Volume 51 — North Carolina Reports

Action of covenant, tried before BailA, J., at the last Spring Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court.

This was an action of covenant, tried before Shephekd, J., at the last Fall Term of Camden Superior Court. The plaintiff declared upon the following sealed instrument, viz: “ For value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay to Major Gregory or bearer, one hundred and three dollars, in a good note on demand.

This was an action on the case for a libel, tried before Shep-heed, J., at the last Superior Court of Currituck. The declaration set forth the following letter as the ground of the action : C! Mr. JEclmund E. Summons — ■ “ Sir: I hereby forwarn you not to go upon my lands, belonging to me, while breath remains in your body. I shall keep off your lands and you must keep off of mine.

Action of ejectment, tried before Shepiikkd, J., at the last Fall Term of Perquimons Superior Court. Angelina Elliott was entitled to the land in question in 1841, and had then the undisputed right of entry. She intermarried with Anthony Elliott in 1847, and brought this action in 1856. The demise in the declaration, on which the only question in this action turns, was alleged to have been made in 1844, in the names of Anthony Elliott and his wife Angelina, jointly.

Action of detinue, tried before SaundeRS, J., at the last Pall Term of Richmond Superior Court. This is an action of detinue for certain slaves, the children of a woman named Caroline, formerly the property of John McAllister.

Trover for the conversion of a horse, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Eall Term of Hertford Superior Court. The plaintiffs adduced in evidence a bill of sale, absolute, on its face, from A. J. Winborn to themselves, for the horse in question, dated 28th of August, 1856.

<p>Where A, claiming under a lease from a stranger, took possession of land and continued in possession, cultivating turpentine trees, which had been previously boxed, and after the turpentine had run into the boxes, B, who was the owner of the land, entered and dipped the turpentine out of the boxes and converted it to his own use, it was Held that A could maintain trover for the conversion.</p>

<p>This was an indictment for petit laeoent, tried before SiiepheRD, J., at the -last Term 'of Gates Superior Court.</p> <p>The charge was for stealing an ox, and the questions raised below were, as to whether the Judge gave proper instruction to the jury in respect of their duty, in case they should have any doubt, and in refusing to instruct the jury that they could not convict on the uncorroborated evidence -of an accomplice. Both these points were given up in this Court; hot the defendant’s counsel insisted that the expression, an ox, in the bill of indictment, means a liming ox, and as the proof stated is, that the defendant shot the animal, and afterwards took it away, that the fact appeared that the animal was dead when stolen, and, therefore, there was a variance. The case does not state that there was any distinct fact put in -issue below, as to whether the animal was dead, or alive, when stolen, nor that there was any exception taken below as to this .point.</p>

This was am indictment for murdee, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Fall Terns of New-Hanover Superior Court. The indictment charged that the felonious assault was made upon the body of one Nathan Simmons, by John B. Simmons, the son of the present defendant, and that the latter was present, feloniously aiding and assisting in the crime.

This was a indictment for keeping a disorderly house, tried before Sauhdeks, J., at the last Fall Term of Richmond Superior Court.

ActioN of trespass, a. b., tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Onslow Superior Court. The case was instituted to try the question of the defendant’s right to bold the plaintiff as a slave, and was submitted as on certain facts agreed. The plaintiff was once the slave of Edward Williams, and is now tbe slave of the defendant, unless he has been emancipated.

Motiost for a summary judgment against the sheriff -of Bichmond, and his sureties,, tried before- S-auNdeks, J., at the last Superior Court of that county. The plaintiff sued in the- character of county trustee, for monies levied and collected by the defendant, Buchanan, as sheriff, for the building, repairing, &c., of the public buildings.

Indictment for burglary, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Fall Term of Robeson Superior Court. It was in evidence, that a man by the name of James Oha-son, (the prosecutor) lived on the borders of the Pig Swamp, and on the night of Tuesday after Christmas, 1857, his house was broken open and certain articles of property stolen by a number of negroes; that the prisoner was present, but the rest of the negroes were unknown to the witnesses.

Action of tboveR, for the conversion of an anchor, tried before Dick, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Currituck Superior Court.

Ejectment tried before Heath, J., at the last Superior Court of Wilson County. Held: that the deed did not divest the estate of Mrs. Crowell and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover; and from a judgment accordingly the defendant appealed.

<p>A bill of indictment against a person by a wrong- name, which is pleaded to in abatement, and the plea found, is, nevertheless the same cause of action, and the elapse of two years is no bar to the prosecution.</p> <p>Being against the same person, the words of the statute providing a saving of one year after the first prosecution shall have been abandoned, would have been a sufficient reply to the plea of the statute, even if there had been a bar.</p>

<p>Where <one partner used the effects of the firm in the payment of his private debt, it was Held, in a suit for the price of these effects, not to be error in the Court to instruct the jury, that if the other partner assented to tlie settlement, or subsequently agreed to it, it was a bar to the recovery.</p> <p>Where it appeared that each of the partners of a firm was in the habit of using the debts of the firm in satisfaction of his private debts, and entries of such facts duly made upon their books, it was Held, in an action by the firm, for the price of goods thus disposed of, that this habitual mode of dealing was proper evidence to repel the existence of fraud in such disposition, and to create a bar to a recovery for such goods.</p> <p>Held further, that the payment of a debt of the firm, subsequently created, to the defendant by the complaining partner, was competent evidence to the same effect.</p> <p>Held further, that the declaration of the offending partner was also competent.</p>

<p>Aotiow on the case, tried before Ellis, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Edgecome Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared against the defendants as a common, earner.</p> <p>The plaintiff placed eighty or one hundred barrels of turpentine at a point on the defendant’s railroad, called “ The Nicholson place,” to be carried on a freight train to a distillery at Battleboro’. The place where the turpentine was deposited, was not a regular station on the road. They had no warehouse nor employees there, but frequently took on freight from that point. Two different conductors had prom-ished, soon after the turpentine was placed at the point above named, to take it to the distillery “as soon_as they could,” which not being done for some weeks, the plaintiff applied to another conductor, who said “ he would carry it on the following Monday morning; that he thought he could do so at that time.” On that morning, some turpentine was taken from tlie “Nicholson Place” to Battleboro’, hut none of the defendant’s, although there were empty cars in the train. The plaintiff’s turpentine while lying at the Nicholson Place, was destroyed by 'fire.</p> <p>The Court intimated an opinion that the plaintiff could not recover on this state of the facts, on which he submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, tried before Peeson, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of the Superior Court of the county of Brunswick. The lessors of the plaintiff claimed title to the land in dispute by descent from Mary, who was a daughter of Caleb Granger, and wife of William Blount, a former Governor of Tennessee. They proved that they were his heirs at law, and that the defendants were the tenants in possession at the time of the service of the declaration.

The action is debt, on a bond for $500, dated April 21st, 1855, and payable to the plaintiff on demand, tried before Caldwell, Judge. Plea non est factum ; and on the trial, the question turned upon the delivery of the instrument.

