Volume 50 — North Carolina Reports

<p>The hirer of a slave permitted him to travel alone from the place at which he was employed to his master’s residence, a distance of eighty miles, (both places being within the State, with the Albemarle sound between them,) i of which occasion the slave availed himself to escape from the State and was never reclaimed; Held that this was not a want of ordinary care in the management of the slave, so as to subject the hirer to the loss.</p>

This was an action brought, by warrant, for the penalty given by the act of Assembly, Rev. Code, ch. 16, sec. 1, for burning woods, and tried before Bailey, Judge, at the August Term, 1857, of Montgomery Superior Court.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Fall Term of Duplin Superior Court.

Indictment for an affray, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term, of Currituck Superior Court.

INDICTMENT, tried before PeesoN, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Brunswick'Superior Court. The defendant was charged, as a free person of color, with carrying a shot-gun. It was proved that the defendant carried a shot-gun as charged in the indictment. A witness proved that the defendant’s father was a man of dark color and had kinky hair; that he was a shade darker than the defendant himself, and'his hair was about as much kinked.

This was an action of teovee, tried before his Honor, Judge Bailey, at the last Pali Term of Harnett Superior Court. The plaintiffs declared for the conversion of a quantity of turpentine taken out of his boxes, cut into trees.

AotioN of teovee for the conversion of slaves; submitted, in a case agreed, to his Honor, Judge Bailey. From Robeson county. The question of the plaintiffs’ right to recover arises out of the seventh clause of the will of Archibald McEachin, which is as follows : “ Seventhly.

<p>This was a petition for the partition of land, tried before Manly, J., at the last Fall Term of Bertie Superior Court.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded to the petition that he had never been a tenant in common, of the land in question, witli the petitioners or either of them, but that he had a sole seisin in the premises.</p> <p>Upon the hearing of the petition and plea, the plaintiffs moved that the issue of title, made by the pleading, be submitted for trial to a jury, which was refused by his Honor, who ordered that the proceedings on the petition should be suspended until the question of title should be tried in an action of ejectment. Erom which decision the plaintiffs appealed.</p>

Motion to amend tbe writ; before Ellis, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Wayne Superior Court. The proposition was to strike out “the Portsmouth and Roanoke Rail Road Company” named as defendants, and substitute therefor “ The Seaboard and Roanoke Rail Road. Company.” It appeared from the writ that it had been served on David A. Barnes, a director in the Seaboard and Roanoke Rail Road Company, by delivering to him a copy.

This ivas an action of teespass for an assault and battery committed by the defendant upon a slave, the property of the plaintiff, tried before MaNly, J., at the Eall Term, 1857, of Caswell Superior Court. The jury found a verdict for ttvo dollars damages, upon which finding, the Court adjudged that the plaintiff recover two dollars damages and the further sum of two dollars for costs, from which judgment they prayed and obtained an ap-r peal to this Court.

<p>A warranty that a slave “ is sound in mind and health" is not broken by the existence of a contraction of tlie little finger of each band, though it diminished tlie usefulness and value of the slave.</p>

ActxoN of debt, tried before Saunders, Judge, at the Fall Term, 185?, of Wake Superior Court. The following case agreed was submitted for the judgment of the Court: James F. Jordan and William D. Cooke were partners in the business of manufacturing paper, under the name and style of “James F. Jordan & Co.,” and had in their employment the plaintiff, F. B. Abpt, as a laborer, at one dollar and a quarter per day, from some time in the year 1852, until the 1st of January, 1851.

ActioN of ejeCtment, tried before his Honor, Judge Ellis, at the Pali Term, 1857, of Wilson Superior Court.

This was an issue made in a GARNISHMENT, and tried before Caldwell, Judge, at the last Eall term of Hertford Superior Court. The defendants were garnisheed as the debtors of Glines and Graham of New York, against whom the plaintiff had taken an attachment and had obtained a judgment in Hert-ford Superior Court.

<p>This was an action of COVENANT, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Pali Term, 1857, of Washington Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared for breaches of the following covenant, viz: “ In pursuance of a contract entered into between Caleb Walker and Jesse Herrington of the one part, and James W. Bell of the other part, allot' the said county, I, said Caleb Walker and Jesse Herrington, jointly and severally agree and promise to take, keep, and employ negroes Peter, Woden and Abbott, treating them well, four years, and learn them the ship-carpenter and caulker’s trades, and give annually the said James W. Bell a note for one hundred dollars for each of the negroes, with approved security, specifying that each are not to be employed by water, at steam-mill or fishery, or be worked out of the county, except by permission of owner, and be furnished, &c,”</p> <p>The breaches assigned were, that the defendants had failed and refused to teach the said slaves the ship-carpenter’s and caulker’s trades.</p> <p>It was proved that the three slaves, mentioned in the covenant, were sent to the defendants and remained with them for four years; that the defendants owned a shipyard at Plymouth, in "Washington county, where this business was carried on; that, during the term, the slave Peter was kept at work in the yard, and a part of the time in cutting and hewing timber in the woods, for the use of the yard, and a part of the time in hauling; that he made progress in acquiring skill in the trade of a ship-carpenter, but was not put to the business of caulking at all, and that he was apt and docile, and was properly taught in the ship-carpenter’s trade. It was in evidence, that the other two slaves were kept at work mostly in the woods, in preparing timber and in hauling it to the yard; that they were put at caulking under other slaves employed** in the yard, for two weeks, and at work on ships in the yard; that they were negroes of ordinary capacity; that they repeatedly declared that they would not learn the trade ; that they were unwilling to be taught; that repeated efforts were made to instruct them; that they were taken away from several jobs, upon which they had been put, because of their bad work; and that they were kept at such work, relating to the business, as they could do to the best advantage.</p> <p>It was also in evidence, that the felling, hewing and hauling ship-timber was, in this section of the country, a part of the ship-carpenter’s trade, and a preliminary training towards their acquiring the art.</p> <p>It was in evidence, further, that the two slaves, Woden and Abbott, were but little, if in any degree, improved in the trade, but that Peter was well instructed in the ship-carpenter’s craft for the time he had been at work, but that no effort had been made to teach him caulking.</p> <p>It was further proved that this trade would add $300 to the Value of the slave.</p> <p>It was insisted for the defendants : Eirst. That they had only engaged to make reasonable efforts to instruct the plaintiff’s slaves in their callings, and if these efforts were made, and the slaves could not, or would not learn, by reason of obstinacy or inaptitude, they were not responsible. Secondly. That if the defendants found that the slaves Woden and Abbott could not, or would not, after reasonable efforts, learn the more difficult parts of the trade, they were at liberty, if not bound, to keep them at the more easily acquired parts of the trade.</p> <p>Thirdly. .In respect to damages, that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the proper measure would be the expense and loss to be incurred in securing to the slaves the instruction which the defendants had failed to give them.</p> <p>The Court charged the jury, that if the witnesses were to be believed, the defendants had violated their covenant, and that the unwillingness of the slaves Woden and Abbott to learn the trade, did not excuse the defendants. Upon the question of damages, his Honor recurred to the evidence as to the amount added to the value of a slave by the acquisition of these trades, and told the jury that the whole matter was for their consideration. The defendants excepted.</p> <p>Yerdict, $600 for plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.</p>

ActioN of assujipsit, tried before Bailey, J., at the Spring Term, 1854, of Bertie Superior' Court. The plaintiff’s declaration contained two counts : Eirst. That the defendant had sold to him a forged note on one Eason Ward, for the sum of eighty-four dollars. Secón dly. Eor money had and received to the plaintiff’s use.

Assumpsit, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the last Superior Court of Pasquotank. The plaintiff declared for the nondelivery of a quantity of corn, and offered the following instrument of writing as evidence of the contract: “ This is to certify that I have this day sold John J. Grandy five hundred barrels of corn, at three 25-100 dollars per barrel, to be delivered at Little River bridge, in clean, sound order, when called for. January 18th, 1854.” Signed by the defendant.

