreed not to deal any more in cotton, unless recognized by them ; that this paper, together with an affidavit, whereby he binds himself to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors for a time therein specified, are the only obligatory instruments executed by complainant, now in their possession; and that from neither of these does the obligation alleged, appear, and they deny the truth of each and every allegation contained in the statements of said bill, and aver that, the transactions between them were of the ordinary- mercantile character. That complainant shipped to them such cottons as to him seemed advisable. That they, on the reception of the bills of lading, accepted the draft of'complainant drawn on said shipment — on the arrival and delivery to them-of the cotton, they exercised their best judgment as to the sale of it, and endeavored, in every instance, to the best of their ability, to faithfully perform the duties of skillful and prudent factors. That, when the cotton was sold, the proceeds were applied to the liquidation of the draft drawn on said cotton, and the residue paid over to complainant.</p> <p>The answer further admits that, in 1852, defendants established a branch of their house in New York, and discounted a draft drawn by complainant against a shipment of cotton made to said house, and did give him the two letters of credit mentioned in the bill, but they deny that said letters of credit were given in pursuance of any agreement, as set forth in said bill, but that the transaction was the ordinary mercantile arrangement, b3^ which consignors of limited means and restricted credit, are facilitated in negotiating drafts drawn on shipments of produce; that complainant did ship the cotton mentioned in his bill to the New York house, they admit, but they aver that said shipments were sold for him, and on his account, and account of sales and proceeds thereof, received by him, and the transaction, long since closed and settled, and that they received nothing therefrom, but their legal commissions of two and a half per cent They deny that they ever entered into any agreement to make advances, and that they were at all times at perfect liberty, unrestricted by any contract, to do business when, where, and with whom they pleased ; and deny all the charges of the bill as to giving false reports, or concealing information, and as to any and all false charges and fraudulent practices.</p> <p>They deny that they ever agreed to furnish complainant with money or facilities to embark in a cotton speculation in Savannah, or entertained said proposal, or agreed, in any way, or upon any terms, to be connected with it; and they declare the entire statement respecting their demand for indemnity to be wholly untrue. That the bill of sale of the negroes mentioned in said bill, was executed to secure the payment of three promisory notes, given by complainant to defendant, for debts due by him, arising out of transactions prior to those set forth in his said bill; one note for the sum of $4,183 62, due 1st January, 1852; one for $4,476 46, due 1st January, 1853; and one for $5,703 11, due 1st January, 1855 ; and they deny that said bill of sale was executed as an indemnity to them against any loss arising from the cotton speculation projected by complainant.</p> <p>The answer admits that defendants did hold sundry blank notes signed by the complainant, that some were filled up and used for the benefit of complainant; that they were rendered available solely by their endorsements, and they were protected by them, being regularly taken up when due, and the money arising from the discounting thereof, was credited to complainaut, and accounts rendered to him, and no objections were made thereto until the filing of this bill.</p> <p>That apprehending that the negroes before alluded to would be removed by complainant, defendants instituted their suit and had said slaves lodged in jail, to be forthcoming on the recovery of judgment, and thereupon complainant entered into an arrangement by which the three notes above mentioned were cancelled, the negroes released and restored to complainant, and the title to the saw-mill premises given up, and in lieu of the securities so relinquished, defendants accepted of complainant his three notes with Gaulding and Merritt as securities, amounting in the aggregate to $5,827 44, and also accepted titles to other premises in lieu of those on which the mill was erected ; and this settlement was affected by defendants giving up more than half their claim, and taking Jess than 50 cents in the dollar, as will appear by a comparison of the notes and titles relinquished and received.</p> <p>They deny that there is any thing due complainant as his proportion of commissions on shipments made to them by William H. White, or that they ever authorized complainant to make any advances to White on their behalf; and they deny the statement of complainant in reference to his sending forward his cotton by wagon, in 1846, when transportation by railroad was interrupted, at their instance, or by their authority, and declare every matter and thing in said allegation to be utterly false ; they deny all fraudulent sales of cotton, or that they ever realized from sales of the same, any thing more than their regular and legal commissions ; they deny that they owe complainant any thing, and admit that they have instituted suit on said notes as stated in the bill, being forced thereto as the only means of recovering their debt from complainant</p> <p>Upon the coming in of the answer and hearing the demurrer, and after argument by counsel, upon the motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill, the Court overruled the demurrer and refused the motion to dissolve, whereupon counsel for defendants excepted to said judgment and decision on the following grounds.</p> <p>1st. Because there was no equity in the bill.</p> <p>2d. Because Merritt and G-aulding being interested in the decree sought by the bill, and enjoying the benefits of the injunction are necessary parties thereto.</p> <p>3d. Because the bill seeks the recission of a contract without, in any manner, reinstating the defendants in the condition they were before the execution of the contract.</p> <p>4th. Because the allegations in the bill are too loose, uncertain and defective — admitting the same to be true — to justify any decree in favor of complainant.</p> <p>5th. Because the defendants had filed their answer fully denying all the equities in the bill, if there were any.</p>

Assumpsit, from Monroe Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, at March Term, 1856. This was an action brought by John L. Booty against Amanda W. Brazier, administratrix of Elijah W. Brazier, junior, deceased, for the recovery of the amount due on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy, to-wit: “ $ 1070.

Complainant, from Monroe Superior Court. Tried before Judge Green, at August Term, 1S56'. This was an action brought by Carhart, Brothers & Co., against Robert W. Moore, the maker, and Willis Wynn the endorser, of a promissory note, for the recovery of a balance due on said note.

Caveat, from Monroe Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, March Term, 1857. This case came up on appeal from the decision of the Court of Ordinary of Monroe county, admitting to probate and record the following instrument of writing, as the last will and testament of Thomas McCoy, deceased, viz: Georgia, 1 In the name of God, amen.

<p>Libel for Divorce, from Monroe Superior Court, Decision by Judge Green, at September Term, 1856.</p> <p>The plaintiff in error, filed her libel in the Superior Court of Monroe county, for a partial divorce from her husband, John Pinckard, the defendant in error.</p> <p>Pending the action, plaintiff’s counsel made a motion for an order to grant libellant temporary alimony pendente lite, and for counsel fees.</p> <p>The pendency of the suit and marriage of the parties were admitted by the respondent, but he offered testimony to prove that he had provided libellant with board, clothing, and support; to the introduction of which libellant’s counsel objected. The Court overruled the objection, and libellant excepted.</p> <p>James H. Dumas, after being examined in chief by respondent’s counsel, as to board paid to him by respondent for his wife, was turned over to libellant’s counsel, who proposed to ask witness if respondent had not defamed the character of his wife, to which question counsel for respondent objected ; the Court sustained the objection and libellant excepted.</p> <p>The testimony being closed, his Honor the presiding Judge refused the motion for alimony, but allowed libellant one hundred dollars for counsel fees. To which decision counsel for libellant excepted.</p>

Rule against Sheriff, from Butts Superior Court. Decision by Judge Green, December Term, 1856. Richard G. Byars, the Sheriff of Butts county, sold a certain tract of land, and other property, belonging to Nathan F. Camp, on the first Tuesday in November, 1856. The land was levied on under an execution issued on a judgment, dated 11th September, 1S55, in favor of Alpheus W. Ben-ham & Co., vs. said Camp.

Indictment, from Butts Superior Court.. Tried before Judge Green, at December Term, 1856. Samuel Long was indicted for stealing a horse at the Indian Springs, in the county of Butts, on the twenty-second day of June, 1856, belonging to Albert S. Rose.

In Equity, from Henry Superior Court. Decision by Judge Green, at Chambers, 25th July, 1856.

Ejectment, from Coweta Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, at September Term, 1856. Held: had been in the uninterrupted adverse possession of the land in dispute, under color of title for seven ye$irs before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff’s right was barred.

<p>[1.] Garnishees answered, that they had the estate of Travis N. in their hands, and that Thomas N., the debtor, was a legatee of Travis N., and that they could not say whether they had any effects of Thomas N. or not.</p> <p>Held, That this answer did not authorize the Court to give judgment a<jain»t them.</p> <p>[2.] Garnishment lies in ;i suit on a dormant judgment.</p>

Ejectment, from Heard Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, at August Term, 1856. This was an action of ejectment, brought by Doe, on the. demise of Zachariah Hester, against Roe, casual ejector, and Calvin Coats, tenant in possession, for the recovery of a lot of land situated in the county of Heard.

In Equity, from Carroll Superior Court. Decision by Judge Hammond, at Chambers, 30th October, 1856. The bill alleges that the defendant Sandford Kingsburybrought an action for slander against the complainant, J ames H. Rogers, returnable to April Term, 1850, of Carroll Superior Court.

<p>The rule, as to what is the measure of damages for the breach of a bond, conditioned to make titles to a lot of land, forfeited to the State, under the Act of 1813, is that which was laid down in this case, when this case was in this Court before. See 17 Geo. Bep.} 602.</p>

Certiorari, in Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge Hammond, at August Term, 1856. Neils J. Omburg, defendant in error, was fined by the May- or and City Council of the City of Rome, twenty dollars, for a violation of an ordinance of said city, prohibiting any person from opposing or interrupting any city officer in the execution of the ordinances of said city.

Rule against Sheriff, from Floyd Superior Court. Decision by Judge Brown, at February Term, 1857. ¥ Baker & Wilcox, recovered judgment against William Wimpee surviving partner of the firm of William Wimpee & Co., which company was composed of said Wimpee and William T. Price. The judgment bears date 2d June, 1854, and upon which execution issued.

Motion to Dismiss Appeal, from Carroll Superior Court. Decision by Judge Hammond, October Term, 1856. When this case was called for trial, counsel for plaintiff below moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that defendant having made the usual affidavit, had entered the appeal in forma pauperis, without executing a bond. The Court sustained the motion, and dismissed the appeal, and to this decision defendant excepted.