<p>The act of 1854, Bov. Code, ch. 107, sec. 2u, is to be received according to the import of its strong and general terms, and accordingly, a master cannot, now, arm his slave for any purpose.</p> <p>In a proceeding before a justice of the peace, against a slave for carrying arms, the act gives the master a right to appeal.</p> <p>In such proceeding, the magistrate has no right to give judgment against the master for a fine.</p>

<p>Action on tiie case, tried before Saundees, J., at Spring Term, 1858, of Forsyth Superior Court.</p> <p>This was an action on the case for injuries done to the plaintiff’s house, in which the testator was a lodger, by his conducting certain experiments with gun-powder and other inflamable substances, so carelessly and negligently, that an explosion took place, whereby the house was much torn and shattered. The testator himself was much injured also, and died in a few hours ; and the action was brought against his executor. On the trial, the counsel for the defendant, insisted that the action did not survive against him.</p> <p>There was a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on that point., and afterwards the presiding judge was of opinion with the defendant, and set the verdict aside, and entered, a nonsuit, and therefrom the plaintiff appealed.</p>

TW was a case agreed, tried before Shepherd, Judge, in which these facts are stated. Thomas Latham died intestate, leaving the relators, who are infants, his next of kin. Administration was committed to one Bowen, who filed a petition early in 1849, against the relators, praying that an account might be taken of the estate in his charge and settled, so that he might pay over the same.

Indictment for a eiot, tried before Caxdwell, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Johnston Superior Court.

<p>Action on the case, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Pali Term, 1857, of Hash Superior Court.</p> <p>This is an action on the case, against the defendants as common carriers, and was submitted to the Court and jury on the following facts : On the 5th of March, 1856, the plaintiff de-ivered at the defendant’s depot, at Battleborough, nine bales of cotton, weighing 3953 lbs. in good order, and with the plaintiff’s name on them, with orders to the company’s agent at that place, to forward them by the road to his factors, Messrs. Odom & Clements, in Norfolk, Virginia, and the agent accepted them for that purpose. Instead of marking the bales in the name of Odom & Clements, as the consignees, they were entered on the books and way-bill of the company, as consigned to Messrs. Mcllwaine, Son & Co., of Petersburg, in Virginia. The cotton was accordingly sent by the defendant’s agent to Mcllwaine, Son & Co., who received it, and sold it on the 28th of March, 1856, at 9f cents a pound ; and both in Petersburg and Norfolk, that was the price on that day, and the charges of factors were the same. The plaintiff advised Odom & Clements of his intention to forward the cotton to them, and ordered them to hold it until he should direct a sale, as he thought it would rise. lie was informed afterwards, by them, that they had not received the cotton, and on the 25th of April, 1856, discovered from the company’s books, that it had not been sent to Norfolk, but to Pe-tersburg, as before-mentioned. On the first of May following, Mcllwaine, Son & Co., rendered to the plaintiff an account of sales, and sent him the nett proceeds, which he received. The price of cotton advanced rapidly and regularly after the sale, and on the first of May, was twelve cents, and in September, 12f, of which the plaintiff was regularly advised by Odom & Clements. Storage was thirty cents per bale for the first month, and for each succeeding one, twelve and a half cents. The action was commenced August the 12th, 1856. The question, on the trial, was as to the amount of damages; and the presiding Judge instructed the jury that, as the rise and fall of the cotton was contingent, the plaintiff was only entitled to nominal damages, and there was a verdict for six pence, and j udgment, and the plaintiff appealed.</p>

INDictment for gaming, tried before DicK, J., at the last Fall Term, of Eorsyth Superior Court.

<p>Where the owner of a tract of land, uncertain as to quantity, covenanted to make title to the same, upon the covenantee’s paying a certain sum and giving bond and surety for the balance of the purchase-money, at a certain price per acre, it was Held that an action could not be supported upon the Covenant until there was a survey of the premises,</p> <p>possibly, a demand by the covenantee for a joint survey, and a refusal on the part of the covenantor to concur therein, might have been sufficient without an actual survey.</p>

Actioit of debt, tried before Dick, J., at the last Eall Term of Randolph Supeijgor Court. The action is debt on a bond of the intestate, to which the defendant pleaded, fully administered and no assets.

Action of debt, tried before SaundeRS, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Chatham Superior Court. The action was brought to recover the balance due upon a subscription to the Haywood and Pittsborough Plank Road Company, which was $400 00, with the privilege of paying the same in sawed lumber.

Ejectment, tried before Dick, J., at the last Eall Term of Orange Superior Court. Both parties claimed title under Rebecca Hart, the plaintiff under a will, made by her, in 18é8, and proved, Hovem-ber, 1856 ; the defendant under a deed, which had been proved and registered, dated 4th of April, 1856, the consideration of which, was alleged to be a bond, of the same date, for the maintenance and support of the bargainor during her life.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Dick, Judge, at the Fall Term, 1858, of Chatham Superior Court. For fear of misapprehending the statement of the case sent to this Court, the Reporter deems it proper to copy it literally. It is as follows: “The defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial, the plaintiff declared specially upon the following written agreement, viz: “State of North Carolina, Moore County.

AotioN of debt qui tarn, for usury, tried before Sauhdeés, J., at the Spring Term, 1858, of Granville Superior Court. The time of forbearance was stated in the plaintiff’s declaration, to be from the 6th of Feb’ry, 1855, until, and upon, the 6th of February, 1856. The evidence was that the defendant agreed to wait twelve months.

<p>Action of debt, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Eall Term of Anson Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared on two bonds for $200 each, payable to Eli Shepherd, and endorsed by Matthew Grace, the administrator of Shepherd. Pleas: JSon est factum and no assignment.</p> <p>After proving the execution of the bonds, and the endorsements of them by Matthew Grace, the plaintiff gave evidence of Shepherd’s death, and of the grant of administration of his estate to the same Matthew Grace, by a court of Ordinary in Georgia. The defendants then gave evidence of a grant of administration of Shepherd’s estate by the County Court of Anson, in this State, to the defendant Hannah, before the institution of this suit.</p> <p>The counsel for the defendants thereupon insisted, “ that the administrator, in Georgia, could not maintain an action /these bonds in this State, especially against one, who was the administrator here ; and that, if he was not authorised by law so to do, lie could not, by transferring the bonds, vest in the assignee, a better right than he himself had.” And the counsel further insisted, “ that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the common law of England was presumed to obtain in Georgia; and, as by that law, bonds were not negotiable, and the plaintiff had not given in evidence any statute of that State, making bonds negotiable, the administrator of the obligee, in that State, could not assign the bonds of his intestate, so as to vest a legal title in the assignee.” The Court overruled both of the objections, and after verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appealed.</p>

Assumpsit, tried before Manly, J., at the last Eall Term of Iredell Superior Court. The action is assumpsit, brought on a bill of exchange, drawn by R. L. Barkley of Trenton, in Tennessee, upon B. Elder, Brothers & Co., of New Orleans, for $372,00, in favor of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.