Aotioit of assumpsit, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Fall Term of Pasquotank Superior Court. CASE AGREED. “ It is admitted that the contract between the parties is contained in the following copies of written memoranda signed by each of them, to wit: “ This is to certify that I have, this day, sold John J. Grandy, one hundred and thirty barrels of corn, at three dollars 25-100 per barrel, to be delivered at Newbegun creek landing, clean and sound.

AotioN of Covenant, tried before Saundees, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Halifax Superior Court. The plaintiff declared on the following covenant in writing: “The said James II. Walker, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, doth, for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, agree to, and with, the said Richard T. Allen, his heirs and. assigns, by these presents, that he, the said J. II.

ActioN of TRESPASS, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Hertford Superior Court. The declaration against the defendant was for erecting upon a public road or avenue, a ware-house, so near to the storehouse of the plaintiff as to obstruct his rights, and cause his chimney, when the wind blew, to throw back the smoke into his store-room, and otherwise injure him.

<p>INDICTMENT for an assault with an intention to commit a rape, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Per-quimons Superior Court.</p> <p>The evidence sent up in the bill of exceptions was quite full, and seemed to be very strong against the prisoner, but as its quality is entirely disregarded in the opinion of the Court, it is not deemed proper to set it forth in the report of the case. The prisoner, in reply, had advanced evidence of his good character. Ilis Honor, the Judge below, charged the j ury upon the testimony, “ that in a plain case a good character would not help a prisoner, but in a doubtful case, he had a right to have it cast into the scales and weighed in his behalf.” To this the defendant excejhed.</p> <p>Upon the trial, the defendant offered to show that the pros-ecutrix had, previously to the time of the alleged assault, made an indecent exposure of her person to the other slaves of his master, but not in the presence 0f the prisoner. This evidence was ruled out by the Court, for which the prisoner excepted.</p> <p>The prisoner was found guilty. Judgment was rendered, and the prisoner appealed.</p>

ActioN of assuMpsit, tried before Pekson, J., at the- Fall Term, 185Y, of Union Superior Court. The plaintiff purchased the slave, Mary, from the defendants, on 14th January, 1852, with a written contract of soundness, and five days afterwards he sold her to Mrs. Livingston with a like warranty of soundness. She brought suit against him for a breach of the warranty, and at fall term, 1855, of Montgomery Superior Court, recovered a judgment against him for such breach.

AotioN of ejeotmeNt, tried before SaüNdees, J., at the last Pall Term of Martin Superior Court. The action was brought by the lessors of the plaintiff, as the heirs-at-law of Abner Cherry, to recover the possession of lot No. 39, in the town of Williamston.

MotioN to set aside an execution, heard before Caldwell, J., at the last Pali Term of Perquimons Superior Court. The execution had been levied on two slaves, the property of the defendant, Harrell, and the reasons assigned for setting it aside were as follows : First. Because it appeared from the return of the sheriff, that he had not advertised the sale at three public places in the county. Secondly.

AotioN on the Case, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Bertie Superior Court.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Hertford Superior Court. It appeared on the trial of the case, that the defendant had employed the plaintiff as an overseer, and agreed to give him one hundred and twenty-five dollars for the year’s service; that the plaintiff continued through the year.

This was an action of teoyee, tried before Peksobt, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Union Superior Court. The plaintiffs produced, in evidence, a bill of sale for a negro woman namecl 'Ñeñe, from Jane Moore, to their intestaie^ N. Armfield, bearing date 9th of May. 1849.

Action of covenant, tried before Manly, J., at the last Pali Term of Chatham Superior Court.

ActioN of debt, tried before SauNDEbs, J., at the last Fall Term of Northampton Superior Court.

This was an issue of devisavit vel non, tried before his Honor, Judge MaNlt, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Franklin Superior Court. It was the case of a nuncupative will, which was declared in the presence of-Brown alone, who was charged to take notice, and see that it was put into legal form, in order to give it validity, provided the decedent did not dispose of his property by a written will.

<p>ActioN of Assumpsit, tried before Saunders, J., at tbe last fall term of Northampton Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared on the common counts, and on the following special contract, to wit:</p> <p>“ The following contract is this day entered into between the school committee of district No. 11, for the county of Northampton, and J. E. Taylor:</p> <p>“The said committee have engaged the said J. F. Taylor as a teacher of the school of the said district, for the term of ten months, commencing on the 21st of January, 1856, and agree to give him twenty-five dollars for each month. The said J. F. Taylor agrees to give instruction in the common rudiments of English education to all the scholars that may attend the said school during the said term — to superintend their moral deportment, and at the end of the time to furnish the said school committee with the number and names of the children who may have gone to his school, specifying the number of days each one went.” Signed by the plaintiff, and by H. Harding, James "Wright and James Yaner, as school committee —to each name being affixed a scroll, with the word seal written within it. The members of the committee, with whom this contract was made, went out of office on the first Monday in'May, 1856, and were succeeded by John H. Harrison and James Brantley, who had been elected in their stead, on the first Saturday in April, preceding. It appeared in evidence that the new committee-men, soon after the first Monday in May, 1856, met and employed another teacher, of which the plaintiff bad notice ; but he continued to teach until the 28th of that month, when he received a written notification from the committee, that they had employed another teacher, and dispensed with his services in that capacity; notwithstanding which, he continued to teach until the 4th of August, following, (the other teacher officiating during the same time.) For the services rendered previously to the first Monday in Majq he received an order from the preceding committee on the super-intendant, which was paid.</p> <p>At the expiration of ten months from the 1st of January, 1856, the plaintiff demanded an order for full pay for the term, deducting the previous payments, which was refused, and this action was commenced against the defendants.</p> <p>It was admitted that the plaintiff was duly qualified to fulfill, and did fulfill all the duties required of a teacher of the common schools.</p> <p>It was proved that there were funds in the hands of the superintendant, belonging to school district, No. 17, sufficient, at the stipulated rate, to pay for the plaintiff’s services for the whole ten months.</p> <p>The defendants’ counsel contended that the members of the former committee, had no power to contract for the services of a teacher longer than the duration of their own official term, and that their contract for a longer period was void for the excess.</p> <p>His Honor charged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the time that he had taught. Defendants excepted.</p> <p>Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.</p>

ActioN on the case for harboring a slave, tried before PERSON, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Davie Superior Court. Mr. Holt, the agent of the North-Carolina Rail-Road Company at Salisbury, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that the week before Christmas, 1856, the defendant McDaniel, came to the station at Salisbury with a wagon, and that the slave Henry, the property of the plaintiff, was with'him. In unloading the wagon, he was assisted by Henry.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before SauNdees, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Caswell Superior Court. A full statement of the main facts of this case, is contained in the report of December Term, 1855, 3 Jones’ Rep. 195.

ActioN of teovee, tried before Manly, J., at the last Pali Term of Forsyth Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for the conversion of a horse.

AotioN of COVENANT, tried before Ellis, J., at the Special Term, June, 1857, of Ashe Superior Court. The plaintiff declared against the defendant as administrator of James McMillan, upon a covenant of quiet enjoyment contained in a deed made by the defendant as administrator. The ..intestate of the defendant had given a bond to make title to the plaintiff of a tract of land lying in Ashe county, and died before doing so.