<p>Indictment for Muider, from Campbell Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, at September Term, 1856.</p> <p>Meshack Teal was indicted for the murder of Robert Northcutt. The bill of exceptions sets forth, that upon the call of the case, the-parties announced themselves ready for trial — a jury was empannelled, and the Solicitor General arraigned the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The Solicitor General then read to the jury the indictment, and stated that it was founded upon a special presentment that he held in his hand.</p> <p>The following witnesses were then sworn and examined on the part of the State :</p> <p>Mrs. Mary Northcutt says: The transaction was in Campbell county, the 30th July, 1855, at the house of deceased, near sun set. The prisoner came up to the yard gate ; he had a rifle gun belonging to deceased, which he had borrowed. The deceased was sitting, in a chair near the door; witness was setting near him; deceased was nursing a child out of doors. Prisoner spoke first, and said to deceased, “ Bob come out here I want to talk to you.” Deceased’s name was Robert Northcutt. Prisoner spoke loud, and appeared to be angry. Deceased turned round and said to prisoner, “ Shack Teal I want you to go away from here;” , prisoner replied, “ Oh no, I want you to come out here;” deceased was singing at the time prisoner came up; after he told prisoner to go away, he sung on for about a half a minute ; deceased made no reply, but put down the child and walked about half way to where prisoner was standing and then walked back into the house and took down the gun. At the time deceased turned back into the house, prisoner said something which witness does not recollect. Deceased took down a shot-gun and walked out to the fence near where prisoner was standing; there was nothing but the fence between them ; deceased laid the muzzle of his gun on the fence, tapping it but not pointing it in the direction of the prisoner. Deceased told prisoner he wanted him to leave there, to go away; prisoner told deceased to come outside the gate. Prisoner cursed and swore so much witness can’t recollect what he did say. Witness went into the house to lay down the baby she was nursing; before she had time to get back again, she heard the report of the rifle; witness stayed in the house several minutes ; when she came out she saw deceased some four or five steps outside of the gate, and had his gun raised, snapping it, in his right hand ; witness asked him what he meant, or what he was doing; witness ran out of the house as soon as she heard the report of the gun; deceased told her that Teal had killed him ; she asked him if he could get in the house without her assistance; he said he could very well. She don’t think she saw Teal at the time she went out to where her husband was. She then went on without turning back, to Mr. Cook’s, who lived about a half a mile off; she overtook prisoner a hundred and fifty or two hundred yards from the house ; prisoner was walking in a common gait towards Mr. Cook’s when she first saw him ; when she got near him, he broke into a run, and run twenty or thirty yards, and then turned round far enough to see witness, and then stopped and turned into a walk. She was running as fast as she could. As she passed prisoner she told him that he had killed Mr. Northcutt; he said he expected he had, that he had shot him, and he expected he had killed him.</p> <p>This was on Monday; deceased lived until some minutes after one o’clock the next day. The ball did not pass through. She saw prisoner that (Monday) morning; he came up to deceased’s house and told deceased he wanted him to go squirrel hunting with him that morning; he stayed an hour or two, may be three. Deceased told him he could not go, that he didn’t feel well able. Prisoner asked him three or four times to go squirrel hunting; he insisted on his going. . Deceased said he would likely feel better in the evening, and if he did he would go with him. Prisoner said he would be back in the evening. Deceased was very sick; he set up a part of the time and was in bed a part of the time in the morning; he did not leave home that day; remained at home until after the children came home from school. The children who came home were Robert Warren Northcutt, Joseph A. Northcutt, (witness sworn in the ease,) and Mrs. Strickland’s children. Deceased went down to the plantation gate, as she supposes; he only staid a few minutes ; when he came back he took up his little daughter and set down in the yard and went\to singing; witness don’t think it was more than thirty minutes after he commenced singing before Teal, the prisoner came. This was the same time that witness spoke of in the first part of her examination. All this took place in this county.</p> <p>Cross Examined: Lives at the same place she did at the time Mr. Northcutt was killed, about five miles from Campbellton, and one or two hundred yards from where prisoner lived ; prisoner was living on deceased’s land; lived on the other side from Campbellton, of deceased’s house; he usually passed their house coming to town. Prisoner and deceased appeared friendly on Monday morning; they talked friendly and parted friendly; deceased did not go to Emanuel Teal’s mill on Monday. The first remark prisoner made when he came up in the evening was, “ Bob come out here, I want to talk to you;” deceased replied, “ Shack Teal I want you to go away from here.”</p> <p>Joseph Ji. Northcutt says, that he saw prisoner in the cotton patch on Saturday before his (witness’s) father was killed on Monday. The cotton patch belonged to his father and prisoner. That Warren Northcutt, William Strickland, William Latham and other little boys were with him; they were picking up apples and beating cider; he went down to a little apple tree, close to where prisoner was at work to pick up apples. Witness rode Mr. Latham’s horse through the corn ; prisoner said he would be damned if the horse should go back the same way; witness said if his pa was there he would go back and not ask him. Prisoner said he would make witness and pa, and all the rest of us suffer before Monday night; he spoke like he was not satisfied about it; and witness told him that they were going to start to school through there Monday morning; prisoner said he would be damned if they should. As witness came from school Monday evening, the gate was withed up. John Strickland, Warren Northcutt, and two little girls were along; witness and the others climbed the fence; his pa went down to the gate and cut it loose, and he and Warren went with him ; after his father cut the gate loose he went back to the house, and he and Warren went back with him; his father sat down; did not see prisoner while they were gone. About a quarter of an hour after we got back saw prisoner coming up the road; it was about sun down. Prisoner had his father’s gun when he came; he said when he first came up, “ come out here Bob, I want to talk to you his father replied, “ go off from here Shack Tealprisoner replied, “no, come out here any howhis father started and went half way, and told him he was a grand rascal, and did’nt want to have any difficulty with him. Prisoner told him he was a damned liar; his father turned round and went (back into the house, and got his gun and went to where prisoner was, and rattled his gun on the fence, and told prisoner to go off from there; u no,” prisoner said, “ come out herehis father went out and prisoner walked off pretty fast some distance, and «aid ■“ damn you, I am a great mind to shoot you, any how,” and raised his gun and shot him. When his father went out he stopped and fastened the gate, and walked five or six steps in the direction that prisoner went; prisoner went thirty-eight or forty steps and stopped, and turned round and said damn you, I’ll blow a ball through you, and shot at him. Witness was in the yard when the gun fired; his father held his gun down in his hand, and after the gun fired he raised his gun and snapped once or twice at prisoner; thinks he snapped'two or three times; his father made no attempt to shoot before prisoner shot; prisoner would have had to go fifty or sixty yards up the road to get out of sight of witness. Prisoner went towards town.</p> <p>Cross Examined: Prisoner was hoeing cotton when he went to the field on Saturday; he was not in the same field that witness went to; prisoner worked the corn; he rented the land from witness’s father, the deceased; the horse bit a nubbin in going through the field, was the reason why prisoner did not want him to go back the same way. William Latham asked prisoner for a muzzle to put on the horse; prisoner lent him the muzzle, and he took the horse back the same way which he came. They had carried horses through the field frequently before. Witness has known his mother and others to ride through the field. He did not tell Emanuel Teal and Wiley Steed, three days after his father was killed, at Teal’s mill, that he went into the house after the gun; and he did not tell Wiley Steed, three days after his father was killed, at the shop at Petersburg, that he, witness, went into the house after the gun. When his father went to the gate, witness saw his mother just entering the door to come out; justas his mother came out of the house the rifle fired, and she went straight on to Cook’s ; did not stop with the deceased. When the rifle fired Warren Northcutt was standing near deceased — much nearer than witness was.</p> <p>Doctor Thomas C. Glover says, he went to see deceased on the night of the 30th July, 1855; he found a gun-shot wound on the abdomen, 2j inches below the navel, and 2j inches from the middle-line, and cut out that ball near the spinal column. He was of opinion that the intestines were perforated, and that deceased must consequently die, and told him so. Deceased died the next day. Witness made a post mortem examination the following morning; found the small intestines perforated, mesentery blood vessels lacerated, and it is his opinion that the Avound produced the death of the deceased. He met prisoner in town, after he was called to see deceased; asked him if he had shot deceased, prisoner said he had; asked him what he shot him with: he said with a rifle; asked him how many balls : he said-only one; asked him how far he was from him: he said thirty or forty yards. Witness is a practicing physician.</p> <p>Zadock Jennings, for the prisoner, sworn, says that he heard the conversation between Dr. Glover and prisoner; saw prisoner in town the night after he had shot Northcutt. Prisoner went to Samuel Lewis and offered himself up to Lewis, and told him that he had shot Northcutt, and expected he had killed him, and he had come to town to deliver himself up, and wanted him, the Sheriff, to go back to town with him.</p> <p>Here the testimony closed, and after argumentiby counsel and the charge of the Court, the jury retired and returned a verdict of guilty. The jury was polled, and each acknowledged the verdict to be his, after which they dispersed.</p> <p>The day after, defendant’s counsel made a motion for-a new trial, on the following grounds :</p> <p>1st. Because the verdict rvas contrary to law.</p> <p>2d. Because the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and circumstances attending it, and the weight of evidence.</p> <p>3d. Because -the special presentment on which the indictment was founded, was not entered on the minutes of the Court.</p> <p>4th. Because the special presentment was not introduced or read on the trial.</p> <p>5th. Because the Court erred in permitting the special presentment to go before the jury, it never having been read as evidence.</p> <p>6th. Because the Court did not read or explain to the jury, the different grades of manslaughter.</p> <p>7th. Because the Court erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested, as follows:</p> <p>First: That when an indictment is made out on a presentment, it is incumbent on the State to prove the presentment</p> <p>Second: That it is incumbent on the State to prove that the presentment is made out according to the Constitution and laws.</p> <p>Third : That on the trial of an indictment founded on a special presentment, it is necessary for the State to introduce the presentment as evidece, and on failure to do so, the case is not made out.</p> <p>8th. Because the Court refused to charge, as requested, that if a man, though in no great danger of serious bodily harm, through fear, alarm, or cowardice, kill another, under the impression that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him, it is neither manslaughter, nor murder, but self-defence.</p> <p>9th. Because the Court erred in permitting the presentment to go before the jury, on the trial, without being tendered to defendant’s counsel, and thereby depriving them of an opportunity to except to the variance in the name of a grand juror, in the presentment and bill — the name of Evan R. Whitley appearing in the bill, and that of Evan R. Whiley in the presentment.</p> <p>10th. Because the defendant, since the trial, has discovered that he can prove by T. C. Glover that deceased struck at prisoner with the gun, before prisoner shot him.</p> <p>11th. Because it appears that William M. McClung was sworn as a juror, and that William W. McClung returnedL the verdict into Court — there being but one McClung.</p> <p>The Court overruled the motion, and refused to grant a> new trial, and counsel for prisoner excepts.</p>

<p>[1.] On the 4th of December 1841, the Legislature granted a charter to the Dalilonega Tanning and Leather Manufacturing Company, making the stockholders liable, as partners, for the debts of the corporation, and providing a summary remedy for the enforcement of the same. On the 10th day of the same month, they passed a general law, to facilitate the collection of debts against incorporations and the stockholders thereof.</p> <p>that the latter Act did not supersede or repeal the former; but was intended to apply to a different class of incorporations.</p> <p>[2.] For a stockholder inabankingor other incorporation in this State, who is personally liable to discharge himself from liability for the notes or other contracts of such bank or other corporation upon a transfer of his stock, it is necessary underthe Act of 1838, (Cobb 112,) that’ he should give notice once a month for six months, of such transfer, and immediately after the saméis made in two newspapers in or nearest the place where such bank or other corporations shall keep their principal office ; and even then, he is not exempt from the claim of a creditor who has given him written notice thereof within six months after the transfer is made.</p> <p>[3.] Where a stockholder of a corporation is made individually liable upon an execution issuing against the corporation, he is entitled to the remedy by illegality, the same as any other defendant mji.fa.</p>

Certiorari, in Forsyth Superior Court. Decision by Judge Triple, at September Term, 1856. William G. Field, the plaintiff in error, had been arrested by capias ad satisfaciendum, issued against him at the suit of Willis Putman; he gave bond and security for his appearance, to take the benefit of the honest debtors’ act of 1S23.

Indictment for Gaming, from Forsyth Superior Court. Tried before Judge Brown, at February Term, 1857. The defendant in the Court below, Thomas TV. Brock, was specially presented by the Grand Jury of Forsyth county, at. August Term, 1856, for the offence of playing and betting at cards.