AotioN of assuMpsit, tried before Dice, J., at the last Eall Term of Eandolph Superior Court. The plaintiff declared on a guaranty, endorsed on a bond of $200, payable to him, defendant, by one Jesse Bray, and dated the 4th of April, 1839. The endorsement was as follows : “ I guarantee the payment of the within note to Abel Cox, for value received.” Signed John D. Brown.

Action on the case, for a deceit in the sale of a slave, tried before Peeson, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Wilkes Superior Court. The plaintiff proved the sale by a bill of sale from the defendants to him, dated 20th of Eebruary, 1855. There was no evidence of what took place at the sale, except that it was by public auction. It was proved that the slave was unsound at the time of the sale, and that the defendants knew it.

<p>Petition for a distributive share, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Terra of Northampton Superior Court.</p> <p>It was referred to the clerk of the Court to state an account of the assets in the hands of the administrator and the disbursements made by him; and while the matter was open before him, the defendant produced two bonds, purporting to be executed by the intestate, payable to the defendant; one, for two hundred and forty-nine dollars, payable one day after date, and dated 3rd of April, 1847 — the other for one hundred and eighty-five dollars, payable in the same way, dated 12th August, 1848, which he insisted on as retainers. The commissioner aillo wed these claims, and the plaintiffs excepted to the report.</p> <p>The first ground of exception was, that the papers offered were not the deeds of the intestate. 2ndly. That they had been paid.</p> <p>The Court ordered issues to be tried by a jury, embracing these two questions, and it was upon the trial of these issues, that the exceptions, now under consideration, were taken.</p> <p>It appeared, in evidence, that the defendant was the son of the intestate, Elsey Lawrence ; that he arrived at full age in 1847, and continued to live with his mother until 1848, when he married, and in the latter part of that year, became insolvent. lie continued to reside with his mother until her death, in the year 1852, when he became her administrator.</p> <p>The Court left the question, as to the execution of the bonds, to the jury, upon the evidence adduced. Upon the other part of the case, he instructed the jury that, if an administrator alleges himself to be a creditor of the intestate by bond, as in this case, and insists on the same as a retainer, he must offer other evidence that the debt exists, over and beyond the mere production of the bonds, and that no other evidence had been offered. Such, said the Court, is the law, to guard against the danger of an. administrator’s finding bonds payable to himself among his intestate’s papers, which had been paid off in his -life-time, but not cancelled. The defendant excepted.</p> <p>The jury returned for their verdict, that the bonds in question, had been duly executed by the intestate; and on the second issue, that they had beenpcdd.</p> <p>The report was reformed in conformity with this finding, and the same having been confirmed, judgment was rendered thereupon for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.</p>

Action of detinue, for four slaves, tried before Manly, J., at the last Cabarrus Superior Court, and was submitted upon a case agreed. J. R. Stafford, the intestate of the plaintiffs, intermarried in the year 1854, with the present defendant, who was then fourteen years of age, and had a father living, who did not give his consent to the marriage.

ActioN of TROVER, tried before Heath, J., at the last Fall Term of Lenoir Superior Court. The action is trover for a female slave, Chaney, and her five children. It was originally brought by John Davis, the executor of Windall Davis, deceased; and upon the death of the executor, was revived by the present plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non, cum tes. cm.

Indictment for an attempt to commit a rape upon a white woman, tried before Caldwell, Judge, at tlie last Pall Term of Northampton Superior Court. On the trial, the State offered to prove, that immediately after the offense and the charge against the prisoner, he fled, and though searched for under process, by an officer, he could not be found for a week or two. The defendant’s counsel objected to this evidence, but it was admitted by the Court. The defendant excepted.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Fall Term of Cumberland Superior Court. Held: that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance; and from a judgment therefor, the defendants appealed.

Action of covenant, tried before Caldwell, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Halifax Superior Court. The plaintiff declared upon the following instrument, viz : “ Memorandum of an agreement, this day entered into between Hat Dunn and Benjamin Johnson, of Halifax county, Horth Carolina. “ The said Johnson agrees to hire to said Dunn three pairs of sawyers, at twenty-five dollars per month per pair, to be paid on or before January 1st, 1856.

, at the last Fall Term of Randolph Superior Court. The plaintiffs’ offered evidence to show, that they were to thresh the defendant’s wheat for the Utb. bushel; but the defendant had the option to pay for the threshing, in money, at •the market value of the wheat due for toll.

Ejectment, tried before Dick, J., at the last Fall Term of Alamance Superior Court. Both the plaintiff and defendant claimed title under one Thomas Davis. The former exhibited a bond executed to him by Davis, and the record of a suit and judgment thereon in 1848. Execution had issued on this judgment, which was levied on the land in question, and it was sold to the plaintiff, at public auction, and a sheriff’s deed made to him accordingly.

Action on the case, tried before SaundeRs, The declaration was for negligence on the part of the defendant’s intestate in so using a fire, built near the plaintiff’s house, for the convenience of himself and his agents, as to cause the destruction of the building, and of a quantity of lumber procured for the construction of the same.

INDICTMENT for a eoecible teespass, tried before Saundebs, J., at the last Fall Term of Granville Superior Court. One Fuller, a free negro, occupied a house, in the forcible taking possession of which, it was alleged the trespass was committed. It was preved that the family of Fuller was put out of possession of the premises with violence, -and that he and they were kept out from that time, forth.

ActioN of debt for a penalty, which came by appeal from a a magistrate to the Superior Court of Rowan, and was tried before Manly, J., at the last Eall Term of that Court. Plea, nil clelit.

This was an action of debt, tried before SaüNdees, J., at the 'Special Term (June, 1858,) of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The declaration was on the bond of the defendant, due on the 1st of January, 1843. The writ was issued on the 15th day of June, 1855.

<p>Bov one to go .with an absconding debtor to a Railroad depot, where he took passage in the train, and to tako his horse back to his residence, knowing of the debtor’s fraudulent intention to abscond, is such aiding and assisting as will make the party liable under the statute.</p>

This was an application to take the insolvent debtor’s oath, before MaNly, J., at the last Eall Term of 'Union Superior Court. The defendant, Redwine, who is the applicant in the case, had filed a schedule, in which, among other things, is this clause : “ 4th, a claim against Wyatt Austin, for the surplus remaining in his hands after satisfying the trust, executed to him by A. Redwine, on the 16th of August, 1857, amounting to about $2930,40.