<p>AotioN of assumpsit, tried before MaNlt, J., at the last Pali Term of Randolph Superior Court.</p> <p>Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant had become a stockholder to the amount of ten shares in the North-Carolina Rail-Road company, and being entitled in that capacity to a preference in the letting of contracts, he was solicited by the plaintiff to get a contract for him for furnishing cross-ties; this the defendant accordingly did, and the articles which he entered into with the company, were assigned, for a consideration in money, to the plaintiff.</p> <p>It also appeared that the engineer who superintended the construction of the rail-road, contracted with the plaintiff for the furnishing of extra cross-ties and pillars for a water-tank to be used on the road. It further appeared that there was no change on the company’s books 'of the name of the contractor, but- that the accounts were all kept in the name of Elliott, not only with respect to those cross-ties embraced in the original articles, but as to the timber contracted for with the plaintiff, which was done, as was explained by the engineer, to avoid a multiplicity of accounts.</p> <p>After tliese contracts -were entered into, and were in a course of fulfilment by the plaintiff, the company taking into consideration the increased price of provisions and labor, made an extra allowance of five cents a stick on certain descriptions of cross-ties, and ten cents on others. The contracts were completely fulfilled by the plaintiff, Winslow, in accordance with the requirements of the company.</p> <p>It appeared further that the settlements at the4i company’s office for the work done, of all kinds, under both contracts, were made with Elliott, in whose name the accounts were kept, but, in accounting- with the plaintiff, lie only paid him thirty cents a stick, the original contract price, and kept back the extra allowances.</p> <p>It was also in evidence that the consideration agreed on upon the assignment of the contract, had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.</p> <p>The Court was of opinion, on the foregoing state of facts, that the plaintiff was entitled, by virtue of the assignment, to all the advantages of the contract with the company, contingent and uncertain, as well as final and certain, and, aecord-ingly, was entitled to the extra allowance on the cross-ties which had been allowed to the defendant. The defendant excepted.</p> <p>Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.</p>

<p>This was ail indictment for MübdeR, tried before SauNdebs, J., at the last Fall Term of Northampton Superior Court.</p> <p>The murder was charged to have been committed on the body of one William Portis, and the evidence in the case, as set forth in the record, was as follows :</p> <p>“ Mary Hodges, witness for the State, testified that she was Well acquainted with the prisoner and the deceased; that she lived with her father, Meecham ITodges; that the prisoner came to her father’s the 16th of May, about 3 o’clock in the ■evening — was drinking — was drunk, and said he came there to stay, to which she objected; he had a gun — swore he would stay- — threatened to shoot her and take her child — he lay down on the bed near the fire-place — but one room in the house — Portis, the deceased, came there about sun set — she invited him in — said how do you do Mr-. Harrison; I am d — d pleased — how do you do ? Portis replied, “ sorter tolerable;” prisoner asked what he came for ; said he had come to deliver a message to Mr. Hodges from his son; he began to deliver this message; prisoner-said d — n you, you are drunk, and I’ll make yon drunker; and raised his gun, which was lying on the bed; pointed it at the deceased, who was- standing at the fire-place, who advanced one step and tried to Tcetch the gun, but it went off before he could close his grasp — shot in the head, and he fell and expired without speaking; she said the prisoner had killed him ; he said yes, and lie intended to kill him ; she was greatly alarmed; thought her life was in danger; struck the prisoner with a chair; knocked him from the bed, and fell on the floor; continued to bqat him until her father pulled her away; struck him with the chair a dozen blows; she then run over to Mr. Kemp’s, a half a mile off- — -told what had occurred; said the prisoner had married her half sister, and had seduced her — was the father of her child, a boy six years old; Portis had neither done nor said any thing to the prisoner except what she had stated.</p> <p>“ In her cross-examination, she stated the prisoner had given her son a small knife ; had also given one to her father, and offered her a bottle of cologne, which she refused ; said her father was setting at the table, at supper, when the deceased came; her little boy met him and handed him his knife, with a whetstone, and asked him to sharpen it; he took them and walked to the fire-place ; changed the knife from his right, to his left hand, when he attempted to ketch the gun ; when shot, the knife and stone fell on the floor, which her father picked up and gave to her boy, who had lost it.</p> <p>“ Was asked if she had not had criminal intercourse with the deceased. Said she had not, nor with the prisoner since the birth of her child ; prisoner had lived six miles off, and deceased half a mile, and was in the habit of coming to her father’s.</p> <p>“ Was asked if she had not stated to Goodwin Daniel, that the prisoner ought to be hung, and would be, if her oath could hang him ; said not; but she had said, the prisoner ought to be hung, and would be, if her oath would hang him, and she said so now; and Goodwin had said, at the same time, prisoner ought to be hung ; that she was greatly agitated in her examination before the magistrate, and hardly knew what she had said ; and the same case before the coroner ; had not seen Portis before on that day, and did not know whose gun it was that deceased had ; had not raised or offered to raise it; described tire position of the table, and where she was setting at the time of the shooting.</p> <p>“ Meeeham Hodges, testified that the prisoner came to his house on the evening of 16th of May — was drunk — had his gun — -threatened his daughter — lay on the bed ; he went after wood; met Portis, told him Harrison was at the house and advised him not to go; said he would not; gave hitn bag of meal, sent by his son ; returned, prisoner still on the bed, his gun by his side, him and his daughter at supper, lie setting with his back to the prisoner ; Portis came to the door, set his gun down on the outside of the house, and he came in— spoke to the prisoner, who answered, “ I am d — d pleased, how do you do.? replied, sorter tolerable ; what did you come for ? to which deceased 'said, to bring a message from his son! Harrison said, you are drunk, d — n yon, I’ll make yon drunker ; turned his head — saw Harrison shoot deceased in the head, who fell dead ; Portis standing with back to chimney; he saw no knife ; prisoner said he intended to kill his daughter; she then struck him with chair ; he believed she would have killed him — pulled her away. He then pushed Harrison out of the door ; him and Harrison had a scuffle for the gun ; he got it, he very bloody about the head ; he found the gun setting up against the house ; carried it in — was loaded ; claimed by Kemp.</p> <p>“ Cross-examined. Was questioned as to what he had said to Daniel; which he denied — thought prisoner ought to be hung.</p> <p>“ Mr. Kemp said, he had heard prisoner, Harrison, threaten to kill or whip first Portis caught at old Hodges.</p> <p>“ Elizabeth Kemp lived with her brother, half a mile from Hodges ; Portis lived at her brother’s — had been to Weldon the day of the affair; Portis left about sun-down with gun, said going turkey-hunting ; Mary Hodges came there about dark — seemed agitated; told what had happened — witness too much frightened to recollect It.</p> <p>“ II. Wheeler testified, that Harrison came to the store about two o’clock the day of the murder — had gun — bought two knives and bottle cologne ; was drinky — left in a buggy, and did not say where going — boy returned same evening with buggy — saw no gun.” The State closed.</p> <p>“ WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE.”</p> <p>“ Dr. Wm. Oarstarphin, testified to having seen the prisoner on the night of the occurrence ; found very bloody and much braised — a cut on the head, also a cut on the ear— thought it had been done with a sharp instrument — might have been done with a chair, but he thought not.”</p> <p>“ Other witnesses were examined as to the wounds and injuries of prisoner; one witness thought the ear seemed to have been cut bj passing something through it.</p> <p>“The magistrate and coroner were examined as to what was said by the two Hodges’ — that neither of them had said any thing as to the knife or gun, and denied what had been said by them as to their swearing to take the life of the prisoner.</p> <p>“ It is not deemed necessary to state this testimony, as it all went to impeach the testimony of Mary Hodges and her father.</p> <p>“ The Court, after repeating the testimony of Mary Hodges and Meecham Hodges, told the jury, if the testimony of these two witnesses was to be believed, then it was most clearly a case of murder; and whether they were to be believed or not, it was their province to determine.</p> <p>“ The prisoner’s counsel say the testimony is not to be relied on ; that their statement is unreasonable and contradictory, and too improbable to be credited ; that the condition in which the prisoner was found, proves most clearly that the prisoner was set on by the deceased; that he was forced to kill to save his own life ; or at most, it was a case of mutual combat, and as such, only a case of manslaughter.</p> <p>“The killing being admitted, and that with a deadly weapon, the law pronounced it a case of murder, and threw upon the'prisoner the necessity of making good his defense by direct testimony, or by satisfying the jury that the testimony offered by the State, by a fair and legitimate construction, led them to that conclusion.”</p> <p>“ The counsel for the prisoner say, that whilst they have offered no witnesses, as to the two State’s witnesses, who alone were present at the occurrence, they have a right to impeach their statements, by showing it was not to be credited.</p> <p>“ 1st. Because the story is in itself unreasonable; and from the manner of telling it.</p> <p>“ 2ndly. By their contradictions.</p> <p>“ 3idly. The witnesses, by their feelings, had proved themselves to be unworthy of credit.</p> <p>“ This was certainly so, and whether they had succeeded or not, was for the jury to decide ; for unless the testimony offered by the State, carries to the minds of the j ury full and entire conviction of its truth, so far as to establish the guilt of the prisoner, to their entire satisfaction, it was their duty to acquit. The jury would decide as to the reasonable or unreasonableness of the story — the manner of the witnesses, their feelings and as to the alleged contradictions ; it was also their duty to decide whether they had been corruptly false in any thing they had said or omitted to say. The prisoner’s counsel say, as Mary ITodges had said nothing as to the deceased having had a knife, in her examination either before the magistrate or coroner, or in her examination in chief, it showed, most clearly, that she had been guilty of such corrupt omission, as to call upon the jury to reject her testimony altogether, on the maxim falsum in uno falsum in omnibus.</p> <p>“ In answer to this, the Court said, before the jury could reject the testimony on this ground, they should be satisfied the witnesses had been corruptly false on a matter material to tliepnatter under investigation — the jury were to judge of what the witness had said — that she had not been asked any thing about a knife in her previous examination; and when interrogated by the counsel in her cross-examination, she had promptly answered the question.</p> <p>“Should the jury come to the conclusion that these witnesses had not given a true statement of the transaction, but should think, from the cut of the ear, the bruises, and other injuries on the person of the prisoner, there had been a conflict between the parties, then it would be their duty to find only a verdict for manslaughter, although the prisoner had used a deadly weapon.</p> <p>“To find it a case of justifiable homicide, they should be satisfied that the prisoner acted in self-defense, or from a well-grounded apprehension that his own life, or person, was in danger.</p> <p>“The prisoner’s counsel objected to that part of Mary Hodges’ evidence, in which she had been permitted to state the threats and conduct of the prisoner towards herself and her child, on his arrival at the house, and before the deceased came to the house of her father. The objection was overruled by the Court, and the evidence admitted.</p> <p>“ When the prisoner had concluded his evidence, the Attorney General recalled John Kemp and asked him if he was acquainted with the general character of Mary Hodges, and thereupon, his Honor inquired if it was necessary to ask that question as her character had not been assailed.</p> <p>“ His Honor charged the jury, that if the prisoner went to the house of Meecham Hodges, having a deadly weapon, for the purpose of taking the life of the deceased, if he should find him there, or of provoking him into a fight, and did so, then it would be a case of murder, although they should believe the deceased made the first assault.”</p> <p>Defendant’s counsel excepted to this latter part of the charge. Yerdict, guilty of murder. Judgment and appeal.</p>