<p>An indictment against a person for playing and betting at cards, ought to state enough to show whether the person with whom the playing and betting was done, was a white person or a negro.</p>

<p>Certiorari, in Cherokee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at October adjourned Term, 1856.</p> <p>Thomas N. White sued Jeffrey Sanders and Joseph Thompson in a Justice’s Court on an account for twenty-two dollars and eighty cents, “ for cash paid to Clerk and Sheriff, and for balance of debt to Thomas N. White, due by said defendant.” At the appearance Term, Sanders pleaded the general issue: At the trial Term, judgment was given for the plaintiff, for the amount sued for. Sanders appealed but failed to pay the cost and give security within four days, as required by law. At the May Term of the Justice’s Court, both parties being present, White proposed to Sanders that'he would give him a jury trial, “ if he would comply with the law, and be satisfied with a jury trial, and that both parties should stand to the verdict of the jury,” which Sanders agreed to do. At the June Term the case was tried. White proved by a witness, that he, witness, was at Canton with his wagon and Sanders asked him to wait on him, that there was a man in Jail that he wanted to get out as soon as he could see White. Witness told him to be in a hurry, and when Sanders returned, Joseph Thompson and White were with him, and all rode in his wagon, and he heard Sanders tell White that if Prather did not sign the note, that he was in for it. This seemed to be the promise to pay the account upon which plaintiff relied.</p> <p>Samuel Weil, defendant’s attorney, raised a point upon the statute of frauds, and wished to read the law upon that subject, which the Justices would not permit him to do. The case was submitted to the jury, who found for White $22 80; and Sanders excepted on the ground, that his attorney was not allowed to read the 4th section of the statute of frauds, and because there was no evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, and that if there was any evidence, it showed a verbal promise to pay the debt of another; and by certiorari brought the case for review before the Superior Court, and the presiding Judge of that Court ordered the certiorari to be dismissed, and Sanders by his counsel excepted.</p>

Debt qui tam, from Fannin Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at November Term, 1856. The plaintiff, Thomas Milsaps, brought an action of debt, qui tam, against Joseph Johnson, junior, to recover the penalty prescribed by statute 32. Henry 8, Sec. 2, for bargaining for, and buying a pretended title to a lot of land, of ■which plaintiff was seized and possessed. The amount sued for was two thousand dollars, the alleged value of the land.

Ejectment, from Fannin Superior Court. Tried before Judge Trippe, at November Term, 1856. This was an action of ejectment, brought by John Doe, ex dem., Isaac Morrison administrator of William Bates, deceased, against Richard Roe, casual ejector, and John W. Beaver, tenant in possession, for the recovery of a lot of land situated in the county of Fannin. On the trial, plaintiff proved that William Bates, lessor’s intestate, died prior to the year 1840.

In Equity, from Fannin Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Trippe, at November Term 1856. This was a bill filed by William E. Piercy and others, children of William W. Piercy, deceased, against David Adams and Chlorinda, his wife, who was the widow of Adolphus Piercy, a deceased brother of complainants.

Ejectment, from Fannin Superior Court. Tried before Judge Trifpe, at November Term, 1856. This was an action of ejectment brought by John Doe, ex dem. of Conrod Augley, and Wiley Pearce adm’r of Conrod Augley, against Richard Roe, casual ejector, and John C. Witzel, tenant in possession, for the recovery of lot of land No. 123, in the 9th districted section, of originally Cherokee, now Fannin county.

In Equity, from Whitfield Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at April Term, 1856.

These two cases were by consent, heard and argued together. Ca. sa. from Gordon Superior Court. Decision by Judge Brown, at October Term, 1856.

In Equity, from Murray Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at chambers, March 1857.

In Equity, from Murray Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at chambers, 1st September, 1856. This was a bill for injunction by Drury Christian, against J ames A. R. Hanks, John S. Beall, and Esther A. Christian, wife of complainant. The complainant alleges that in the latter part of the year, 1S55, he intermarried with Esther A. Christian, then Esther A. Banks.

In Equity, from Murray Superior Court. Decision by Judge Tkippe, at chambers, 1st September, 1856. This bill was filed by Thomas Cheek, complainant, against James Taylor, William Barnett and Elijah E. Wynn, defendants, to restrain defendants from proceeding to revive a dormant judgment by scire facias.

Assumpsit, from Cass Superior Court. Decision by Judge Thippe, at March Term, 1857. This was an action of assumpsit, by Frederick S. S.- Hunt, against John W. Burk, to recover back the sum of five hundred dollars paid by Hunt to Burke, under the following state of facts agreed to by counsel for the parties.

In Equity, from Cass Superior Court. Tried before Judge Brown, at September Term, 1856. The bill alleges that complainant, Charles J. McDonald* on the 2d of May, 1843, purchased at a sale made by the; ''Commissioner in Bankruptcy for the State of Georgia, the tone undivided quarter of the south-east half of lot No. 210, in the 2d district of Can-oil county, sold as the property of John T. Rowland, a bankrupt.

<p>Under the exempting acts, it is only in cases in which the head of the family owns a greater quantity of land, than that exempted from levy and sale, that any land is required to be laid off with notice to the Sheriff, &c. In cases in which the quantity is less, the whole is exempt; and the Sheriff can sell none of it.</p>

In Equity, from Troup Superior Court. Tried before Judge-Hammond, November Term, 1856. This was a bill filed by Stephen Ward, the defendant in error, against Benjamin Cameron and Benj. D. Johnson and William A. Spear, plaintiffs in error.

In Equity, from Meriwether Superior Court. Decision on demurrer by Judge Bull, at February Term 1857. This was a bill filed by Nancy Corley, wife of Austin W. Corley; by her next friend, against said Austin W., her husband, John Jones, and other judgment creditors of the said Austin W. Corley.

<p>A. stipulated with B., that B. should build him a house for $2,050, payable in. five installments: $500 when the house should be framed and raised ; $500 when the house should be enclosed and roofed ; $500 when the floors should be laid and the partitions set; $500 when the ceiling should be put up, and alt the carpenter’s work done; $050 when the painting should be done, and the keys delivered.</p> <p>Held, that by this stipulation, what B. was to do, was but a single job of workto consist in the building of a whole house, for $2,050, not five separate jobs, to consist in the building of the parts of a house distributed into five certain parts, with a separate price to each part.</p>

In Equity, from Fayette Superior Court. Decision by Judge Bulb, at September Term, 1856. Davis Smith of the county of Monroe, as administrator of Ivy Brooks, deceased, late of the same county, instituted his action in the Superior Court of Fayette county, against Robert Iverson of that county, for the recovery of the sum of $2850, due on a promissory note.

Debt, from Carroll Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, at October Term, 1856. This was an action by Edmund W. Holland, against Clayton Williams, principal, and John T. Chambers and Berrien Williams, securities, on a promissory note for $2,213 12, dated 8th July, 1851, and due the 4th of January thereafter. The Sheriff returned service on Chambers and Berrien Williams, and non est as to the principal, Clayton Williams.

Mandamus, from DeKalb Superior Court Decision by Judge Bull, at chambers, February, 1857. This was an application by William M. Hill, the relator, for a mandamus against the Commissioners of the town of Decatur, in the county of DeKalb, to compel them to grant to him a license to retail spirituous liquors in said town.

Debt, from Dekalb Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, at October Term, 1856. This was an action of debt by Thomas Barnes, on a due bill for $1,228 50, given by John Stephenson, principal, and John Faulkner, security.

Murder, from Walker Superior Court. Tried before J udge Brown, at November Term, 1856. William Mitchell was indicted and put upon his trial for the murder of John S. Cole. Defendant was asked if he was ready for trial. His counsel answered that he was not, on account of the absence of a material witness, Sarah Cope, who resided out of the county about twenty miles distant.

Malicious prosecution, in Fulton Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, at October Term, 1856. This was an action for a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, brought by James Woodruff against John Woodruff. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Assumpsit; from DeKalb Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, at October Term, 1856. This was an action on a promissory note, brought by John T. Meadow, as bearer, against John Bird, maker. The note was made payable to one G. J. Wright or bearer, and by him transferred to plaintiff. The amount of the note was five hundred dollars, payable six months after date, and dated 22d November, 1853.

<p>Case, from Fulton Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hammond, at October Term, 1856.</p> <p>This was an action brought by Mark A. Cooper, against George Young, as superintendent of the Western and Atlantic railroad, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the failure of defendant to transport by railroad and deliver a certain quantity of stone coal at the times and places, and in the quantities, which defendant undertook to do.</p> <p>The plaintiff in his declaration averred that, in the summer of 1852, defendant undertook and promised to transport from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to deliver to him at Etowah, Cass county, Georgia, for the use of his iron mills, one car load of stone coal per day. That during the month of December of that year, he failed to deliver said coal as per contract, whereby plaintiff’s rolling mills ceased operations for the most part of said month, and that he sustained damage thereby to the amount of three thousand dollars.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded : 1st. The general issue. 2d. That. if such contract as that alleged was ever made, it was by some one having no authority so to do, and without consideration, the said plaintiff having paid or tendered no part of the freight. 3d. That if any coal was ever received by said railroad, the same was duly transported and delived at the place of destination, within a reasonable time after it was received; and if it was not, it was because said railroad and its officers had not the means of transporting the same.</p> <p>Plaintiff, upon trial, offered the depositions of two witnesses, who were employed and engaged in and about his iron manufactory, in December, 1852, who testified that the operations of the establishment were suspended for sometime during that month, in consequence of the failure of the railroad to deliver coal; that the heatingvfurnaces of the rolling mill was stopped for five days, and the puddling furnaces, the whole of the month; that the loss sustained by the stoppage of the rolling furnaces was abo^lt seventy dollars per day, and of the heating furnaces about one hundred and sixty dollars per day. This estimate of loss was based upon a calculation of the number of tons of iron each furnace would produce daily, if in operation, the value of said iron, and the net profits on each ton manufactured.</p> <p>The Court, upon motion of defendant’s counsel, ruled out and rejected all that part of the depositions relating to the loss of profits sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the stoppage of his mills, and the estimate based upon profits plaintiff would have made if his mills had been in full operation.</p> <p>To which ruling and decision, counsel for plaintiff excepted, and thereupon tendered his bill of exceptions, &c.</p>

In Equity, from Coweta Superior'Court. Decision, on motion to dissolve injunction, by Judge Hammond, at chambers, 2d January, 1857. This was a bill filed by Jeremiah D. Brown, against John W. Powell, executor of William B. Brown, deceased, for injunction, discovery, and relief. The allegations are, that prior to the year 1854, William B. Brown was engaged in merchandising in the town of N ewnan.

Forfeiture of slaves, from Baldwin Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hardeman, February Term, 1857. This was a proceeding by John Hammond, escheator, of Baldwin county, to forfeit eleven negro slaves, under the provisions of the statutes of this State.

Statutory action to recover land, &c., from Laurens Superior Court. Tried before Judge Love, at October Term, 1856. _ Thomas M. Foreman, Joseph Bryan, James P. Screven, and Jonathan R. Bryan, brought suit against Daniel Roberts, to recover lot of Land No. 176, in the 18th district of originally Wilkinson now Laurens county. The plaintiffs upon the^trial, offered in evidence a plat and grant from the State of Georgia, to Joseph Bryan, of Chat-ham county.