<p>This was an action on the oasis for negligence, in keeping the plaintiff’s horse in the defendant’s livery stable, whereby7 he was lost; tried before Bailey, J., at Spring Term, 1858, of Rowan Superior Court.</p> <p>The defendant kept a livery stable in the town of Salisbury, and agreed with the plaintiff to keep his horse at seven dollars per month. The defendant also kept other horses, belonging to a stage-coach, which were under the management of a driver. Mr. Chunn stated that he, as agent of the defendant, had the superintendence of the stable; that plaintiff’s horse and the stage-horses were put in the stable at night; that the plaintiff’s horse was put in a stall by himself with a halter around his neck, with the other end fastened Jo some part of wood-work of the stable ; that the rope was large and strong ; that the stable had a folding door, with upper and lower shutters, which were fastened inside ; that on the next morning he went to the stable ; that the plaintiff’s horse had broken his rope and was gone, and that the stage-horses, the stage and the driver, were also gone ; that he found the horse near the railroad, on which he had been killed by the engine’s running over him ; that a part of the rope was around his neck, and the other part was in the stall where he had been fastened ; that he found the lower part of the door closed and fastened, as he had left it the night before, but the upper part was open. There was no evidence as to the height of the lower part of the door.</p> <p>It was insisted by the plaintiff’s counsel, that the stable door was left open by the stage-driver when he took out his horses, and that after he left, the plaintiff’s horse made his escape, and that this was negligence.</p> <p>The Court charged the jury, that if this was so, the defendant would be responsible; but if the plaintiff’s horse was in his stall and fastened with a halter, in the manner mentioned ed by the witness, and while the stage-driver was in the act of taking his horses out, the plaintiff’s horse broke his halter and passed out at the door at the same time the driver was taking his out, he would not be responsible. Plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>Yerdict for the defendant. Judgment and appeal.</p>

Action of debt, tried before Manly, Judge, at the last Eall Term of Cabarrus Superior Court. The action is debt on a single bill, under seal, for $180,00, dated January 17th, 1853, and payable one day after date, which was given by the defendant to tlie' feme plaintiff, when sole : Pleas, that the bond was delivered as an escrow; and that it was delivered an a condition, which had not been performed.

Motion to correct a judgment, heard before Shemieed, J., at the last Superior Court of Pasquotank. The suit in which the judgment in question was entered, had been returned io the County Court of Pasquotank, at the trial term of which Court, the defendants’ pleas were withdrawn, and a judgment final by default was taken ; whereupon the defendants appealed to the Superior Court.

Tuespass vi et armis and false imprisonment, tried before Heath, J., at the last Fall Term of Craven Superior Court. The action was brought to. try the right of the plaintiff to his freedom, and it was admitted that he was in the possession and under the control of the defendant, who claimed him as his slave ; and it was admitted, further, that the plaintiff was black.

Action of ejectment, tried before SaundeRS, J., at the last Superior Court of Moore county. The premises were granted to Charles Shearing in 1187, and he soon after died, leaving'several children,.of whom a daughter, Nancy, was one. She soon afterwards intermarried with one TIardin, and they had' issue, the lessor of the plaintiff, and died in 1846. The present action was brought on 1st of June, 1854..

Action of ejectment, tried before PERSON, J., at the Special Term (January, 1858,) of Uew-Hanover Superior Court. The lessor of the plaintiff claimed title to an undivided sixth part of the premises against the defendant, by estoppel, as one of the heirs-at-law of Abraham Golding. She proved a demand of the defendant before suit. To establish her pedigree, she offered the depositions of Ann McDonald and others, taken in Baltimore, Maryland.

This was a motion before MaNly, J., at the last Eall Term of Rowan Superior Court, to strike the name of the defendant from the record as one of the caveators, upon the ground, that she was not of the next of kin, and, therefore, did not have any interest in the suit. The only question in the case was, whether the former act was repealed by the act of 1838, on the subject of legitimating bastard children.

ActioN of ejeotMent, tried before Siiepiieed, J., at the last Superior Court of Bertie.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Dice, J., at the last Term of Camden Superior Court. The action is assumpsit, on a parol warranty of the soundness of a slave sold to the plaintiff.

<p>In an action by two joint owners of a vessel against a captain for negligence and delay in making a voyage, it was-Held that upon the death of one of them, the right to carry on the action survived to the other plaintiff, and that it was a misjoinder to bring in the executor of the deceased partner.</p> <p>It was Held further, that as the .misjoinder appeared on the record, it was error to order a nonsuit, but that the objection should be taken by demurrer, writ of error, or motion in arrest of judgment.</p>

This was an action of EJECTMENT, tried before Heath, J., at the last Superior Court of Carteret. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The only facts necessary to the understanding of this case, will be found in the opinion of the Court.

Action on the Case, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the Eall Term, 1857, of Greene Superior Court. The action was brought by Benjamin S. Edwards, who died during the pending of the suit, and his executors, the plaintiffs were made parties. The declaration was for the obstruction of an easement in a mill, whereby the plaintiff’s testator was entitled, as he alledged, to grind corn, and to saw, and pick cotton, toll free.

This was an action of assumpsit for money liad and received, tried upon the issue, joined upon the plea of non assump-sit; at Alamance on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Hick.

This was an action of ejectment, tried before Ellis, J., at the last Spring Term of Wake Superior Court. The Hon. Henry Seawell had possession of the land in question for more than twenty years, claiming it adversely to all other rights.

Actiow of Trespass Q. O. F., tried before Shepherd, J., at the Fall Term, 1858, of Chowan Superior Court. The case was tried on the general issue. The plaintiff claimed the premises under a grant from the State to himself, dated June 11th, 1855.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Dick, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Perquimons Superior Court. The action is assumpsit, on a special promise, and was tried on the general issue. The case was : The plaintiff and Thos.

<p>Where, to a writ of alternative mandamus, the defendant exhibited a bill in equity, alleging- an equitable defence to the demands of the plaintiff, and praying for an injunction to restrain him from prosecuting the writ, and asked that that might be received as a return to the writ, it was Beld not to be error in the Court to refuse the injunction, and to order the defendant to make return.</p>

Tins was an action on the case, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Superior Court of Beaufort county. The plaintiff declared in tort against the defendant, alleg-ging that he undertook and promised to carry a certain box, containing watches, from the town of Washington, 27. C., to New York, and to deliver them to Kingsly & Co., and that from negligence and the want of care, those articles had not been delivered as agreed, but had been lost.