Tins was an action of trover, tried before SauNders, J., at the Special Term, June 1857, of Columbus Superior Court. The action was brought for the conversion of a quantity of timber which had been cut by one Maxwell on the plaintiff’s land, and piled up on the side of the Wilmington and Manchester rail road.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before MaNly, J., at the last Fall Terra of Orange Superior Court. The plaintiff had employed the defendant, who was a house carpenter, to do certain work upon his dwelling, about which the parties had a settlement, and the plaintiff’s note, for a certain sum, was given, which, in a short time, was paid off.

<p>This was an action of debt, tried before Maitly, J., at the last Fall Term of Guilford Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared on the following bond: ‘</p> <p>“ $150. On or before the 25th of December next, I promise to pay John E. Gamble,, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, for value received of him. The condition of the above obligation is such, that should the mining interest of the James White tract of land, this day bought by me, prove valueless, it shall be null and void; otherwise of full effect. July 5th, 1853.” J. W. BeesoN, [seal.~\</p> <p>The defendant proposed to show by tests and working of the mine after the 25th of December, 1853, that the said land was valueless for mining purposes; which testimony was oh-jected to by the plaintiff, but admitted by the Court; for which plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>Yerdict for the defendant. Judgment and appeal.</p>

<p>This was an action of detinue, tried before MaNly, J., at the last Fall Term of Caswell Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared for the detention of the slaves Fanny and her children, and alleged title, as administrator with the will annexed of Alexander Moore, under the provisions of that will. The testator lived and died in Halifax county, in the State of Yirginia. His will was duly proved in that county .in April, 1850, and Woodson Hughes, the executor therein named, was qualified and received letters testamentary on the same. At January Term, 1855, of Caswell County Court, a certified copy of this will and probate, was produced and ordered to be recorded; whereupon, the executor, "Woodson Hughes, formally renounced liis right to qualify as executor in this State, and the same was duly entered of record ; whereupon the plaintiff, Charles H. Hooper, was appointed administrator with the will annexed.</p> <p>The defendant claimed the slaves as the administrator of Alexander Moore, Jun’r., and offered evidence to show that the said Alexander Moore, Jun’r., intermarried with Sally Cook, a grand-daughter of Alexander Moore, Sen’r., in the county of Halifax, in Virginia, and settled in the neighborhood of the plaintiff’s testator; that shortly after this marriage, the said testator placed in the possession of the granddaughter and her husband, the slave Eanny in question, who is the mother of the other slaves sued for; that Alexander Moore, Jun’r., held the slaves in question for ten years, during which time, he lived in the State of Virginia, and brought them thence to the county of Caswell, where he remained in possession of them until his death in 1852.</p> <p>In order to show the law of Virginia controlling this transaction, the deposition of Woodson Hughes, JZsguvre, a gentleman of the legal profession in that State, was produced, who deposed that according to the law of Virginia, no inference of a gift could be drawn from the possession of the slaves, under the circumstances of this case.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel insisted : 1st. That the executor, having qualified in Virginia, could not renounce the office as to effects of the deceased in this State, and that the appointment of the plaintiff as administrator, by the County Court of Caswell, was void, and conferred no power to bring this suit. " v ■</p> <p>2ndly. That no s'tátuteAf Vífgmia had been offered in evidence, altering theAb|fimon l^ji*;5that by the common law a gift was presum'^djf^d\th^t i#was' the duty of the Court to expound the stattffewnctepwe jl?dld<íferidant the benefit of the presumption, notw-ithstan'did§|B^ deposition of Mr. Hughes, and prayed the Court, so to >rf?¡frn¡ct tlje jury.</p> <p>The Court was of*• opjnfonfthat‘ the administration. was properly granted fc the plaintiff, and that be bad power to sue. Defendai*. o- "epted.</p> <p>And upon the se-vnd point, he declined giving the instructions prayed fon, I gave in charge the law of Virginia as proved by the de-o&ition of Mr. Hughes, and led: 1'' to the jury to decide i’.s question, whether it was a gift or a loan, free from any pimimption either -way. Defendant again excepted.</p> <p>Under these notions, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; r- ¡¡Dg.uent was rendered thereon, and the defendant appeal:" to this Court.</p>

ActioN of covenant, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Ball Term of Cumberland Superior Court. The action was brought for a breach of a warranty of soundness in the sale of a slave. The case sent up states that the plaintiff offered in evidence a bill of sale from the defendant, dated 22d of January, 1852, in which wer efull covenants of warranty of soxmdness.