<p>Illegality, from Baldwin Superior Court. Decided by Judge Hardeman, at February Term, 1857.</p> <p>Robert Y. Willis, administrator of Seziah Willis, deceased, brought trover against Thomas Willis, for the recovery of five negroes and other property, alleged to belong tí. his intestate.</p> <p>At August Term, 1854, the jury returned the following verdict, a We the jury find for the plaintiff in this action, twenty-seven hundred dollars, which can be satisfied by delivering to the plaintiff,'the said slaves within ten days, also, the further sum of five hundred dollars for hire of slaves, also, the cost of suit.” Judgment was entered up on this verdict the 5th day of September, 1854. At the same term of the Court, a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, to which decision defendant excepted and carried the case up to the Supreme Court, May Term, 1S55, when the judgment of the Court below was affirmed. At August Term, 1855, of Baldwin Superior Court, the said judgment of the Supreme Court was entered on the minutes and made the judgment of that Court, and execution on the original judgment was issued 8th September, 1855, and on the last day of the Term of said Court, defendant carried to plaintiff’s house and left in the yard all the negroes recovered, except two, Amos and Rosetta, who had in the mean time died. The proof was, that Amos was taken sick on the 14th of September, 1854, and died on the 25th; that when visited by the physician for the first time on the 15th, he was too sick to be removed, and the physician judged he had been too sick the day previous. Rosetta died within the time, between the 5th and 15th of September, 1854.</p> <p>When the negroes were brought by defendant to be delivered up, plaintiff said he should not receive them or consider them delivered, until he saw his attorney, who had before advised him not to receive them, and there was no proof that plaintiff afterwards had anything to do with the negroes, except to have them levied on and sold under his execution. On the 4th of October, 1855, the deputy Sheriff levied upon said slaves (four in number, there having been an increase of one since the commencement of the suit,) by virtue of said fi. fa., and sold the same on the first Tuesday in December, 1855, for the sum of $1,326, which was applied to said fi- fa.</p> <p>Afterwards, there being still a large balance due on said execution, the Sheriff levied upon a lot of land (202j acres) and two negroes belonging to defendant, and he interposed by affidavit of illegality, upon the grounds :</p> <p>1st. Because the judgment on which the fi. fa. issued was rendered in an action of trover, and was conditional, and that upon the termination of the action, defendant delivered to plaintiff all the negroes recovered, except Amos and Rosetta, who had died pending the litigation and during the pendencey of the writ of error in the Supreme Court, and by the act of Providence he was preventedffrom^delivering them. .</p> <p>2d. Because the amount of the valuation of said negroes, which had died, was not deducted from or. credited on said fi. fa., nor is the value of those that wereMelivered up credited on the same.</p> <p>After hearing the affidavit of illegality and argument thereon, the Court dismissed the same — no election to deliver the negroes having been made within the ten days allowed by the jury.</p> <p>To which decision, defendant, by his counsel, excepts and assigns the same as error.</p>

John C. Browning propounded for probate, before the Ordinary of Thomas county, the following instrument in writing, as containing the nuncupative will of Peyton Walden, deceased, and to which Stephen Sampson, one of the heirs, entered a caveat State op Georgia, County of Thomas- We Hansell Hall, S. Samuel Adams, Samuel Williams, and Ashly Holliday, were present on the evening of the twenty-second day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and…

Caveat to will, from Jasper Superior Court. Decision by Judge Hardeman, April Term, 1857. Held: and adjudged that, said security be discharged upon caveator substituting other good and sufficient security in his place.

Debt on Sheriff’s Bond, from Putnam Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hardeman, March Term, 1857.

Caveat to Return, and Vouchers of Guardian, &c., from Thomas Superior Court Tried before Judge Love, December Term, 1856. On Appeal from Ordinary.

<p>[1.] Under proceedings to obtain a restoration of personal property to the possession of a party from whom it has been taken without his or her consent, neither the right to the possession, nor the title to the property can be investigated.</p> <p>[2,] After the expiration of four years from the taking, a possessory warrant will not lie, the party having had the possession in the mean time without disturbance.</p>

■ In Equity, in Pulaski Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Love, at October Term, 1856.

In Equity, in Laurens Superior Court. Tried before Judge Love, October Term, 1856. This bill was filed by Sarah Miller, against Jethro Arline, executor of Enoch Tootle, deceased.

Debt from Jasper Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hardeman, at April Term, 1857. Holland brought suit against Chaffin as principal, and Lane as security, on a promissory note for #126 30, dated 16th April, 1849, and payable one day after date. There was a credit on the note of one dollar, paid by Chaffin, 10th February, 1855, and the declaration was amended, alleging this fact, and that by reason thereof, defendant’s liability continued.

In Equity, from Thomas Superior Court. Tried before Judge Love, December Term, 1856. John B. Lacy filed his bill against Enen McLane, executor of the last will and testament of Thomas J. Johnson, deceased, which McLane answered, and filed a cross bill, which Lacy answered. The cross bill was'for ’discovery only, and sought no reliéf. . • McLane dying, Mitchell became administrator, clt bonis ' non, with the will annexed, of Johnson.

Claim, from Morgan Superior Court. Tried before Judge Hardeman, at March Term, 1857. At March Term, 1856, of the Superior Court of Morgan county, Robert Crawley foreclosed a mortgage which he held upon the Madison Steam Mills. This mortgage was dated twenty-fifth April, eighteen hundred and fifty five, and the judgment of foreclosure was entered sixth of-March, eighteen hundred and fifty-six.

Trespass quare clausum fregit, in Warren Superior Court. Tried before Judge Thomas, at October Term, 1856. This was an action of trespass brought by James W. Smith, against Franklin D. Gonder, for entering plaintiffs premises and cutting down and carrying off his trees. Damages were laid in the declaration at eight hundred dollars.

Revocation op Letters op Administration, in Walton Superior Court. Decision by Judge Jackson, at February Term, 1857. Appeal from Ordinary. Held: that no letters of administrationjmuld be legally granted upon the estate of deceased by the Ordinary of Walton county, and ordered and adjudged, that said letters be revoked and annulled. To which decision and judgment, 'counsel for the administrator excepted.

Action on account, in Willies Superior Court. Decision by Judge Thomas, at March Term, 1857. Held: that the plaintiff’s demand was barred by the statute of limitations, and so charged the jury, who found for the defendants. Whereupon, counsel for plaintiff excepted.

Debt on single bill, in Elbert Superior Court. Tried before Judge Thomas, at March Term, 1857. This was an action of debt brought by John T. Henderson, against James Almond, on the following instrument, viz : “By the 35th day of December, 1853, I promise to pay Henderson & Chisolm, or bearer, eighty dollars for value received. Witness my hand and seal, this November, the 30th, 1852.

In' Equity, from Habersham Superior Court. Decision by-Judge-Jackson, at chambers, 27th March, 1857. This was a bill by Andrew J. Nichols, against Cicero H. Sutton and John G. Porter, road commissioners' for the Clarksville district, in the county of Habersham. The bill alleges that complainant had applied to the Inferior Court of said county, to allow him to change the public road running through his premises, and to do so at his own-expense.

Case, in Gwinnett Superior Court. Tried before Judge Cabiness, at March adjourned Term, 1857. This .was an action on the case brought by Craig, against . Adair, Clerk of the Superior Court of Gwinnett county, to .¡r'ecaver damages alleged to have b.een sustained by neglect ,and.refusal of defendant to issue a ca.sa. when requested by . plaintiff.

Motion to vacate and set aside judgment, in Taliaferro Superior Court. Decision by Judge Thomas, at August Term, 1856. James M. Calloway as bearer, brought suit to the January Term, 1837, of Taliaferro Superior Court, against Archibald G. Jones and Larkin R. Gunn, on three promissory notes, of five hundred dollars each.

Illegality, in Habersham Superior Court. Tried before Judge Jackson, at October Term, 1856. Hyatt, McBurney & Co., recovered judgment in Haber-sham Superior Court, against Thompson Allan and John H. Wyley, principals, and Robert Allan security, for the sum of eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ten cents principal, besides interest and cost of suit.

Indictment for an assault with intent to ñlífrder, in Washington Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at March Term, 1857. Robert Cox and James A. Lyon, were jointly indicted for an assault with intent to murder Alexander G. Lawson. Cox failed to appear, and Lyon only was put on trial.