<p>Actior of trespass, Q. C. P., tried before ShepheRD, J., at the last Pall Term of Washington Superior Court.</p> <p>The action was brought for cutting cypress trees and making them into shingles. The plaintiff claimed the premises south of the line between Town Swamp, and Coniot Swamp, marked in the diagram as “Swash,” and the defendant owns the lands to the north of it marked “ Caesar’s Island.”</p> <p>The first question raised by the exceptions of the defendant was as to the boundary designated in his deed; the calls important to he noticed, are as follows : “ thence to the run of Town Samp, (Gf,) thence down the Town Swamp to the Swash, A, thence down the Swash to Coniot Swamp, thence up the various courses of the said swamp, to the first station.” The question between the parties was, whether the line should be run straight from the month of Town Swamp, '(A,) to the Coniot Swamp, or whether it should follow the course of some running- water, called “Broad Water,” through the Swash, which would lead to Coniot Creek, which creek the defendant insisted was reached bj Coniot Swamp at 0. The plaintiff</p> <p> </p> <p>insisted that the mouth of Coniot Swamp was at B-. It was conceded that if the mouth of Coniot Swamp was at B, and a straight line was run from A to B, the defendant would be a trespasser.</p> <p>The Court charged the jury, “that they must determine where Coniot Swamp was, at the date of the call; that having determined this, “ the course of running from Town Swamp would be to start from the Swash and then proceed in a straight line through to Coniot Swamp.” The defendant excepted to this instruction.</p> <p>All the lands on both sides were claimed under leases from the Tuscarora Indians. The plaintiff had a life estate in a lease of the lands which he claimed (the loom in quo being a part) for 99 years, which would expire in the year 1916, and a reversion after the expiration of the term» The residue of this lease between the plaintiff’s death, and the end, of,the term, belonged partly to the children of one Martin Ballard, and partly to one Barrington.</p> <p>• The Court assumed that the Act of Assembly of 1824, converting the estates or interests in the long leases made by the Tusearora Indians into real estate, did not affect the reversion, and instructed the jury that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to the full value of the timber cut and sawed up and made into shingles. Defendant’s counsel again excepted. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Appeal by the defendant.</p>

<p>Action of debt, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the Fall Term', 1851, of Duplin Superior Court.</p> <p>The following facts were submitted for the judgment of the Court, in a case agreed by the counsel of the respective parties. Routlege, one of the defendants, in August, 1853, was elected clerk of the Superior Court of Duplin, and at September term following, gave bond in the sum of four thousand dollars, with the following condition : “How, if the said Edward P. Routlege, shall well and truly collect, account for, and pay over to the proper officers authorised to receive the same, all such sums of money as may, or shall he due, and collected for taxes, suits, fees, fines and forfeitures awarded, and shall collect, receive, and pay over to the persons entitled to receive the same, all other monies, which shall come into his hands by virtue of said office, then, &c. to which bond, the other defendants were his sureties. At September Term, 1854, Routlege failed to renew his bond, but continued in the execution of his office. Just prior to September Term, 1855, he applied to the defendant, H. Ilall, to become his surety in a new bond for the ensuing official year, which the latter refused, stating that neither he, nor the other defendants, T. Ilall and Smith, considered themselves liable for him after September Term, 1854. At September Term, 1855, the said Routlege agaiu failed to renew his bond, but continued to discharge the duties of his office until March Term, 1856, when he resigned and a successor was appointed.</p> <p>At September Term, 1855, the relators recovered a judgment against Hooper and Holmes for $438, with interest and cost, upon which execution was duly issued and returned, “sat, isfiod,” and the money paid into the offiee a few days prior to March Term, 1856.</p> <p>Shortly afterwards, a demand was made for the money of the defendant Routlege, who stated that he could not pay it, having misapplied it. The action was brought upon the bond of 1853, and the breach alleged, was the failure to pay the amount of the above mentioned judgment paid into his office.</p> <p>It was agreed that if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon this state of the facts, judgment should be entered for the debt and costs aforesaid, but if of a contrary opinion, he should order a nonsuit.</p> <p>The Court being of opinion with the plaintiffs, gave judgment according to the agreement, from which the defendants appealed.</p>

Action on the case for a deceit, tried before Dick, J., at the last Eall Term of Chatham Superior Court. The defendant, as the sheriff of Moore county, was present, conducting a sale of property under executions in his hands against one Bryant.

Action of debt on three bonds, tried before Siiepiieed, J., at the/last Fall Term of Chowan Superior Court. The plaintiff offered as a witness, Ilenvy A. Gilliam, (as to whom'a noli prosequi had been entered,) who was one of the co-obligors, to prove the execution of the bonds declared on, aud was the surety for the defendant’s intestate. The witness was objected to on the score of interest, but admitted by the Court. Defendant excepted.

<p>Action of trespass, Q. 0. F'., tried before Shepheed, J., at the last Pali Term of Pasquotank Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff offered, as a witness, one Thomas J. Etheridge, who, upon his preliminary examination, stated that he had no-interest in this suit; that he liad a suit now pending- against the defendant for the same matter; that he had rented the 1-oeus in quo to the plaintiff, during the year 1854, and was to receive one-third of the crop for rent. The defendant objected to the admission of this witness, but the objection was overruled, for which, the defendant excepted.</p> <p>This witness stated, that in 1854 he rented the field in question to the plaintiff, who had it in cultivation in corn in May of that year, when the land was covered with water, from the opening of a ditch leading into the field, which had been cut. by tbe witness in August, 1853 ; that this ditch ran through an upper farm, which the witness sold to the defendant, Shaw, in 1853. On cross-examination he stated that the ditch commenced in the upper farm, (now Shaw’s) where the land wag. cleared, ran in a line with, and a few feet of, an old canal, until it, (the canal,) entered into the land of one Baxter; thence it ran in a direct course to the corner of the Carrell field, (the locus in quo;) thence into a ditch in that field. lie said that it was a “ three foot” ditch, and was not cat as a drain to the upper farm, but to obtain earth for making a dam to keep the back water off of his land, and was stopped up the day after it was finished, both inside and outside the Carrell field, by throwing logs and earth, and other things into it; that it was not opened again until the trespass complained of; that by this act the water was thrown upon the plaintiff’s field, covering it over and drowning the growing crop. lie stated further, that in August, 1853, he was living upon the upper farm, and sold it to Shaw in the November following.</p> <p>William, McZennon stated that he was in the employment of the defendant, and was sent by him, with his hands, to unstop the ditch in question in May, 1854, which he did by removing the obstructions on the outside of the plaintiff’s field; that he then entered into the field and took out the logs and earth which had been placed there as an obstruction, and let the water through upon the plaintiff’s field below, which was covered with it. This witness stated further that he had seen this obstruction in the ditch before Etheridge sold to Shaw.</p> <p>The plaintiff then offered evidence, that there were sixty thousand corn hills in the field, and that the damage done was equal to one barrel in the thousand. Another witness stated that the loss was fifty barrels, and that corn was worth 77i cents, at Norfolk and Elizabeth City, per bushel. One of these witnesses testified that the dam in the ditch was put there in 1853.</p> <p>The defendant offered a deed from Thomas J. Etheridge to himself, dated November the 29th, 1853, for the upper farm. Willoughby McBride testified as to the situation of the two farms, and the former modes of draining them, and as to the natural flow of the water, which, from the view taken of the subject by the court, is not deemed material. He said he did not know when the dam in question was put into the ditch.</p> <p>Dr. G. G. Marchant testified to the same purport as the foregoing witness. He also stated that he did not know when the ditch was dammed or obstructed with logs, &c., as Eth-eridge has described it. Joseph B. Morgan, and B. M. Baxter, both testified as to the same matters spoken of by the witness, McBride, and both concluded by saying that they did not know when the obstructions were placed in the ditch.</p> <p>There was no evidence on either side that proved this field to have been overflowed previously to the trespass complained of.</p> <p>There was no further evidence as to tiro ditch, whether it was intended to be used as a drain, or as to the time when it was obstructed — whether before or after the upper place was sold to the defendant.</p> <p>The Court charged the jury, that the plaintiff being in possession of the land with a crop growing on it when the dam in the ditch was cut by the defendant’s orders, he was entitled to recover damages for the loss he had sustained, if that loss was connected immediately with the act of the defendant; that if the ditch, at the time of the sale to Shaw, in 1853, was in the condition in which Etheridge had described it to be when he made and left it in the August before, nothing passed to Shaw but the incidents connected with the laud at the time of the sale to him, and he acquired no right thereby to enter upon a neighboring tract of land and remove obstructions thereon for the purpose of facilitating the drainage of his own land. The Court further charged the jury, that there was no evidence that the obstructions spoken of were placed in the ditch after the sale to Shaw.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel then asked the Court to charge the jury that they ought not give damages according to the estimate of the witnesses touching the value of corn in 1854, but damages only for flooding the land, and the necessity of replanting the corn. To this the Court replied that the proper rule had been laid down on the subject, and declined to charge further. Defendant excepted for this and for error in tbe instructions given to the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff.’ Judgment. Appeal by the defendant.</p>