This was an action of ''assumpsit, tried before MaNly, J., at the last Fall Term of Guilford Superior Court. The action Avas brought on the following promissory note, viz: “ $206,65. Neav York, May 8th, 1849. On demand, I promise to pay to the order of Mr. Jacob Best, two hundred and six 66-100 dollars, with interest, for value received.” One of the questions made upon the trial was whether the statute of limitations, which was pleaded, ran from the date or from the demand.

ActioN of detinue, tried before Dice, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Rowan Superior Court. CASE AGREED.

Rule for the discharge of an insolvent, heard before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Washington Superior Court. A scire facias, returnable to the November Term, 1856, of the County Court of Washington, had issued against the bail to the action, wherein the plaintiff’s judgment had been rendered against Samuel L. Simmons, and at the said November term, the bail surrendered Simmons in open court, and he was committed to the custody of the sheriff.

AotioN on the case for a deoeit, tried before Manly, J., at the last Fall Term of Orange Superior Court. The deceit alleged, was in the sale of a mare, and the unsoundness alleged was, that the frogs of the animal’s feet had either rotted out or fallen out. Upon this point, there was conflicting evidence, some portion of it tending to show that the frogs were gone, and another that they were in their natural state.

AotioN of assumpsit, tried before SauNders, J., at the last Fall Term of Nash Superior Court. The plaintiffs declared on a special contract for $900, the price of a negro slave Jack, whom one Jordan Slierod had bequeathed as follows: “•Item.

This was an action of teovee, for the conversion of a horse, tried before PeesoN, J., at the last Pall Term of Davie Superior Court. It appeared, from the evidence, that on the 1st of May, 1856, Hays and Green, as partners, were the owners of the horse in question. They sold it to one Griffin. On the 24th of June, ene Dea ver, a constable, took the horse out of the possession of the plaintiff, by virtue of an execution against Green, and sold it to the defendant.

ActioN of COVENANT, triol before Peeson, J., at the last Pali Term of Iredell Superior Court. The action was constituted, under the direction of the Supreme Court upon a covenant to make title to a tract of land, entered into by the defendant on the 8th day of Oct., 1853, and the only question was whether the defendant was compos mentis, and had capacity to enter into the said contract at the time of its execution.

This was an action of debt, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Pall Term, 1856, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The suit was brought on a bond of the defendant and Charles T. Alexander, bearing date 1st day of January, 1842, payable to the plaintiff’s intestate, as guardian, twelve months after date.

INDICTMENT for highway ROBBeet, tried before Manly, J., at the last Fall Term of Caswell Superior Court. The indictment upon which the prisoner was tried, is as follows : “State oe North Carolina, ) Superior Court oe Law, Caswell County, f Fall Term, 1851.

This was an action of assumpsit, upon a special agreement, tried before Marly, J., at the last Fall Term of Chatham Superior Court. / Upon the trial of the case at this term, it appeared that there had been a written contract, or articles of agreement, between the parties, in relation to the digging of a canal out of Rocky River to the spot where the defendants were constructing a mill, the terms of which were not stated, as it was abrogated and abandoned by the parties at…

ActioN on the oase, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Eall Term of Pitt Superior Court. The action was brought against the defendants as common carriers for failing to carry safely from Washington to 'Williams’ landing on Tar river, a flat-boat belonging to, plaintiff, loaded with goods, which they had undertaken to tow from the former to the latter place.

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Peeson, J., at the last Pall Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The plaintiff declared upon, and proved, the following special contract, to wit: “ March 20th, 1854. “ We do hereby hire to the High Shoals Mining and Manufacturing Company, the following negro slaves, to wit: Dick (and fourteen others, named,) for the term of one year from this date, for the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars.

AotioN on the case, tried before PeesoN, J., at the last Eall Term of Davie Superior Court. In the Spring of 1855, the defendant, being the owner of a stud-horse, had a stand at Mocksville. The horse was groomed by a negro man belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff sent his mare by a negro man of his own, to be-served by the horse at his stable where he was usually let to mares. The plaintiff’s mare was tried and seemed to be anxious.

ActioN of EJECTMENT, tried before Bailey, J., at a Special Term (June, 1856,) of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The land in controversy belonged to one Hugh Bodgers. He devised it as follows: “ I will and bequeath to my beloved wife. Nancy A. Bodgers, during her natural life, the whole of the plantation whereon I now live, and all my house-hold and kitchen furniture,”-&c. “ Secondly. I will and bequeath that my son, Samuel II.

AotioN of ejeCTMent, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Special Term (December, 1857,) of Rowan Superior Court. The lessor of the plaintiff and the defendant, both, claimed title under George M. Hartman; the former by a deed to James Bean, dated 5th of February, 1850, and from Bean to plaintiff’s lessor by deed, dated 21st of January, 1852. The defendant’s deed was dated in 1845.

This was an action of debt, tried before Caldwell, J. at the Special Term, (December, 1857,) of Eowan Superior Court.

AotioN of debt, upon an administration bond, tried before Person, J., at the last Fall Term of Davie Superior Court. The plaintiff assigned as a breach of the defendant’s bond, the non-payment of a debt, due him, of three hundred dollars. At the return term of the suit, it was referred, by consent, to Mr. Bingham, as a commissioner, to state an account of the assets in the hands of the administrator.

INDICTMENT for muRdek, tried before Dies, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Burke Superior Court. The prisoner, Daniel Ramsey, was indicted for the murder of Benjamin Walker. The evidence for the State was as follows: The prisoner and the deceased had been drinking together in a grocery, an hour or two before the homicide; they both lived in Burke county, some miles from. Morganton — were neighbors, and distantly related.

Appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Perquimons county, Judge Caldwell presiding.

<p>‘ This was a petition for a writ of beeoe, filed upon notice given to the defendant in error, and assigning various errors in the record of a suit lately pending in the Superior Court of Orange county, wherein the present defendant in error was plaintiff, and tiie present petitioner, as the executor of James M. Minnis, was defendant.</p> <p>As the opinion of this Court is founded entirely upon the want of authority in the Supremo Court to issue the writ prayed for in the petition, it is deemed unnecessary to set out the grounds upon which the application is based.</p> <p>The cause was argued by Fovole, K. P. Battle and Bailey, for the plaintiff in error, and Graham, and J. II. Bryan, for the defendant.</p>

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Spring Term, 1856, of Catawba Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for work and labor done ; he was the illegitimate son of a daughter of the defendant’s testator, and the mother and son had both lived in the family of the testator from the birth of the plaintiff, to the time of the testator’s death, at which time the plaintiff was fifteen years old.

Indictmekt for muRder, tried; before his Honor, Judge Caldwell,. at the last Term of Sampson Superior. Court.. This cause was before this Court at June Term, 1855, (2 Jones’ Eep. 247,) and for error, apparent in the record of the trial of tbe cause below, a venire de novo was awarded.

This was an indictment for bueglaby, tried before Dick, J., at the last Fall Term of Chowan Superior Court. The offense was alleged to have been committed in the smoke-house of Dr. Charles Smallwood, which was within the curtilage of the dwelling-house. Mr. Lewis Thompson, was produced as a witness for the State.

This was an indictment for mukdek, tried before DiOK, J., at the last Spring Term of Chowan Superior Court. The prisoner was indicted, with two other slaves, Aaron and Gause or Gauzey, for the murder of their master, William D. Davenport. There was a count also against Gauzey as principal, and Aaron and the prisoner George, as accessories before the fact.

<p>Where it was shown that a road had been opened by the award of a church, upon a controversy between two of its members, for which the applicant for the road was to pay the owner of the land a price in money, and that such applicant had used the said road,, as of right, for more than twenty years, it was Held that it was prima facie but a private road, and that a long and general usage of it by the public, in the absence of any evidence of a proceeding in Court to lay it out, or appoint overseers on it, is not sufficient to give it the character of a public road.</p>

Tins was an action of assumpsit, brought before a justice of the peace, and by appeal taken to the Superior Court of Pas-quotank, where it was tried before Dick, J., at last Fall Term. The plaintiff was a physician and declared for professional services rendered to the wife of the defendant while she was living apart from him; he living in the country on his farm, and she in Elizabeth City.