<p>Trover, in Montgomery Superior Court. Tried before Judge Fleming, at March Term, 1857.</p> <p>This was an action of trover, brought by James M. Rein-hart, against John Miller, for the recovery of three negroes, which he claimed by virtue of his intermarriage with Cassa Miller, to whom they belonged.</p> <p>Plaintiff proved, that the negroes belonged to Cassa Miller, his late wife, prior to. their intermarriage. Proved the marriage and her death; the value of the negroes — demand and conversion; and closed his ease.</p> <p>Defendant held the negroes as trustee under a marriage settlement which he alleged was executed between the plaintiff and said Cassa Miller, prior to, and in contemplation of their marriage, and by the terms of which, said property, if she died, leaving no children, was to go to her brothers and sisters.</p> <p>Defendant offered in evidence the depositions of the following witnesses as preliminary to, and laying the foundation for, tlio introduction of the marriage settlement, to-wit:</p> <p>Julia J.bin Gay: Knows the parties — did not see the contract executed or signed by Reinhart, Cassa Miller or John Miller. Did not witness it, was not present when the contract was signed, did not read the contract, knows not whether Reinhart was satisfied or not, John Miller just previous to the marriage came to the door, his sister ivas inside dressing, requested her to sign her name to the contract. She authorized him, in my presence to sign her name to it for her. There were on the premises ¡it the lime of the marriage, Nathaniel Gay, Laura Gay, Lewis Beachain, Elisha Wilkes and wife, Missouri Gay, Susan Bridges, now Susan Curry, and Alexander, M. Wright.</p> <p>To tile Cross Jnierrogaiories, she answers: I did not see the contract executed, nor do Í know when it was done. I did not read the contract or hear it read. 1 did not see Cassa Miller sign her name to the contract, hot she told her brother John to do it. for her — she could write, her name, i do not know when ihc contract was made or where it was signed, or whether signed by Reinhart at all Do not know whether Alexander Vfright, signed the contract w not I did not sign it, nor did I see ¡my person do so. DwiNnim married them.; John K Ter wont after him and came with nun; docs not: know w! o wrote the contract, John Miller b ;t i:i sion afín1' it was .signed. Kvcsa ..'Illlef s eme.: ¡he in.ri anxious to have it signed, ami said she «culi) m-i many him uulc.is be did sign it, ami stud she o'.'peded j>o would not sign if, it w;m so very tight, and if ho. did not sign i¡ títere would be no .carriage between him ru ’ her ibid day. .John Miller did not urge her '-o sign the eon'.rj :t, but she authorized her brotlmr to sign the contract. J did not nee wy signing done that «lay. Knows nothing, &o.</p> <p>Lama Gay's deposition: I saw a contract before Cassa Miller and James M. Reinhart were married, the contract annexed looks to bo the same. I did not witness it or see any one do so. Í do not know whether Reinhart was satisfied or not, did not hear him express himself. I did not see it executed nor did 1 hear it read.</p> <p>Cross Interrogatories. — I know nothing about the contract, only there was a contract before marriage, but where executed and witnessed I am unable to say. She, Cassa Miller, could write her name bid did not do so. I heard her tell her-brother John Miller to sign her name to the contract, and her reasons for telling him to do so, was, she was dressing. Knows not who signed or in what part of Gay’s premises the contract was made, don’t know whether Alexander Wright signed as witness or not; did not sign herself, nor does she know who were parties or witnesses. Lewis Beacham married them. John Miller went after him and returned with him, — does not know who wrote the contract. Saw John Miller have it. Saw uo anxiety to have it signed, nor did I see any urging, it all seemed voluntary.</p> <p>Nathaniel Gay’s deposition": I saw the contract executed) a.nd signed by the said James M." Reinhart, John Miller, and John Miller signed his sister Cassa’s name. I subscribed the same and was present when Lewis Beacham, James M. Reinhart and John Miller signed their names. I canndt write, and authorized John Miller to write my name to it. I made my mark. Lewis Beacham read a portion of the contract and handed it to John Miller who read the balance, it was then handed to James M. Reinhart who had it sometime, and appeared satisfied with its contents, and expressed himself so, and said he did not care for the property, it was not what he wanted. Had property enough of his own. He signed it voluntarily. There was no compulsion and the contract was executed previous to the marriage ceremony.</p> <p>Cross Interrogatories. — I saw a marriage contract executed and believe the annexed to be the same. It was executed at my house in Laurens County, Ga., on or about the Gth day of February, 1853. Lewis Beacham read a portion-(and repeats the answer to the direct interrogatory about reading and handing to Reinhart.) Myself, Lewis Beacham, J. M. Reinhart and John Miller were present outside of the fence and Alexander M. Wright was in the door yard about two or three yards from us. Cassa -did not sign her name, John signed for her. Does not know whether she could write or not. It was signed outside of the yard on a gate post about 25 or 30 yards from the house, and Lewis Beacham, James M. Reinhart, John Miller and myself out side of the yard, and Alexander M. Wright inside of the yard. If he came outside of the yard I did not see him. He did not sign the contract. I signed it and so did Lewis Beacham as witnesses. If Wright signed it I did not see it, nor do I believe it was dpne at my house. Beacham and myself signed as witnesses, Reinhart, Cassa Miller and John Miller as parties. Lewis Beacham married Reinhart and Cassa, and John Miller went after him. I do not know who wrote the contract. John Miller had it in possession as w< 11 as James M. Rein-hart and Lewis Beacham at the time it was signed; and after Reinhart signed it with the others, he handed it to John Miller. I saw no anxiety to have it signed and no urging about it. It all appeared voluntary. I did not see Cassa sign her name. John Miller did so for her. It was at my house in Laurens County about the 6th February, 1853. James M. Reinhart, Beacham, Miller and myself were outside and Wright inside of the fence.</p> <p>Lewis JBeachani’s deposition. — I saw James M. Reinhart sign the contract, also John Miller, and John Miller signed his sister’s name. I subscribed the same as witness, and was present when it was signed. I think the contract hereto annexed to be the same, or at least I believe so. I read a portion of it, handed it to John Miller who read the balance. The contents to the best of my belief are the same. Rein-hart appeared satisfied, and was the first who signed it. If he had any objections, he did not express them in my presence. He signed it voluntarily. The contract was executed before marriage. I believe the signature is mine. If there have been any alterations in the contract I cannot perceive it. It reads to me the same as heretofore; and I believe the marriage contract here annexed, to be the same that I signed.</p> <p>Cross Interrogatories: I saw a marriage contract executed between Reinhart, Cassa Miller and John Miller, as trustee, at the house of Nathaniel Gay, in Laurens County, Georgia. I read a portion of the contract, found some words I could not make out, and handed it to John Miller who read the balance in the presence of, as far as I can recollect, John Miller, Reinhart, Wright and myself; Cassa Miller was not present when the contract was signed. Is unable to say whether she could write her name. The contract was signed outside of Gay’s fence which encloses his house, thirty yards more or less from the house. It was signed by Reinhart first, I saw him sign it in the presence of Wright, Miller and myself. I have-no recollection of any other person being present, though there might have been. I will not swear positively that Wright did sign said contract but to the best of my recollection he did so. I saw Reinhart and John Miller sign their own names, and John Miller sign his sister’s name as parties, and I as witness. I believe the contract to be the same, and that Wright signed as a witness, but I may be mistaken. I performed the marriage ceremony, John Miller came for me. I do not know who wrote the contract, I think Miller showed it to me. It was executed and handed back to him. It was signed by Reinhart voluntarily. There was no anxiety or urging manifested. Cassa Miller was not present. I left all parties apparently friendly and satisfied. Cassa did not sign her name in my presence. I have stated where it was, and it was about the 1st of February, 1853.</p> <p>Defendant then proposed to introduce the following marriage contract, viz:</p> <p>State or Georgia, 1 This Indenture of three parts, Montgomery County. / made and entered into, this February the 5th day, in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and fifty-three, between James M. Reinhart of said State and county of the first part, Cassa Miller of said State aud county of the second part, and John Miller of said. State and county of the third part, wituesseth, that the said James .Vi. Reinhart of the first part, for and in consideration of marriage to be had and solemnized between the said James M. Reinhart of the first part, and the said Cassa Miller of the second part, docs for himscl f, heirs, executors aud administrators, covenant, grant and agree that all the lands that may be given her, the rights, members and appurtenances to said lauds, and three negroes to-wit: Georgiana, a girl about sixteen years of age, Amy a girl, about four years of age; Milly, a girl two years of age, now in the possession of Cassa Miller, and all other property which may at auy time be given said Cassa Miller by her father or other persons, by will or otherwise, shall form and remain to be her separate property, and estate; and shall not in Law or eeprity be subject to the use of James M. Reinhart; and at her death, if leaving no children, to go to her brothers and sisters and in nowise to be subject to the payment of th^ debts of the said James M. Reinhart, or be subject to be sold or conveyed, or in auy manner controlled by him the said James M. Reinhart; but the rights and title of said property shall be rested in said John Miller of the third part for the use and benefit of said Cassa Miller; and said James M. Reinhart further covenants and agrees tliat said Cassa Millei may dispose of said property by will to any person she may appoint, subject however to be used by said James M. Reinhart with the approbation and consent of said John Miller, during the continuance of the coverture, for the mutual benefit and advantage of said James M. Reinhart and Cassa Miller. And the said James M. Reinhart and Cassa Miller, nominate and appoint said John Miller trustee of said property, who is authorized to possess himself of and control said property in conformity with this indenture, and the said John Miller consents and agrees to his said nomination and appointment of trustee as aforesaid.</p> <p>In testimony whereof, the parties of the first, second and third parts have hereunto set their hands and aifixed their seals, the day and year above written.</p> <p>J. M. REINHART, [A. -S'.]</p> <p>CASSA MILLER, [A. -S'.]</p> <p>JOHN MILLER, Jr. [A. V.]</p> <p>Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of his Nathaniel Jxj Gay, mark. Lewis Beacham, J. P.</p> <p>Clerk’s Oeeice, Montgomery County.</p> <p>The within agreement or contract, recorded in Book, P. P. on Folios SO and 81, this November 23d day, 1854.</p> <p>To the admission of which contract in evidence, plaintiif objects upon the following grounds:</p> <p>1st. That there were interlineations apparent upon its face, and defendant must explain them before he can have the use of the deed in evidence.</p> <p>2d. ’ That as it was apparent from the deed and the admissions of defendant, that John Miller had signed his sister’s name, the defendant could not introduce the contract, (a written and sealed instrument,) in evidence, until he had first proven that Miller had been authorized by his sister to sign her name to the contract, which authority, if she was not present at the time of executing the contract, must be shown by a writing under hand and seal.</p> <p>And 3d. That the contract had not been recorded in the county of the husband’s residence, as is by statute required.</p> <p>All of which grounds were overruled and the instrument was admitted.</p> <p>Defendant here closed.</p> <p>Plaintiff offered in rebuttal, the depositions of Green T. Kellam, who knows the parties, asked Miller who wrote the contract, said he did from Cobb’s Forms. Boarded at the house of John and Cassa Miller’s father about five months. Knows the. negroes. They were claimed by Mrs. Cassa Rein-hart. They were in the possession of James M. Reinhart. The negro woman Georgiana worked on his farm. If the bill of sale to said negro was in possession of Reinhart, Miller said he would have to give it up to him, and Reinhart did give it up rather than have a difficulty. I heard John Miller, Sr., say that he had given said negro to Mrs. Reinhart.</p> <p>Cross Interrogatories: Did live at the house of Miller, Sen.; Miller, Jr., resided there. Flis property was there so far as I know. It was his house. He superintended the hands of his father. I did not know the negro Georgiana to work on any other than Reinhart’s farm. I knew the hands of Miller, Sr. to work sometimes on Reinhart’s farm. The other negro woman of Miller, Sen. did wait on Mrs. Reinhart I never knew Reinhart to say he did not claim title to said negroes.</p> <p>Lewis Beacham, sworn, says: The contract was signed outside of the yard, twenty-five or thirty yards from the house, never saw Cassa Miller till she came into the house to be married. She was not present at the signing, nor did witness hear her give John Miller any authority to sign her name for her, saw Reinhart sign and signed himself as a witness. To the best of witnesses’ belief and recollection, Wright was present when the contract was signed, and was a subscribing witness. Wright asked some question about the seal to Reinhart’s name. Did not recollect whether Gay was present; but it seemed reasonable that if Gay had been present, witness could not have forgotten it, as he (witness) and Gay were not on speaking terms with each other; had no recollection of seeing Gay till he stepped in at the back door towards the kitchen, which was after the instrument had been signed, and the witness had gone to and taken his seat in the house. If Gay’s name had been .on the instrument at the time of witness signing it, witness thought he ought to have recollected it. He might have signed, but if so witness does not recollect it. John Miller with John Currie came to witness’ house after Mrs. Reinhart’s death, and asked witness if he remembered who were the subscribing witnesses to the contract. Witness answered Wright and myself. Miller replied no, you are mistaken, dont you remember it was Gay and yourself? Witness answered no, I do not so recollect. The interrogatories were executed in Miller’s house. He was requested by commissioners to leave the room before any questions were answered. Doors of the room where commissioners were situated were not closed. Miller had no conversation with witness.</p> <p>Cross-Examined. — The signature to the marriage contract offered in evidence by defendant, looked like witness,’ but he could not say it was or it was not. Said he would not deny it; when asked if he believed it to be his signature, he said it looked like his, and he could not deny it. (Did not know that Cassa was ou the plantation at the time, of signing the contract.) He said in a few minutes after signing said contract as aforesaid, he went into the house and performed the marriage ceremony for said James M. and Cassa.</p> <p>Arthur Davis sworn, on the opening of the case by the plaintiff, answered to the cross examination, that he heard Reinhart say there was a marriage contract between himself and his wife.</p> <p>Here the testimony closed on both sides; and after argument of counsel, the court was by plaintiffs requested to charge, inter alia:</p> <p>1st. That defendant cannot hold under the marriage contract, if it was not recorded in the county of the husband’s residence, in compliance with the statute.</p> <p>2d. That a deed conveying real estate must be recorded before it can be properly admitted in evidence.</p> <p>íSoL That “ where the act of the agent was by deed the ratification also must in general be by deed.”</p> <p>4th. That all sealed instruments must be signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of two witnesses ; and that if neither of the attesting witnesses heard Cassa Miller authorize John Miller to sign the contract for her, and that if in that case its execution has not been proved to be in her presence, nor to have been where she could see it at the time it was executed, it is not a case of constructive presence.</p> <p>5th. That this instalment should have been signed by all the parties thereto in the presence of the attesting witnesses, or that the witnesses should have heard the authority given to others by the parties to sign for them. And</p> <p>t>th. That to be a constructive presence, Cassa Miller must have been in view of the parties and witnesses at the time of the execution of the instrument, and the witnesses must have heard the authority given for the signing.</p> <p>All of which requests to charge, his Honor, Judge Fleming, refused; and instead thereof did charge, inter alia :</p> <p>1st. That others than the subscribing witnesses to a deed, may prove the authority given to a third party for its execution.</p> <p>2d. That the authority given by one to another to sign a deed may be proved by others than the attesting witnesses to the deed.</p> <p>3d. That it was not necessary for Cassa Miller, after authorizing her brother to sign her name to the contract, to be herself in view of the other parties and witnesses; nor for the attesting witness to hear the authority given; nor for her to have seen the signing. And</p> <p>4th. That it was not necessary, under the peculiar circumstances of this case as disclosed by the testimony, for John Miller’s authority to sign his sister’s name to be in writing, or to have been given in the hearing of the subscribing witnesses.</p> <p>Whereupon the cause was submitted to the jury, and a verdict found for defendant.</p> <p>And counsel for plaintiff now moves for a new trial, on the following grounds, to wit:</p> <p>1st. That his Honor, Judge Fleming, erred in the several charges and refusals to charge above stated.</p> <p>2d. That he erred in admitting said marriage contract in evidence, without having the party introducing it to explain the interlineations apparent upon its face; and in holding that the law presumed the interlineations to have been made before the execution of the deed, and that it was incumbent on the party attacking the deed to show the contrary.</p> <p>3d. That he erred in refusing to admit the testimony of Charles L. Holmes, who was offered to prove that he had had a conversation with Alexander M. Wright, now deceased, shortly after the marriage of Mr. Reinhart and Miss Miller, and before the commencement of any suits, for the property embraced in said contract, and that Wright told him he was a subscribing witness to the contract.</p> <p>4th. That his Honor erred in stating in the hearing of the jury, that if it was proven that Cassa came to the door while dressing and told her brother to sign for her, it was a sufficient presence j and that as it was in evidence, that she had said she would not marry plaintiff unless he signed the instrument, and it being admitted that they did marry, it raised a strong presumption that the contract toas executed before marriage; because these were questions of fact, and should have been left to the finding of the Jury without any expression of opinion from his Honor, as to what had or had not been proven.</p> <p>5 th. That his Honor erred in refusing plaintiff’s motion for a continuance, sought on the imperfect execution of interrogatories, if he did so, on the ground that the exceptions to the sufficiency of the answers and to the manner of executing the interrogatories, came too late; as plaintiff not having introduced, or offered to introduce, any testimony, and not having opened his case to the jury, did not consider the case before them.</p> <p>6th. That the verdict is contrary to evidence, and to the principles of justice and equity.</p> <p>The Court overruled the motion for a new trial, and plaintiff excepted.</p>

Scire Facias, to forfeit recognizance, in Columbia Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at September Term, 1856. This was a scire facias issued at the instance and suit of the State, against James C. Adams principal, and William Adams security, upon a recognizance alleged to have been forfeited. The principal, James C. Adams, had been arrested under a warrant issued upon the oath of Robert Frank, for an assault and battery committed upon said Frank.