ActioN of TRESPASS, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Pall Term of Chowan Superior Court. The plaintiffs declared in trespass against the defendants for cutting down and carrying away several cypress trees.

Action for negligence, brought originally before a justice of the peace of Wayne county, and came up by successive appeals to the Superior Court, where it was tried before Heath, J,, at the last Eall Terra. The warrant recited that the plaintiff complained against the railroad company for negligently running their cars over a cow and killing it. The command was to take the body of William K. Lane, a director of the said company.

, at the last Fall Term of Chowan Superior Court. The Clerk of the Superior Court of Chowan swore that he issued a capias against one Jeremiah Jones, on the 13th of April, 1858, returnable to the Fall Term, ensuing, (which happened in October following,) which writ was directed to the sheriff of Washington county, at Plymouth, and not returned; and, thereupon, the solicitor moved for an amercement, nisi, against the said sheriff; but it not appearing that the said writ had…

<p>A male and female slave intermarried, with the consent of the owners, in the form usual among slaves; afterwards, the male slave was emancipated, and purcbassed his wife; they then had born to them ono child; the female slave was then emancipated, and, still living- as man and wife, but without any further ceremony passsing between them, they had several other chil-den; it was Held that neither the first nor the others of these children were legitimate; so as to take as tenants in common with legitimate children of the father by a second marriage.</p>

Action of debt for a penalty, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Halifax Surerior Court.

Action on the case, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the last Spring Term of Halifax Superior Court. The action was brought for the negligence of one of the servants of the company in permitting a switch to be out of place, whereby a collision took place between two trains, which caused the injury and death of the plaintiff’s slave. The injury took place at a place called Joyner’s station.

Action of detinue, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Spring'term of Granville Superior Court, for the-detention of six slaves. The defendant, on the day of February, 1848, married Susan, the daughter of the plaintiff, at her father’s residence, in the county of Mechlenberg, in the State of Virginia.

<p>EjeotmeNT, tried before Saunders, J., at the Pali Term, 1858, of Cumberland’ Superior Court.</p> <p>CASE AGREED.</p> <p>The lessors of the plaintiff are the heirs of Peter J. Campbell, and James S. Campbell, and Elizabeth Campbell, widow of the said James. They claim title to the land by a deed from James S. Campbell, the former owner, to the said Peter J. Campbell, which was made on 17th of March, 1825, on the eve of a marriage, abput to take place between the said James and the said Elizabeth, then Elizabeth Pilley. By this deed, the land in question, with other property, real and personal, is conveyed to the said Peter J. Campbell, in trust, for the sole and separate use of the said Elizabeth, and then in trust for the children of the marriage. The defendant admitted possession. To estop the defendant, the plaintiff exhibited the records of a petition in the Court of Equity of Cumberland county, by “ James S. Campbell, Peter J. Campbell, trustee, Elizabeth Campbell, the wife of James Campbell, Anna Maria, Ilenry S., Delphia L., William Alivier, and Thomas James Campbell, children of the said James S. and Elizabeth Campbell, by their' next friend, Thomas S. Campbell, setting out the said deed, and the seizin in trust, by the said Peter, and "praying that the land in-'question, and some other property, might be sold fora reinvestment, also a decree of sale — á report of the clerk and master of á sale to James S. Campbell, and-.a décrefe that the clerk and master-make'title. '• ATdéed Vás- ákd-'pródíihed frbm -’-the clerk-and’ master to1 Dan-:,íél!Bkke¥, 'aridUioiff'diim.^ to - thel: 1 defendants-.--1-’Tli.e':defeñdants •1 'dry-Jathés ' -Cainpbellibf¿his bid at the master’s sale, to Daniel Baker, who paid the money bid into the office.</p> <p>The plaintiffs produced no other evidence of the title of Peter J. Campbell.</p> <p>It was admitted that the defendants were in possession when the suit was brought.</p> <p>TJpon this case agreed, his Honor being of opinion with the plaintiffs, gave judgment accordingly, from which the defendant appealed.</p>

Action for covenant for the warranty of title to a slave, tried before Pbeson, J., at the Pall Term, 1857, of Mecklen-burg Superior Court. The slave, Caleb, the subject of this action, had originally 'belonged to one-Benjamin Johnson, of Abbeville District, South Carolina, who made a deed of gift for him to his sister Anne, afterwards intermarried with John Burnet.

Alfred Prue, a free boy of color, an inhabitant of Franklin county, was bound by the County Court of that county, as an apprentice, to one Fuller, a resident of that county, who removed from the State in 1849, leaving the apprentice in charge of the defendant, Hight, also a citizen of Franklin county.

Action on the case, for an injury to a slave hired by plaintiff to the defendant, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Eall Term of Columbus Superior Court. The plaintiff declared: 1st. Specially that he hired the slave, Edmund, as a turpentine band, and for that purpose only, and by the defendants’ otherwise employing him, he was injured. 2ndly.

INDICTMENT for an injury to stock, tried before Saunders, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1859, of Washington Superior Court. Held: that upon these facts, the defendant was guilty under the statute, and so instructed the jury, who found a verdict for the State. Defendant’s counsel excepted. Judgment and appeal to the Supreme Court.

Case, for deceit and false wabeanty in the sale of a horse, tried before Sauhdees, J., at the last Term of the Superior Court of Bertie.