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before PersoN, J., at a special term (January, 1858) of New-I!anbver Superior Court.

<p>ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Dice, Judge, at tlie last Spring Term of Hertford Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff proved an agreement that he should serve the defendant, in the character of overseer and manager of his slaves, for the year 1856, and an agreement on the part of the defendant to pay him $150-. It w^as also proved, that lie was in defendant’s service up to 10th of September, in that year, when he was discharged upon the allegation of miseon-duct, and the defendant refused to hold himself bound to pay wages thereafter.</p> <p>For the purpose of proving misconduct, the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was often absent from the farm ; that he rode the farm horses at night on patrol duty ; that he gave parties to companies assembled at his sleeping apartment, which were kept up till midnight, whore excessive drinking was indulged in, in which he participated to the extent of intoxication, to the annoyance of the family residing in the dwelling-house close by ; that the stock became poor, and that the farm exhibited evidence of neglect and inattention. Upon this evidence, the counsel for the defendant asked the Court to tell the jury, that the facts established by the evidence, amounted to such negligence and misconduct as in law to authorise the defendant to discharge the plaintiff, and that consequently he had no right to recover for the time elapsing after such discharge. The Court refused to charge in so many words, as requested by the counsel, but charged them as is set forth below.</p> <p>For the purpose of mitigating the damages claimed, the defendant offered to prove, that shortly after the plaintiff’s discharge he set in as an overseer with another employer, and remained in that capacity at a compensation of twelve dollars and a half per month for the residue of the year.. Which evidence was objected to by the plaintiff and excluded by the Court. Defendant excepted.</p> <p>His Honor charged the jury, “ that if the defendant did the acts alleged, and was negligent and inattentive as insisted by the defendant, ho certainly had a right to discharge him. If, however, they believed the facts to be otherwdse, the plaintiff -was entitled to recover; and this being a special contract, the measure of his damages would be the residue of the amount stipulated to be paid, and it vras not material whether the plaintiff found employment elsewhere after his discharge and was paid therefor.” Defendant again excepted.</p> <p>Ycrdict for the plaintiff for the wages during the remainder of the year Judgment and appeal.</p> <p>-for plaintiff.</p>

IndictmeNt for selling spirituous liquor to a slave, .tried before DiOK, J., at the last Spring Term of Chowan Superior Court.

This was an indictment against the owner of a public mill for keeping a false toll-dish, tried before JDioK, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Perquimons Superior Court.

INDICTMENT for keeping a false toll-disk, tried before Dick, J., at the last Spring Term of Perquimons Superior Court.

This was an indictment against tbe defendant as a free negro, for carrying arms, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term of Brunswick Superior Court. The State offered the defendant to the inspection of the jury, that they might see that he was within the prohibited degree. The defendant objected to this measure, but the objection was overruled, and the evidence admitted. Defendant excepted. Yerdict and judgment for the State. Appeal by the defendant.

This was an action of debt, tried before PeesoN, J., at the Pall Term, 1857, of Anson Superior Court. The suit was commenced by warrant against Thomas Britt and Edward R. Streator, merchants aud partners, trading under the name of Britt and Streator, to answer Roland R. Sellers to the use of James A. Liles, of a plea of debt, due by note for sixty dollars, with interest.

AotioN on the Case, tried before ReesoN, J., at a Special Term, January, 1858, of New-IIanover Superior Court. The action was brought against the defendants as common carriers, for failing to carry and deliver a quantity of iron taken on hoard their steam-boat for transportation. The defendants and James Cassidy were tho owners of the steamer Fayetteville, used upon the Cape Fear River to tow vessels across the bar, and when necessaiy, to lighter them also.

Tuts was a petition for a mandamus, to be directed to the justices of Harnett count}*-, to compel them to pay for work; done and materials furnished on a court-house and jail for said county, heard upon a motion to quash, before MaNLY, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Harnett Superior Court. This cause was before this Court at December Term, 1856, upon points to which the present considerations have no reference.

AotioN of ejeCtment, tried before Dice, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Tyrrel Superior Court. S. S. Simmons, in whose name there was a count in the •declaration, appeared in open Court, and through the defendant’s counsel, requested tire Court to have the count in his name stricken out, which motion was refused, and the defendant excepted. .

This was an action of tkespass, tried before Dirac, J., at the last Eall Term of Bertie Superior Court, and the counsel for the parties made, and submitted to the Court, for its judgment, the following: CASE AGREED. “ On the 16th of November, 1851, one Samuel S. Simmons made a contract of purchase of certain growing cypress trees from the plaintiff, and took from him a paper-writing, of which the following is an exact copy : “ Received of Samuel S. Simmons, his obligation…

ActioN of covenant, tried before Dice, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Currituck Superior Court. The action was brought to recover the value of a slave, Ouse, who had runaway and finally escaped from service, on the following deed : “ State of North Carolina, Currituck county. $720.

<p>ActioN of bjeotMENt, tried before Manly, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Moore Superior Court.</p> <p>The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

AotioN of detinue for the recovery of a slave Louis, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term of Bladen Superior Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before SauNdees, J., at the Special Term (February, 1858,) of Wayne Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for the price of boarding the defendant and his horse for a certain period, and the defense relied upon was payment and set off, and accord and satisfaction.

AotioN of assumpsit, tried before bis Honor, Judge Manly, at a Special Term of Beaufort Superior Court. The suit was brought by warrant on a ten-dollar bank note, issued by the defendant, payable at Washington, to the bearer on demand, which had been demanded and protested for non-payment. Thg case was brought to the Superior Court by appeal.

This was an action of trespass quare clcmsvmi fregit, tried before SauNdees, J., at tlie Special Term, February, 1858, of Wayne Superior Court. The suit was brought for damages for striking and carrying away a part of the toll-bridge over the Neuse river, belonging to the plaintiff’s testator.

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Wilson Superior Court. The defendant agreed to meet the plaintiff next day and execute to him a deed for a lot in the town of Wilson, between the hours of 10 A. M. and 2 P. M. The plaintiff paid defendant fifty dollars, in part of the purchase money, and it was further agreed, that if eitheV party failed to perform the contract, he should forfeit to the other, fifty dollars.

Motion to amend, heard before Caldwell, J., at the last Superior Court of Wilson county. The writ was issued iia April, 1857, returnable to the Fall Term of that year against John T. Barnes.

ActioN of Debt, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Craven Superior Court.

ActioN of assuMpsit, tried before Person, J., at a special term, (Jan’y, 1858) of New-TIanover Superior Court. The defendant’s intestate was the owner of a rice mill, and the plaintiff sent his rice to be beat.

AotxoN of detinue, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Duplin Superior Court.

ActioN of debt, tried before Ellis, J., at the Fall Term, 1857, of Wayne Superior Court. The plaintiff declared on the following bond: “ On demand-promise to pay to the Wilmington and Manchester Rail Road Company, or order, twenty-five dollars, for value received, being the first instalment of five per cent, on five shares of stock subscribed, by-■ in said company. October 30th, 1847.

Motion to discharge a debtor from custody., under the aid for the relief of insolvents, heard before MaNly, J., at the last Spring Term of Cumberland Superior Court. A ea. sa. bad issued from a justice of tlie peace against the defendant, and a bond taken returnable to Marcli Term, 1855, of tbe County Court.

AotioN of EJECTMENT, tried before Manly, J., at the Spring Terra, 1858, of Sampson county. The title of the lessor of the plaintiff depended upon possession for seven years, under a mortgage deed, the debt secured by which, had, as alleged by the defendant, been satisfied.