In equity, in Liberty Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Fleming, at chambers, 14th May, 18/J7, This bill was filed by William A. Sheppard, David W. Sheppard, and Rosa E. Sheppard, minor children of David B. M. Sheppard, by Simon A. Fraser, their next friend, against the said David B. M. Sheppard, administrator of Mary E. Sheppard, deceased, late wife of said defendant, and the mother of complainants.

Trover, in Richmond Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at October Term, 1856. This was an action of trover, brought originally by Oswell E. Cashin, administrator of Gazaway Beale, deceased, against Charles T. Beale, for the recovery of three negro slaves, alleged to be the property of the intestate.

<p>ilia instrument was substantially as follows: “Know all men by these presents, Shat I, James B. Carter, for and in consideration of the natural love and affection which I bear unto my children, (naming them,) and for their better preferment in life, and the increase of their portion, and also in consideration of the sum of ten dollars, to me in hand paid by my children at and before the sealing and delivery hereof, the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, have given, grained, bargained and sold, and by tóese presents, do give, grant, bargain and sell, unto my children, all the property hereafter named, to bo --equally divided between them at my death, to-wit: (divers negroes,) to have and to hold all of the property hereby given and granted unto them, iheir heirs, executors, and administrators, forever, as their own property; .also, I do hereby appoint my son-in-law guardian for myself and children, during my natural life: Nevertheless, if any of my children should marry or -come of age during uiy life-time, then they are to draw their equal shares of suy estate as heretofore mentioned.</p> <p>witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this, 12th day of September. 1637.</p> <p>JAMES B. CARTEE, [L. 8.]</p> <p>in presence of</p> <p>James S. Fuller,</p> <p>John R. Stanford.”</p> <p>.fflitd. That this instrument was not a will.</p>

<p>Motion to distribute Funds, in Chatham Superior Court. Decision by Judge Fleming, May Term, 1857.</p> <p>Statement of facts agreed upon by counsel.</p> <p>The plaintiffs brought their action in Chatham Superior Court against the defendants as co-partners — Heman A. Crane and Lewis W. Wells acknowledging service in Chatham county, and Richard Curd, the third co-partner, acknowledging service on second original sued out for Bibb County — and at the present term obtained judgment for <$10,000. Summons of garnishment was served on Scranton, Johnson & Co., and they now bring into Court, under their return, $3,440.</p> <p>After suit brought and garnishment served as above stated, the defendants being indebted to the Planters Bank, and the Merchants and Planters Bank, each in large sums of money, with the knowledge and consent of said Banks, divided the debts into sums of $500 each, so that suits could be brought on them to the city Court of Savannah, and judgments obtained at the then next term of said Court; on the 14th of January, 1857, they gave their promissory notes, payable one day after date, to their own order, and by them endorsed and delivered to said Banks for the amount of their indebtedness. On the 19th of January, the said Banks being the real owners, hut using the name of Hiram Roberts, Isaac W. Morrell, G. Foote, Hugh W. Mercer, George W. Wylly, George W. Anderson, and the Planters Bank of the State of Georgia, brought seven several suits to the Febuary Term, 1857, of the city Court of Savannah, describing the co-partners, Heman A. Crane, Lewis W. Wells, and Richard Curd, as of said city, the two former being actually residents of Savannah, but the said Richard Curd, being then and at the time of suit brought by the Bank of Savannah, a citizen of Georgia, resident in Bibb County, though not known to be so by the Banks last sueing. On these suits Heman A. Crane and Lewis W. Wells acknowledged service in person and a return was made by the Sheriff of the city Court that Richard Curd was not to be found in his bailiwick: — judgments were rendered on said seven suits, February 2d, 1857, to bind the individual property of Heman A. Crane and Lewis W. Wells, and the co-partnership property of Crane, Wells & Co. It is admitted that these suits were brought in the city Court, with reference to the fund which had been stopped by Garnishment, and for the purpose chiefly of claiming this fund by prior judgments ; but the judgments were founded upon bona fide debts, intended to bind all the property of the defendants according to law, and to be used and coni rolled by the plaintiffs without any reservation whatever. The fund paid in by the Garnishees is now claimed by these judgments.</p> <p>Upon this statement of facts the question of distribution is submitted to the Court, with leave to either party to carry up.</p> <p>LLOYD & OWENS,</p> <p>Attorneys for Bank of Savannah, LAWTON & BASINGER,</p> <p> Attorneys for other parties. </p> <p>The facts being thus agreed upon and submitted, the presiding Judge decided that the judgments obtained in the city Court were good, and being of prior date to the judgment of the Bank of Savannah, took the whole fund to the exclusion of that judgment, and ordered the same to be distributed and paid out accordingly.</p> <p>To which order and decision the Bank of Savannah excepted.</p>

In Equity, in Burke Superior Court. Decision by Judge Holt, at May Term, 1857. This case was heard upon bill and an. wer.

Assumpsit, in Chatham Superior Court. Decision by Judge Fleming, at May Term, 1S57. The plaintiffs, Hand, Williams & Cc,,sued out bail process in assumpsit against Charles E. Greenville and William T. Sample, partners in trade, under the firm of Greenville & Sample, for the sum off635 36, alleged to be due on account, to which was attached an affidavit for bail.

<p>Murder, in Appling Superior Court. Tried before Judge Cochran, at May Term, 1857.</p> <p>John McPherson was indicted for the murder of James Carter. The killing took place in the county of Appling, on the night of the 22d January, 1857.</p> <p>The prisoner pleaded not guilty. After the testimony was closed, and the charge of the Court given, the jury retired and returned a verdict of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act.</p> <p>The prisoner moved for a new trial; which motion the Court refused, and his counsel thereupon excepts, and tenders his bill of exceptions.</p> <p>The substance of the evidence, and all the grounds of exception, are so fully stated and set out in the decision of the Court, that it is unnecessary to re-state them here.</p> <p>• The facts of the case, and the legal questions made and adjudicated, will fully appear from the following opinion.</p>

Trover, in Ware Superior Court. Tried before Judge Cochran, at December, Term, 1856. This was an action of Trover by Iiemrick Meek, (as the next friend of his wife, Sythia Meek and her children) against Francis T. Holton, £ >r the recovery of a negro woman named Piety, and her two children. The defendant pleaded: 1st. The general issue. 2d. The statute of limitations.

Indictment for larceny from the person, in Richmond Superior Court. Tried before Judge Holt, at April Term, 1857 The defendant, Hensley J. Thomasson was indicted for stealing from the person of Joseph W. Varner a large amount of the Bills of the Mechanics Bank of Augusta. The of-fence was charged to have been committed in a room occupied by Varner at the United States Hotel in the city of Augusta, on the night of the 2Oth February, 1856.

In Equity from Glynn Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Cochran, at April Term, 1857. The following is the bill and exhibits filed by complain.ants in this cause, and to which defendants demurred. Georgia, Glynn County. To the Honorable the Judge of the Superior Court of the Brunswick Circuit of the State of Georgia, having jurisdiction in Equity.

<p>[1.] If evidence be taken by commission, the case in which it is taken need not be stated in the caption to the answers, if it be stated in the heading of the interrogatories, and is set forth in the commission, and all attached together, are enveloped and sent by mail.</p> <p>[2:] If a contract is to be construed otherwise than literally expressed, there must be something apparent in the evidence to justify the Court in so interpreting it.</p> <p>[3.] Party making a special contract must comply with it. He cannot voluntarily abandon it against the consent of the opposite party, and recover on a common count, ordinarily.</p>