<p>Action of debt on a guardian bond, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term, of Pertie Superior Court.</p> <p>The defendant was guardian for the plaintiff, and on the latter’s coming of age, all the slaves, and the other effects, belonging, or arising to the plaintiff, which were in defendant’s hands, were delivered to the plaintiff, except a negro man by the name of Drew, who had died during the last year of the guardianship, and the main question, in this case, is, whether the defendant is liable in a suit on his bond, to account for the loss of this slave. The facts, in relation to the slave Drew, are, that on the 1st of January, 1857, the defendant, as guardian, publicly hired him and other slaves of his ward for that year, and in doing so, had it distinctly announced that no one of them was to be carried out of Bertie county, or worked in a stave-swamp. Drew was put up under these restrictions and bid off by the defendant, through an agent, for $131. The slave in question was valuable, and would have hired for $150 without restrictions. The defendant, on the 2nd of January, sent tiie said slave to his stave-swamp, in Martin county, where he was killed, about the middle of February, by the falling of a limb from a timber tree which he was cutting.</p> <p>On the occasion above mentioned, when the slaves, &c., were handed over, $131 was accounted for and received by the ward as the hire of Drew for the year 1857. On that occasion, also, the plaintiff signed and delivered to the defendant the following sealed instrument of writing, viz : “ Beceiv-ed, Sept. 26th, 1857, of Mr. ¥m. TI. Lee, my guardian, the sum of $2,853 67, the amount of monéy, in bonds, due me from the said William H. Lee, guardian, in full settlement with him, so far as relates to the sum herein aforementioned. Also, received of him negroes, Ephraim, George, Patience, Eveline, Judy, Charles and Eose, and I hereby release for myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators, all claim and demand in relation to the same, money and negroes aforementioned by name, either in law or equity,” which the defendant insisted on as a bar to this recovery.</p> <p>The defendant proved that before the hiring of Drew, as aforesaid, the plaintiff had consented that the defendant should hire Drew and work him without restrictions. It was also proved that after plaintiff came of age, he insisted that the defendant should account for the hire of Drew at the price of an unrestricted hand.</p> <p>The Court left the value of the slave to be estimated by the j ury, who gave a verdict for $1011, expressing that $1000 was the value of the slave, and $11 for addition to the hire as an unrestricted hand. The Court reserved the question as to the plaintiff’s right in law to recover on these facts, with leave to enter such a judgment, as he thought the law authorised, for a breach of the bond, and afterwards being of opinion with the plaintiff, gave judgment according to the verdict, and the defendant appealed.</p>

Indictment against the defendant, as a free negro, for carrying fire-arms, against the form of the act of Assembly, tried before Heatii, J., Brunswick Superior Court. The State introduced one Pritchett, who swore that he knew the defendant, and had known him as long as he had known any one; that he had never seen any of defendant’s ancestors, and knew nothing of them from reputation.

Action of teoveR, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of New-Ilanover Superior Court. The action was brought for the conversion of a slave named Jim.

Actioh, trespass vi et armis for killing a liog, the property of the plaintiff, tried before ITeath, J., at the last Spring Term of New-Hanover Superior Court. The defendant relied on the plea of “justification,” and proved a special killing by the hog of a chicken and another attempt to do so, in order to establish that the hog in question, had the reputation of “ a chicken eating hog.”. This evidence was objected to, but admitted by his Honor. The plaintiff excepted.

Case, tried before IIeatii, J., at the last Term of Columbus Superior Court The plaintiff declared in two counts, one at common law, and the other under the statute for removing a debtor. It was in evidence that the plaintiff resided in the county of Robeson, and that I).

<p>Action of assumpsit, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of Columbus Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff declared on a special contract in two counts : 1st. Upon a promise of the defendant, that if the plaintiff would go to Wilmington and become the bail of the defendant’s son, one Daniel W. Rogers, who was imprisoned there upon a criminal charge, the plaintiff should lose nothing by what he had done, or should do, thereafter, for the defendant’s said son.</p> <p>2ndly. Upon a promise of defendant, that if plaintiff would go to Wilmington, and become the bail of the defendant’s son, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff all the debts which his said son owed him.</p> <p>It was in evidence, that in the month of February, 1854, Daniel W. Rogers, the son of the defendant, was imprisoned in the jail of Hew-IIanover county upon a chargé of forgery, and that the plaintiff, at the request and on behalf of the said D. W. Rogers, left his home in Robeson county and went to Wilmington, and after remaining there a day or two, at the request of D. W. Rogers, proceeded to the residence of the defendant in Wake county; that in passing through Raleigh he met with one Buffalow, who expressed a willingness to become the bail of D. W. Rogers, if the defendant would give him a bond of indemity; that a bond was prepared accordingly, which plaintiff took with him to defendant’s house, where, in conversation about the matter, plaintiff expressed a fear that he should lose a considerable sum which D. W. Rogers owed him ; to which the defendant replied, that if the plaintiff would go to Wilmington with Buffalow, a/nd become the bail of his son, he should lose nothing by what he had done, or 'might do for himj that on the next morning there was another conversation, in which the plaintiff requested the defendant to put his promise in writing, to which the defendant replied, that it was unnecessary, for his-word was his bond ; and he then called upon the witness to take notice ; that “ if the plaintiff would go to Wilmington with Buffalow and become the bail of his son Daniel, he should lose nothing by what he had done, or might do for him, and that all the debts which Daniel owed him should be paidthat soon af-terwards, the plaintiff and Buffalow went to Wilmington and became the bail of the said Daniel Rogers, in the criminal case, but there having been certain writs against him for debt in the meantime put into the hands of the sheriff, he was still detained in prison ; that soon afterwards the defendant sent an agent, who, acting under a power of attorney, made by plaintiff, had the debts compromised and settled, so that the said Daniel was discharged without giving any further bail; that the said Daniel,immediately left the State, and has not since that time returned to it.</p> <p>It was further in evidence that some months afterwards the plaintiff went to Wake county, and demanded from, defendant payment of the amounts owed him by D. W. Rogers, to which defendant replied, he believed his son would pay his debts, and that it was time enough for plaintiff to talk about his paying, when Daniel failed to pay; to this plaintiff rejoined, that he had not looked to D. W. Rogers for the debts due him since the defendant promised to pay the amount, and added, that if he had not relied on that promise, he would hme done as others had done ; that the defendant then said, if he was not already bound, he should not be; that some short time afterwards, defendant asked the witness, what plaintiff meant by this expression in relation to the course he would have pursued; to which the witness replied, he supposed plaintiff meant that he would have brought suit as others did ; to this defendant rejoined, he supposed that was his meaning. The debt of D. W. Rogers to the plaintiff was then proved, and it was further proved, that defendant’s agent had paid plaintiff forty or fifty dollars on account of his expenses and services in going to Wilmington.</p> <p>The Court,in reply to a callfor instructions, charged the jury, that according to the evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the debt owed by D. W. Rogers to him as demanded in the second count of the declaration. Ilis Honor further charged, that for his services and expenses in going to Wilmington after being requested so to do, he was entitled to recover, but for the services previously rendered, and the expenses incurred at the request of D. W. Rogers, the defendant was not liable. His Honor also adverted to the evidence going to show that forty or fifty dollars had been paid plaintiff on account of services and expenses on the trip to Wilmington, and instructed them, that if they believed that was a fair compensation for such services and expenses, the defendant would be entitled to their verdict. The plaintiff’s counsel excepted to these instructions. The jury found for the de--defendant, and from a judgment in his favor, plaintiff appealed to this Court.</p>

This was an action of djeut, tried before Heath, J., at tbe last Spring Term of Auson Superior Court. Tito plaintiff declared on the following official bond, made by A. 1|.