Issue dmisamt ml non, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Halifax Superior Court. The only point upon which exception was taken by the ■caveators, was iu relation to the due publication of the will, and upon that, the proof was as follows : The will was written by Mr. Simmons as dictated by the testator; after it was written, it was read over to him, and lie assented to it.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Bowan Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for the non-payment of $1000, subscribed by the defendant to the capital stock of the company» The defendant’s subscription was proved. The pleas were general issue, payment and set off, and accord and satisfaetion.

MotioN to amend a record, heard before SauNDEes, J..,. at the last Spring Term of Orange Superior Court. A suit was pending in the County Court of Orange county between the plaintiff and defendant, which was agreed to be referred to two arbitrators, and an entry of such agreement was made of record in the suit.

INDICTMENT for MURDER, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Spring Term of Halifax Superior Court. Evidence was offered by the State, of confessions made by the prisoner to one Eaucette, which was objected to by the prisoner’s counsel, upon the ground, that Mr. Parker, the examining magistrate, had shortly before that, induced the prisoner to confess, by holding out hopes of his being favored, if he would do so.

<p>An indictment for larceny, charging, in one count, the thing stolen to be “a certain writ of ji. fa. belonging to the Superior Court,” — in another count “a certain process of and belonging to the Superior Court,” and in a third “ a certain record of and belonging to the Superior Court,” is too vague to authorise a conviction under it.</p> <p>An allegation in a bill of indictment, charging that the defendant stole a fi. fa. issued from, the Superior Court office is not sustained by proof that the A fa. was made out, but retained by the clerk, at the instance of the defendant, until the amount was paid to Mm.</p>

AotioN of TROVER, tried before Caldwell, L, at the last Spring Term of Beaufort Superior Court.

MotioN to commit the defendant to custody, heard before SauNdees, J., at the last Term of Guilford Superior Court.

Soiee Pacías to subject bail, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term of Orange Superior Court. The facts of the case are: the plaintiff, Adams, brought suit against defendants William II. Campbell, George Jackson and Pride Jones, returnable to August term, 1856, of Orange County Court, and a bail-bond was returned, which is as follows, viz: “ North Carolina, Orange County. “Know all men by these presents, that we, William II.

<p>A promise to pay the debt of another, superadded to the original debt which still remains in force, is within the Statute of frauds, and will not sustain an action.</p>

This was an application for leave to interplead in an attachment, which came lip by appeal from the County Court of Chatham to the Superior Court, and was there heard before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term. The plaintiff had taken out an attachment against Thomas Andrews, returnable to November Term, 1857, of Chatham County Court, which was levied on a tract of land on Deep River.

This was an action of teespass, qua/re dailswnfregit, tried before MaNly, J., at a Special Term, 1858, of Beaufort Superior Court. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was proved that William J. Smith was guardian of the plaintiffs, the children of one Capps, five in -number, two of whom are the female plaintiffs. As guardian of these children, while yet minors, Smith licensed Windly, the defendant’s intestate, to cut timber upon their land.

AoxioN of teespass, guare clausum fregit, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Spring Term of Edgecombe Superior Court The plaintiff purchased of the defendant his farm in Edge-combe county, by deed in fee, and went into possession of the same. Upon the premises, thus conveyed, there were two stills, used for distilling brandy, incased in brick and mortar work, and covered with a shelter, which could not be removed without pulling down the work.

Tins is an action of assumpsit, brought by an overseer against his employer for wages, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Spring Term of Edgecombe Superior Court. The defendant was the owner of two farms, lying near Eocky-mount depot, and engaged the plaintiff tO' superintend and manage them for the year 1856. ITe took possession, and had charge of these farms for the first three months of that year, when he was discharged by the defendant, and left the business.

AotioN of assumpsit, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term of Stokes Superior Court The plaintiff declared for services rendered, as a physician and a surgeon, to a sick person at the defendant’s request. The defendant was sent for Hr. Pettis to assist in a surgical operation, and not finding him, the defendant went to the house of the plaintiff, and said “ I have come after yon to go and see a sick man. This is all the witness heard.

AssuMpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at tbe Spring Term, 1858, of Lenoir Superior Court. The plaintiff declared upon a special contract, in writing, executed 1th October, 1856, and in all the usual counts in assumpsit.

ActioN of debt, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Stokes Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for the penalty of $500, given by the 105th chapter, section 17, of the Revised Code, against defendant, as sheriff, for making a false return.

ACTION of debt, for a penalty, tried before SauNDEbs, J., at the last Spring Term of Stokes Superior Court. The plaintiff declared for the penalty of $500, given by the statute, Eev. Code, oh. 105, sec. 17, against a Sheriff for making a false return.

<p>A limitation as follows': “ But should my wife die without heirs of her body, then at her decease, the whole of the property to ,go to the use and benefit of my daughter,” was Held to be good as to the remainder; for that the restriction to the time of the wife’s decease prevented the limitation over from being too remote.</p> <p>AA transposition of the' sentences of a will is allowed by the rules of construc- | tion, when necessary to express the intention of the testator.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Hyde Superior Court.

AotioN of debt, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term, of Alamance Superior Court. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note of the defendant payable to James M. Ivlapp, and endorsed by him to the plaintiff after it became due. Ivlapp, and one Sterling W. Holt, were in co-partnership under the firm and style of J. M. Ivlapp and Holt, and in the course of their commercial transactions, had given a note for $125, to the defendant Hanner.

<p>Motxok to dismiss an ATTACHMENT, before SauNdees, J., at the last Spring Term of Person Superior Court.</p> <p>The attachment was predicated on the following affidavit, viz:</p> <p>“ State of Worth Ga/rolma, Person County.</p> <p>W. R. Webb maketb oatb before me, W.'R. Reade, a justice of the peace, in and for the county and State aforesaid, that "William 0. Bowler hath endamaged him in his property by a false warranty in the sale of a slave, and by falsely and deceitfully selling the said slave as sound, he knowing that the said slave was unsound, to the amount and in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that he so absents himself, from the county and State aforesaid or so couceals himself that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him. Sworn to and subscribed on this 4th day of September, A. D. 1857.”</p> <p>The attachment was made returnable to the next Superior Court of Person county, and was returned levied on a house and lot in Eoxboro.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the attachment upon the ground that it was improvidently issued, and that there was not sufficient matter set forth in the affidavit to au-thorise the Court to take jurisdiction of the case.</p> <p>To this it was objected, that the property levied on not having been replevied, counsel had no right to make this motion, nor the Court to entertain it.</p> <p>The Court overruled this reply of the plaintiff, and upon consideration of the motion, ordered the attachment to be dismissed. From which judgment, the plaintiff appealed.</p>

<p>This was an action of debt for a penalty, tried before Saust-dees, J., at the last Spring Term of Orange Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared as an overseer of a road, against the defendant, for failing to send his hands to work upon the public road after due and sufficient warning. The only question was, as to the competency of the evidence to establish the plaintiff’s appointment as overseer; to do this, the plaintiff introduced an order, which had been duly issued by the clerk of the county court, it being the copy which had been served on him. The clerk of the court produced a book, headed “ road docket,” which he proved belonged to his office, and was used for the purpose of recording the road districts, and the appointment of overseers. The entry in this book, which was relied on, was objected to, as being loose and unintelligible. (A further description of it is made unnecessary, by the view taken of the case by this Court). The evidence was admitted by the Court, and the defendant excepted.</p> <p>Yerdict for the plaintiff. Judgment. Appeal by the defendant.</p>

<p>A warrant against a Rail Road Company “for the non-payment of a certain sum “due by damage sustained,” there being nothing in any other part of the proceedings to make it more certain, is fatally defective.</p> <p>Whether service of process on a mere station agent 'On the North Carolina Rail Road is good; Quere?</p>

ActioN of Assmipsrr, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Davie Superior Court. The plaintiff agreed, on 26th of May, 1855, to purchase the defendant’s cotton crop, to be delivered to him at Iloltsburg ; it was to be paid for, on delivery, by note, with certain names to it as sureties, to run for twenty days. This much of the contract was reduced to writing on a leaf of the defendant’s memorandum book.