<p>Indictment for murder in Dougherty Superior Court. Tried before Judge Allen, June Term, 1857.</p> <p>Randal S. Jordan was indicted for the murder of a negro girl named Mariah, the property of John H. Dawson.</p> <p>Prisoner’s counsel moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that it was not alleged, that the slave was not in a state of revolt, or the killing did not happen while inflicting moderate correction.</p> <p>The Court overruled the motion, and prisoner excepted.</p> <p>After reading the indictment, and before any testimony was introduced, prisoner’s counsel moved for a verdict of not guilty, on the grounds that the indictment showed that the crime was committed in the County of Baker ; and did not charge that the killing did not take place while there was an insurrection or revolt, or that the death did not happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction.</p> <p>The Court overruled the motion and prisoner excepted.</p> <p>In making up the jury, prisoner’s counsel moved to pirt John S. Moreman upon triors, and to be allowed to prove that said juror had formed and expressed fixed opinions, and proposed to introduce the juror himself, to prove that fact, and to ask him if he had not formed and expressed a fixed opinion. Counsel stating that the juror himself was the only person by whom they could prove the fact, within their knowledge.</p> <p>The Court refused the motion, and put the juror upon the prisoner, and his counsel excepted.</p> <p>The prisoner put Robert Bears upon triors, and with the consent of the State, asked him, if he was not a partner of John H. Dawson, the prosecutor, and if he had not had frequent conversations with him and others, and if from these conversations he had not formed an opinion which he now entertained ? to all of which he answered in the affirmative. The counsel for the State then asked him if he would not be governed entirely by the evidence and find a verdict accordingly ? To which question counsel for prisoner objected, and the Court overruled the objection, and the juror answered that he would. Prisoner’s counsel then asked him if it would not take a greater amount of evidence to remove that opinion than if he had heard nothing about the-matter ? He replied, that perhaps it might. Prisoner’s counsel objected: to his being put upon prisoner, the Court overruled the objection, and held the juror competent, and prisoner excepted-</p> <p>James Harletl, a juror, being called, was asked by prisoner’s counsel (before the oath prescribed by Act oí 1856, was. administered to him) if he was not born without the limits of the United States ? To which he replied that he was; counsel for the State asked him, if he had not been naturalized, and exercised the rights of a citizen ? To which question prisoner objected. The Court overruled the objection, and the juror answered that he had, upon which the Court pronounced him competent, and he was put upon the prisoner and challenged, and prisoner excepted.</p> <p>There were but forty-seven jurors put upon prisoner in the last panel, the prisoner not knowing it until afterwards, when the name oí John Rutland, one of the forty-eight was calledT and he failed to answer, and was not in the Court-House at the time the panel was put on prisoner. He was sent for?, and being brought in, was asked if he was put upon prisoner with the other forty-seven; he replied that he was not. Prisoner objected to the array on this ground. The Court overruled the objection, and the juror was put upon prisoner,, but disqualified himself on the question as to partiality, and prisoner excepted.</p> <p>The jury being made up, the following evidence was submitted on the part of the State.</p> <p>'Mien T. Mallard, testified, that he knew a negro girl by the name of Mariah, the property of John H. Dawson, and was present at her death on the 23d July, 1853, in then Baker, now Dougherty county. Defendant was overseeing for Dawson on the plantation of Dawson & Collier at the time. Mariah was taken and brought to witness by another negro girl, and he gave her up to J ordan, who took her and whipped her some time with a strap; thought Jordan was excitedi and after he had whipped her a while, called to him to stop; don’t know whether he heard or not; he continued whipping her awhile longer, and then let her up. She had been dropping peas and had a vessel to drop from, and after he let her up, she went towards the vessel, and, as she went defendant continued to strap her, following . after her as she went towards the corn, and directly, witness heard some of the negroes who were working in the field hollow out; “Mr. Jordan has killed Mariah.” When witness came up to her, she was dying, or had fainted, and had a white froth on her lips. Jordan remarked, that he thought she was “possoming.” Witness said he thought not. Jordan then sent after Du Dickinson, and made a negro boy take Mariah to the house. When she arrived there, if not dead, she could not breathe as far as witness could see. They put mustard to her wrists and ankles, and witness started home and met Dr. Postell, who had been sent for. Witness returned with him and when he reached the house, the girl was perfectly dead. Witness had been gone only a few minutes, not more than five or ten; thinks it was not more than fifteen minutes from the time they left the field. The whipping took place in the field. Witness was some five steps off when Jordan began to whip the girl, not more than ten steps. The girl was not confined; ■Jordan had her down on the ground; he would push her -down. The strap was a leather one, very thick; commencing at the butt three ply, and after eight or ten' inches two ply, and then one ply; the strap had a leather handle; was-made of sole leather; cannot say how thick. Jordan held her sometime in one position and then in another, whipping - her sometime in one place and then in another. Does not know how old she was; she was not twenty years old; large enough to plow; was about half grown. Witness thought he called to Jordan loud enough for him to hear; he spoke low, because he did not want the negroes to hear him. Jordan would sometimes turn her on her all fours; sometimes on her belly; sometimes had her head down, and sometimes up; don’t know how long he was whipping her; it may have been half an hour, probably not so long. He had her head confined at one time; does not recollect his placing her head between his legs. When he had her head under his knees, he held on to her clothes. When he let her up she appeared sullen, as if she would not do what she was told; she staggered a little as she went off. Jordan strapped her sometimes on her back and sometimes on her hips. The girl was twenty or forty yards off when witness came up. Jordan was walking beside another negro, who appeared determined to go where the girl was lying, and appeared to be attempting to keep him off; thinks he struck the negro boy with his strap ; the boy was named Spencer. Does not know what he struck him for; the boy had disobeyed Jordan’s orders, and was trying to come where the girl was lying. Spencer was the girl’s father as witness thinks. Mariah was lying down when witness saw Jordan with Spencer. The straps could be heard by witness; he cannot say how long it was after the strapping commenced before he heard the cry that “Mariah was dead.” Spencer was not working far from where the girl was, and when witness got up there, he was up very close. Cannot say how many licks Jordan gave her. Witness was excited and might not make a correct estimate, but thinks there was between four hundred and a thousand. The strap made a great deal of noise, but cannot say how hard they were, as they usually make a great noise. The girl seemed to be suffering great pain. Does not think it was an hour from the time ,the whipping began, till she died When she was carried and delivered to .Jordan, she seemed to be well. Witness had not whipped her while in his possession.</p> <p>Cross-Examined. — Cannot say how many lashes were inflicted; there was nothing extraordinary in the way the girl was held, as far as witness saw. There was nothing unusual in the way she acted when she was whipped ; when she went off she looked sullen or bewildered, or determined not to do what she was told. Jordan remarked to witness when he came up, that she was playing possum. Does not know how long Jordan had been there; he had been there but a short time. Thinks he has seen Mr. Collier one of the partners with the strap. Does not know that it is a common thing to use such things. He never saw but one before. They are used to keep from drawing blood like a cowhide; never used one. Thinks a person using one might hurt a negro worse than he had any idea of.</p> <p>Re-Examined by State. — The difference between the straps commonly used, and the one Jordan, used is, that his was much heavier. It happened about 11 o’clock in the morning; it was very warm. Corn was growing in the field, and it was as high as witness’ head; this fact made the field much more oppressive and hot. Witness did not say he saw that strap in Mr. Collier’s hands, but one like it. It was frequently carried by him at his saddle.</p> <p>Re-Examined by Defenee. — It is not the habit of the country where an overseer is placed upon a plantation for the owner to leave the whip upon the place, and the overseer generally has the whip that is given to him, and .if his employer had a preference would use it. Thinks he saw the strap which Jordan had in Mr. Collier’s hand or at his saddle.</p> <p>Re-Examined by State. — Is not an overseer now, but was at the time of this occurrence.</p> <p>Again by Defence. — Was overseeing at the time on the plantation of Col. Lawton. Does not know the extent of the girl’s exhaustion at the time she was brought in. She was brought in as a, runaway.</p> <p>Capt. N. R. Roberts — Saw the negro girl at Dawson’s house after she was dead. Was on the inquest. She was in the piazza; had the appearance of having been severely whipped; she seemed to have been cut to the bone on the thigh, and the wounds were filled with clotted blood; was the worst whipped girl he ever saw; examined her back and found no gashes. It was extremely hot, in July; thinks she was about thirteen years old. The strap seemed to be three double? thinks there ought to be a great difference made in the correction of negroes, and would not think of whipping a girl of that size with more than a switch. Dawson and Collier were both absent. Jordan was present at the inquest. The girl was cut on the thigh by Mr. Keaton, to see how far she was cut, and it was black and blue, and filled with clotted blood. •</p> <p>Cross-Examined, — Would not keep such an instrument on his place as the strap he saw. The thigh was cut by Keaton at or about the time the physician’s were present; would not use such a strap even if the owner of the place had given it to him. Witness could have killed a three-year old bull with it. If the owner of the place had ordered the overseer to use such a strap, he probably would have been expected to obey orders.</p> <p>. A young man with such an instrument in his hands might do much more harm than he was intending to do. Would not suffer such a strap to be used on his place.</p> <p>Re-Examined. — Would not have whipped any sort of a negro with such a strap. Any man of common sense ought to know that a negro ought not to be whipped with such a strap, and if whipped with such a one it ought to be given very lightly.</p> <p>Dr. John T. Dickinson. — Witness is a practicing physician; was sent for by Mr. Jordan in July, 1853, to see Mariah, a negro girl, at the plantation of Mr. Dawson. She was dead when he saw her; seemed to have been whipped to death; the blows were inflicted on her back, thighs and belly; she was bruised all over. The bruises were down to the muscles. The blood was clotted in places. The whipping was the principal cause of her death.</p> <p>Cross Examined. — Witness and Dr. Postell made a very careful post-mortem examination. They opened the scull. The whipping seemed to be the immediate cause of her death, and to have produced the rushing of the blood to the head, which was the cause of her death. She seemed to have died from appoplexy, caused by the whipping. Other causes produce this rushing of blood to the head; running or exercise might cause it: it being somewhat a matter of uncertainty, which might have caused this appoplexy. The brain disclosed the fact that she died from appoplexy.</p> <p>Re-Examined by State. — A person whose throat is cut or stabbed to the heart, dies of hemorrage; this negro he thinks, died from the whipping.</p> <p>Re-Examined by Defence. — Appoplexy is produced by various causes. Thinks the whipping or the position the negro was in while receiving the whipping, was the cause of this attack. Appoplexy is produced by various causes, and cannot state what position the negro was in while being whipped.</p> <p>The jury found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and recommended him to the mercy of the Court.</p> <p>A motion was made in arrest oí judgment:</p> <p>1st. Because the indictment does not charge that the killing did not take place while the slave was in a state of revolt or insurrection, and did not happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction.</p> <p>2d. Because the indictment does not charge the offence to have been committed in the county of Dougherty, but shows that it was committed in the county of Baker, or in that portion of Dougherty which was then Baker, at the time the ofFence was committed.</p> <p>The Court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>A motion was then made for a new trial, on the grounds taken in the motion for arrest of judgment and upon the rulings and decisions excepted to in the formation of the jury above stated, and further:</p> <p>Because the jury found contrary to law.</p> <p>Because the jury found contrary to evidence.</p> <p>Because the jury found contrary to law and evidence.</p> <p>Because the Court erred in charging the jury that it made no difference whether the owner of the slave furnished the instrument with which the killing took place, or not, he havihg admitted that the instrument was furnished by the employer; — which charge had a tendency to weaken the defence and was an expression of an opinion as to what had been pro ven.</p> <p>Because the Court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness, Mallard, as to the prisoner whipping Spencer, the prisoner objecting, and the Court overruling the objection.</p> <p>Because the jury found contrary to law and evidence in this, that they found voluntary manslaughter, which from the evidence could not be true.</p> <p>Because the Act of 1799, under which defendant was tried, is repealed by the Penal Code of 1833.</p> <p>The Court refused the motion for a new trial, and defendant excepted.</p>

In Equity, in Sumter Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, at March Term, 1857. This was a bill filed by Jesse Hardy, Peter Faust, and Andrew J. Williams, complainants against John W. Fletcher, Sterling Glover and others. The bill sets forth that one Eason Smith was appointed .administrator of Noah Golding, deceased, and that complainants with one James K. Daniel, since dead, became his sureties.

Foreclosure and Claim, in Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Worrill, May Term, 1857. This case was heard upon the following agreed statement of facts. James D. Williford executed to plaintiff’s in f. fa., a mortgage upon a certain house and lot in the City of Columbus, dated 1st January, 1854. This mortgage was foreclosed and the mortgage fi. fa. issued 1st July 1856.

Claim in Sumter Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, at March Term, 1857. The Sheriff of Sumter connly, by virtue of ay?, fa. issued, at the suit of Henry N. Ells vs. Mize & Dupree, levied on two billiard tables as the property of defendants. Francis M. Mize interposed his claim to the property levied on, and' the case was submitted to a ju cy.

Complaint and motion for new trial, in Baker Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, at December Term, 1856. This was an action by Elizabeth Musgrove, administratrix of Kinchen Musgrove, deceased, for the use of another, against Benjamin 0. Keaton, on the following instrument, to-wit: “ This is to certify that I have this day traded for a note on Needham Collier, principal, $800.

Debt on Ca. Sa. Bond, in Dougherty Superior Court. Decision by Judge Powers, at December Term, 1856. Held: that the ground taken in the affidavit was insufficient — overruled and dismissed the same, and ordered the fi.fa. to proceed; and counsel for Swinney, excepted.

Ejectment in Terrell Superior Court. Decision by Judge ICiddoo, March 1857. ’ This was an action of ejectment.