AotioN of assumpsit, tried before SauNdees, J., at a Special Term, (June, 1858,) of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The following facts were submitted, in a case agreed, for the judgment of the Court.

AotioN of detinue, tried before Dice, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Cabarrus Superior Court.

AotioN of ejeotMENt, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Superior Court of Bowan. CASE AGREED. The lessor of the plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining tracts of land, and the part in dispute is a slip, in the form of an acute angled triangle, lying along the division line between them.

ActioN of debt upon the official boutl of tbe defendant as sheriff of Iredell county, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Bowan Superior Court. Tbe relator, Murphy, bad taken out a capias ad sat-isfaciendum, against one Julius W. Houston, for the sum of —-—- dollars, which came to tbe bands of tbe defendant on tbe 4th day of September, 1855.

ActioN of TROVER, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term of Davidson Superior Court. This was an action of trover to recover the value of a negro, alleged to have been converted by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed the property, in question, as a trustee, for the benefit of Mrs. Moore, and her family, under a deed made by James Elliott, her father, for that purpose.

INDICTMENT for MURDER, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term of Forsyth Superior Court. The defendant was indicted for the murder of Eli, a slave. It appeared in evidence, that Eli had for a wife a free woman of color, by the name of Lucy Hine, who was indicted with Frank, but they were permitted to sever in the trial — her trial being removed, on affidavit, to another county.

This was an action of teovee, tried before Caudwell, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Wayne Superior Court. The declaration was for the conversion of a gun.

Tins was a motion, made before SauNdees, J., at the Special Term, June 1858, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, in an action of ejectment, for a rule for the production of papers.

This was an ACTION for a deceit and false waeeaNtt in the sale of a. mare; tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring-Term of No wan Superior Court. There was evidence tending to show that the mare was unsound, and that the defendant knew of such unsonndness at the time he sold to the plaintiff.

ActioN of assumpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Hyde Superior Court. The action was brought against the defendant as a common carrier, for failing to deliver a quantity of cotton and naval stores to the plaintiff’s consignee in the city of New York, according to his written undertaking so to do.

This was an action of COVENANT, tried before Saundebs, J., at the last Spring Term of Alamance Superior Court. The action was brought on the following instrument: “ Thomas McCracken: “ You will please to let the bearer, Mr. Thomas G. Brown, have the note made by him, and General Joseph S. Ilolt, security, and we, the undersigned, will be responsible to you for the same on this order.

This was an INteeplea filed by Thomas S. Gholson, in an attachment taken out by the plaintiff against The Yirginia and North Carolina Planing and Lumber Company, tried before MáNLY, J., at the last Superior Court of Northampton County.

Tms was an action of ejectheNT, tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Warren Superior Court. The only point in the case necessary to be stated, is the exception of the plaintiff’s counsel to the deposition of Edward Ilopgood, which had been taken on the monday of the term, at which the cause came on to be tried, and was tried. The deposition was taken in the town of Petersburg, State of Virginia.

AotioN for a deceit and false waReakty, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Cabarrus Superior Court. The plaintiff offered to read the deposition of Cyrus Scott to prove the contract of sale.

AotioN of Debt, tried, before Bailey, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1858, of Lineóla Superior Court. The action was brought by warrant, before a justice of the peace, for the sum of $95,52, on the 5th day of October, 1857. The note, declared on, was for one hundred and three dollars, due on 24th of August, 1856.

This was a motion to dismiss a capias ad satisfaciendum heard before PeksoN, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Henderson Superior Court. The only question in this case, was whether a capias ad satisfaciendum, executed on tbe defendant twenty days before the term of the Court to which the same was returnable, is incl/usive or exclusive of Sunday.

Aotiow of assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered, tried before Satosdebs, J., at the last Spring Term of Polk Superior Court. The defendant relied on the statute of limitations, to rebut which, the plaintiff offered a witness, who testified that he read the account over to the defendant, who said in reply, he supposed it all right, and he was willing to settle, and give his note, but he thought the plaintiff had not given him all the credit to which he was entitled.

Tins was an action of teovjsk, tried before Bailey, J., at a Special Term (Jnly, 1858,) of Buncombe Superior Court.

This was a motion, heard before PbesoN, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Macon Superior Court. The suit had been pending for two or three terms, and at Spring term, 1857, the defendant was put under a rule to give security for the prosecution of his suit on or before the second day of the next term, or it was to stand dismissed ; at the next term it was ordered to be dismissed under the rule of the last term.

This was an INDiotmeNt against the defendant, Parham and one Anne Branton, for fornication and adultery, tried before SauNdees, J., at the last Spring Term of Cleaveland Superior Court. The evidence was, that the female defendant, being a single woman, had had a bastard child within the last two years, which the male defendant had acknowledged to be his, and he confessed that, within that period, he had had criminal intercourse with the female defendant-.

<p>One charged with a crime, who turns State’s witness against his associates, under an assurance that his disclosures are not to bo used against him, may be cross-examined as to what he told counsel about the offense, while he was himself charged.</p>

INDICTMENT for Mukdeb, tried before Sattndeiír, J., at the Spring Term, 1S58, of Oleaveland Superior Court. The charge was for the murder of a small child of the ago of about two years, by burning and by a blow.

ActioN of trespass Q. C. F., tried before PjbksoN, J., at the Fill! Term, 1857, of Gaston Superior Court. Both-plaintiff and defendant claimed under one Cox. He originally owned the land, described in the annexed diagram, by the letters O,.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Bailet, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Lincoln Superior Court. The action was commenced by a warrant, for articles sold, and brought to the Superior Court by appeal. It was proved that the plaintiff' kept a grocery, and retailed spirituous liquors by the small measure, under a license from the county court. The bill exhibited against the defendant was for $39.

<p>This was an indictment for burglary, tried before Saunders, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Rutherford Superior Court.</p> <p>The bill of indictment charged the burglarious breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William F. Eowler, &c.</p> <p>The proof was, that the building in which the offense was alleged to have been committed, was a store-house, standing at the distance of two hundred and fifty yards from the dwelling-house of the owner, on the opposite side of the road; that Eowler, the owner, occasionally slept in the store room, on a pallet, spread on the counter, with bed-clothes kept there in a box; that there was no bed, or bedstead in the apartment; that there was no chimney to the building; that he slept in the store in this way, sometimes twice in a week, and at other times, not as often as once in two weeks ; that no other person slept there.</p> <p>His Honor instructed the jury, upon this state of facts, that the house was one in which burglary might be committed. Defendant excepted.</p> <p>Verdict, guilty. Judgment and appeal.</p>

This was a motion to direct the taxation of costs, heard before PeesoN, J., at the last Fall Term of Lincoln Superior Court. At the preceding Term of the Court, an issue of devisavit vel non was tried, and tlie jury found that the paper writing propounded, was not the will of the decedent. Upon this verdict, there was no judgment for costs.

ActioN of assuMpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at tbe Special Term, July, 1858, of Buncombe Superior Court. Tbe action was brought for goods sold by tbe plaintiffs, who are merchants in tbe city of Charleston.

AotioN of ejeCtment, tried before Peeson, J., at the Pall Term, 1857, of Wilkes Superior Court.

AoxioN of ejectMent, tried before Dice, Judge, at the Eall Term, 1857, of Cherokee Superior Court. The only question in this case was, whether, according to the proper construction of the deed, offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, the estate thereby granted, was an estate for years, or an estate at will.