<p>Action for recovery of land, in Baker. Tried before Judge Allen, at May Term, 1857.</p> <p>David B. Burke instituted his action, under the form, prescribed by the Act of 1847, against Benj. R. Smith and Samuel J. Smith, for the recovery of lot of land No. 281, in the 8th district of Baker county.</p> <p>William G. Brown and the Smiths, filed their bill in Equity to enjoin this action. The bill set forth, that said lot of land was purchased by William Burke, the fa-ther of the plaintiff, from one Seth C. Stevens, in the year 1844, who paid the full consideration money, but that titles to the same were executed by Stevens, to David B. Burke, the plaintiff, an infant son of William Burke. That the conveyance although absolute on its face, was intended for the use and benefit of the father, who went into possession and made improvements, and with his family resided on the place, until the year 1847, when he sold it to one William S. Kea; Kea sold it to his brother Francis D. Kea, in 1848; Francis D. sold in 1850, to William G. Brown, who on the 26th December, 1850, sold the same to the defendants in the action at law, and who are now in possession of the premises.</p> <p>The bill further alleges that all the foregoing conveyances were bona fide and for valuable consideration, and that complainant Brown had no knowledge or notice of David B. Burke’s claim or title, when he purchased from Kea.</p> <p>The answer of David B. Burke, admits the conveyance of the premises from and to the different parties as set forth in the bill; and at the time of the execution of the deed from Stevens, that he, defendant, was a minor, about fifteen years of age! But he avers that he went with his father into pos- • session of the land, and that the same was paid for by his own funds, and not by his father. Fie further charges that all the purchasers had notice of his title, and that the same was recorded in the proper office, within less than twelve months from the date of its execution, and that said deed passed from his father to Kea, and to all the subsequent purchasers successively. He denies that said land was conveyed by Stevens for the use or benefit of his father; admits the pendency of the action at law, and denies all combination, &c.</p> <p>The action at law, and the Equity cause were tried together, and submitted to a special jury, on the appeal.</p> <p>Complainants swore Seth C. Stevens, who testified, that William Burke contracted with him for the purchase of the land: Gave his notes for the purchase money and took a bond vfor titles, and that he subsequently paid him for the land with •his own funds, and took the deed to his son, David B. Burke, ¡then a minor about fifteen years old, saying at the time, that fe desired the deed made this way, so that he could not spend it, and that he might have a permanent home for himself and family. William S. Kea, had notice of David B. Burke’s title, when he bought.</p> <p>• James George, testified, that the Smiths took possession about the 1st of January, 185,1; about seventy-five acres then cleared and in cultivation. William Burke put the first improvement on the lot; built the houses and cleared some thirty or forty acres of land ; kept possession of it about three or four years before he sold it; heard him say while in possession, that he had given the lot to his son David, who was a minor, living with his father. William Burke is now dead. Heard Benj. R. Smith say that he had notice of David Burke’s title before he purchased the lot.</p> <p>Francis D. Kea, testified, that he is of opinion that he will not be liable on his warranty deed to Brown, if his title should fail; when he bought the land from his brother William S. Kea, he had heard of David Burke’s title to the lot— He sold the land in the summer of 1850, to Brown, and took his note for the purchase money #1,117; #600 to be paid on the malting of a deed, and ,the balance on time, and gave his bond for titles.- That after this, and before he executed title, he wrote to Brown who resides in Wilkinson county and who was a stranger in the county of Baker, giving him notice of David Burke’s title, and proposing to rescind the ¡trade, if he desired it, which letter Brown admitted that he received; that when Brown came down in December, 1850, he again told him of this title, and offered to let him off, but Brown insisted on the performance of the contract, &c.</p> <p>It was admitted that William Burke paid for the land by .a transfer to Stevens, of a negro.</p> <p>The jury found for the plaintiff, David B. Burke, the.preanises in dispute and cost of suit.</p> <p>Defendants moved for a new trial on the following grounds:</p> <p>1st. Because the Court erred in admitting the testimony of Francis D. Kea, a witness interested in the event of the suit.</p> <p>gd. Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.</p> <p>3d. Because the Court erred in charging the jury that defendant’s were not entitled to recover, if they had notice of David Burke’s title before their respective purchases, and'’ that they were affected with notice if received at any time before the payment of the purchase money, unless they should believe from the evidence, that the deed was made to David B. Burke for the use of his father, and not as an advancement to David, in which event they should find for the defendants.</p> <p>4th. Because the verdict was contrary to the charge of the Court.</p> <p>The motion for a new trial was refused on all the grounds therein taken ; and defendants excepted.</p>

<p>Assumpsit, and motion for new trial, from Baker Superior Court. Tried before Judge Allen, at May Term, 1857.</p> <p>This was an action brought by William P. Jones, against Benjamin B. Keaton, administrator of Joseph J. Montgomery, deceased, for the recovery of #610 25, for work done for, and cash lent to intestate, &c. as per bill of particulars annexed to the declaration.</p> <p>Brief of Evidence — For Plaintiff.</p> <p>James J. Keaton, swore that he gave a note to plaintiff for #187 50, and he paid said note to William W. Cheever; he could not read, and does not know how the note was payable; it was traded by the intestate, Joseph J. Montgomery to Cheever — the note was given to Jones in a negro trade.</p> <p>Sam. B. Wright, swore that plaintiff went on the river as a box hand for defendant two or three trips from Newton to Apalachicola, and that he took about fourteen days to make a trip, and a box hand was worth about a dollar per day. That plaintiff worked on a house for defendant, the building of which was worth seventy-five dollars; does not know how long he worked on the house, and there were other parties at work on the house at the time; plaintiff’s work on the house was worth a dollar a day.</p> <p>Newton B. Shult, swore that plaintiff worked for defendant on the river as much as two trips to Apalachicola, and it took on an average eleven days to make the trip, and a hand was worth about #1 per day. That plaintiff hewed timber for two boxes worth $10 a piece, and built a house worth seventy-five dollars. It was usual for employers of hands on the river to pay their expenses at Apalachicola. Montgomery admitted in his life-time, that he had about $100 of plaintiff’s money in his hands. That Jones made Montgomery a keeper of his money and papers; a sort of guardian. Plaintiff here closed.</p> <p> For Defendant: </p> <p>dibraham Carlisle, examined by commission, answers, that he knows the parffes; that he had a conversation with plaintiff a .short time after Montgomery’s death, in which plaintiff said in substance, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him, that he, Montgomery was owing him but very little; he said that he was behind with him for work on his, Montgomery’s, dwelling house, twenty-five or thirty-five dollars, and with his, plaintiff’s, grocery, but not much; though he did not state the exact amount. Upon enquiry as to Montgomery’s indebtedness for work done on the river, he replied that he was not behind with him, plaintiff, anything; it was but little. Joseph Montgomery died between the 5th and 8th of January, 1854; it may be 1853, and now I think, that was the time; and in Newton, Georgia. The conversation with plaintiff was a short time after Montgomery’s death; a few days after; and it was at my (witness) house in Newton; witness’ wife and children were in the house; no one else was present I spoke nothing of a settlement, except that Montgomery had settled up with him about all, for work on the river; stated no precise amount due him, only as to the $25 or $30 due for work on the house; he said nothing of anything being due him from Montgomery for cash loaned, and for notes and cash deposited with him for safe keeping; nothing as to any other indebtedness than as before stated. Said nothing as to how or when Montgomery paid him. I am friendly with Jones; there is no person present at the taking of these depositions except the commissioners and myself.</p> <p>Plaintiff in reply, introduced James Johnson, who swore, that he was acquainted with the character of Abraham Car-lisle while he lived in Newton, and that he had none for truth and veracity; he could°not swear that he would believe him on his oath in a Court of justice.</p> <p>The jury found for the plaintiff four hundred and five dollars.</p> <p>The defendant moved for a new trial, on the following grounds:</p> <p>1st. Because, the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the jury to find a verdict for the sum of four hundred and five dollars in favor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>2d. Because the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the jury to find a verdict for the sum of $187, the amount alleged byfplaintiff as having been collected by defendant’s intestate, on a note belonging to plaintiff, and made by James J. Keaton in a negro trade.</p> <p>3d. Because the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a finding for the plaintiff a greater sum than $22, for work done on the river by plaintiff</p> <p>4th. Because the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a finding for the plaintiff for any amount, unless the plaintiff had successfully discredited the witness Carlisle, whose testimony was introduced by defendant.</p> <p>5th. Because the witness Carlisle was not discredited by plaintiff.</p> <p>6th. Because the jury found contrary to evidence, and to the weight of evidence.</p> <p>The Courtjgranted the motion, and plaintiff by his counsel excepts, and assigns the same as error.</p>

Complaint in Lee Superior Court, before Judge Allen, April Term, 185.7, This was an action, brought under the form prescribed by Act of 1847, by William J. Strawn, against defendants, on the following instrument, to-wit: “ By the 6th day of April next, we, or either of us, promise to pay to Elbert Pitman, or bearer, four hundred and ninety-seven dollars, if by that time the meeting honse for which this note is given, is completed according to the contract signed by said…

<p>A mere verbal order by a plaintiff to a Justice of the Peace to dismiss certain judgments in his favor, which is not in point of fact done, does not invalidate said judgments, or the executions issuing thereon.</p>

In Equity, from Decatur Superior Court. Decision on demurrer, by Judge Allen, at Chambers, May 1857.

In Equity in Webster Superior Court. Tried before Judge Ksddoo, April Term, 1857. This bill was filed by Butt L. Cato, against William Johnston, administrator of John A. Lyon, deceased, to enjoin an action at law, and to have certain notes delivered up and can-celled.

Ejectment in Dougherty Superior Court. Tried before Judge Allen, May Term, 1857. The only question in this case, arises upon the rejection by the Court of certain evidence offered by the plaintiff. It was admitted that defendant was in possession of the premises in dispute, at the commencement of the suit. Plaintiff offered the grant from the State of Georgia, to Donald McDonald, for the lot in controversy — No. 71, in 1st district of Dougherty county.

Probate of Will. Appeal from Ordinaiy, in Lee Superior Court Decision by Judge Alien, March Term, 1857.

Attachment and motion for new trial, in Lee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, March Term, 1S57.

Motion to pay over funds to Receiver, in Sumter. Decision by Judge Allen, March Term, 1857. William M. Brady, late of Sumter county, departed this-life intestate, on the 5th January, 1857, leaving a considerable estate, both real and personal, and against whom there existed debts to a large amount, and of diiferent priorities.

Scire Facias on Bail-bond, from Sumter. Decision by Judge Allen, at March Term, 1857. Benjamin Harris sued out scire facias against John A, Fletcher, and Thomas Ansley, to show cause why judgment should not be entered against them on a bail bond, executed by Fletcher as principal and Ansley as security. The Sheriff returned non est as to Fletcher.

Garnishment in Justice’s Court, in Baker Superior Court Decision by Judge Allen, at May Term, 1857. Welch, Sherman & Co., brought suit in a Justice’s Court, against Samuel Alligood, and summons of garnishment under our statute was served upon Archibald Richardson. At ' the appearance term, the garnishee filed his answer, denying that he was indebted to said Alligood any thing.

<p>Appeal from Ordinary, in Baker Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, May Term, 1857.</p> <p>This was an appeal from the Ordinary of Baker county. Upon the case being called for trial, counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appellant had not given bond and security as required by law.</p> <p>It appeared that instead of giving bond and security, the appellant had paid all the cost that had accrued, and deposited with the Ordinary a sum of money, sufficient to pay all future cost. "</p> <p>The Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal; and appellant excepted.</p> <p>Before the judgment, dismissing the appeal, was entered on the minutes of the Court, counsel for the appellant moved to file in Court a bond with good security, for the cost; the Court refused the motion, and counsel excepted.</p>

Assumpsit, from Dougherty. Tried before Judge Powers, at December Term, 1857. This was an action by Thomas H. Harden, of Savannah’ against Nelson Tift, brought to recover the sum of $130, the price of a lot of musical instruments sold to one Archibald A.-Hunt.

Ejectment, from Sumter. Tried before Judge Allen, at March Term, Í857. This was ejectment brought by John Doe, on the several demises of Jesse Linsey, Josiah H. Carter, Adam Pitner, John R. Cochran and William 0. Beall, against Richard Roe, casual ejector, and Alexander Ramsey, tenant in possession, for the recovery of lot of Land No. 161, in the 27th district of originally Lee now Sumter county, and for mesne profits.

In Equity, in Baker Superior Court. Motion to dissolve injunction, decided by .Judge Allen, at chambers, April 1857. The bill alleges that complainant, Jacob Watson, is in possession of lot of land No. 143, in the 9th district of originally Early, now Baker county, which he purchased from one Leonard S. Acre, and that Eppy W. Bond and James Patillo, the defendants, have brought ejectment against him for said lot of land, which is now pending in Baker Superior Court.