This was an indictment against the defendant, as a free negro, for carrying fire arms, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Spring Term of Brunswick Superior Court. . In order to show that the defendant was a free negro, the solicitor for the State, asked a witness whether the defendant passed as and was reputed in the neighborhood in which he lived, to be'a free negro. The witness answered in the affirmative.

Ixdictmbkt for MURDER, tried before IIeatii, J., at the last Spring Term of Brunswick Superior Court. A special venire was asked for and directed to be issued, under which one hundred jurors were summoned. As each juror came to the book he was challenged by the defendant for cause, and in each case the cause assigned was, that the juror was not indifferent between the State and the prisoner, for that he had formed and expressed the opinion thfjtthe prisoner was guilty.

Action of assumpsit for money had and received, tried before Heath, L, at the last Fall Term of Robeson Superior Court. The jury, by the consent of parties, was permitted to pass upon the damages, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the verdict should not be set aside and a nonsuit awarded. The damages so assessed were $490. The facts of the case, as proved by the witnesses, were as follows: The plaintiff showed, that he was administrator of one John Ilammand.

This was a petition for the reprobate of a will, hoard before Heath, J., at the last Term of Anson Superior Court.

AotioN of assumpsit, tried before Heath, J., at the Fall Term, 1858, of Craven Superior Court. The action was brought by the plaintiff, to recover certain tolls for the transportation of produce on the Neuse River, alleging that she had bought the franchise and right of receiving toll, that had theretofore belonged to the Neuse River Navigation Company, and the only question considered by this Court, was, whether she had so purchased the right of the corporation.

This was an action of waste, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of Duplin Superior Court. . The writ in this case was as follows t “ State of North Carolina.

The defendants offered in evidence a receipt, of which the following is a copy: “ Received of L. A. Merriman four hundred and forty-nine dollars 25-100, in full of an execution in my hands for collection, in favor of Kelly, Newkirk and Co. v. Thomas E. Shepherd and O. R. Hallingsworlh, in Duplin County Court, returnable to October term, 1857. Signed, Jons D. Abeenatiiv, Sh’ff.” October 23d, 1857.

<p>Assumpsit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Term of Guilford Superior Court.</p> <p>The action is assumpsit for $175, the price of a horse sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, with a count on a quantum valebat. On the general issue pleaded, the ' evidence was: that in 1856, the firm of Rankin & McLean, of Greensborough, put into the possession of one Hath, as their agent, two horses, three mules, a wagon and gear, and a lot of tobacco, for the purpose of being taken off for sale, with instructions to make the sales and apply the proceeds to the payment of a certain debt which they owed in Fayetteville, and the surplus to the payment of any other note of theirs, which had become’doe. Hath sold all but two of the mules, and he exchanged those for the horse in question, about the middle of January, 1857. On the 27th of January, 1857, Han-kin & McLean failed and made a general assignment to the plaintiff, for the benefit of their creditors to an amount much exceeding the value of all their effects. The deed included specifically the several articles delivered to Hath for sale, and, if sold by said Hath, is assigned the proceeds of those sales, and also, contained a clause conveying and assigning all their effects, debts and securities. Rankin & McLean were indebted to the defendant in a bond for $277 76, with interest from April 2nd, 1854, and, on hearing of their assignment, the defendant, with a view to saving his debt, went from Greens-borough in search of Hath and met him in Randolph county, and, after informing Hath of the failure and assignment of Rankin & McLean, it was agreed between them that the defendant should purchase the horse at the price of $175, payable in ninety days, and that he should giye a note therefor payable to Rankin & McLean. Before the note was given, or the horse delivered, Hath informed the defendant of the authority he had to apply the proceeds of the property in his hands to the debts of Rankin & McLean, and it was then agreed between them, that, instead of giving his note for the price, the defendant should credit the amount on the bond he held, and give Hath a receipt therefor. That being done, Hath delivered the horse to the defendant, and in a day or two afterwards, delivered the defendant’s receipt to the plaintiff. Some short time afterwards, the plaintiff demanded of the defendant that he should deliver to him the horse, or pay him the price, but the defendant refused to do either, alleging his purchase from Hath in part payment of the debt which Rankin & McLean owed him, and this suit was then brought, March 27th, 1857.</p> <p>On the part of the defendant, it was insisted that upon these facts the action would not lie. But the presiding Judge held the contrary, and under his instructions, the jury found a verdict for the sum of $175, and the interest thereon, and the defendant appealed.</p>

Actioít of assumpsit, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Term of Washington Superior Court. Samuel Simmons was the guardian of the plaintiff, an infant, and, on 1st of January, 1856, he offered a number of slaves for hire for the year 1856, to the highest bidder, the hirer to give bond and sureties for the hire.

Action of detinue, for slaves, tried before ITeatii, J., at the last Spring Term of Eichmond Superior Court. The declaration was for the detention of six slaves, the increase of a woman named Nicey.

<p>Action of ejectment, tried before Ellis, J., at tlie Spring Term, 1858, of Martin Superior Court.</p> <p>Hillary Whitehurst, at his death in 1836, was the owner of the land in controversy, and the lessors of the plaintiffs are his children and heirs-at-law, suing within three years after their arrival at full age. One Thomas Howell, at October Term, 1836, of Martin County Court, administered on the estate of the said Hillary, and also, became the guardian of the feme plaintiff, Mary, his daughter. John IT. Whitehurst, the other lessor of the plaintiff was not then born, but was born within nine months after the death of his father, and before the institution of the proceedings to sell the land. These proceedings were a petition at January Term, 1837, of which the following is a copy: “The petition of Thomas Howell humbly complaining, showeth unto your worships, that at the last term of your worshipful court, administration on the estate of Hillary Whitehurst was committed to your petitioner, as also the guardianship of Mary E. Whitehurst, infant child and heir-at-law of said Hillary. Tour petitioner further shows to your worships, that the debts due from the estate of the said Hillary, greatly exceed the personal assets which have come, or by possibility can come, to his hands as administrator. Your petitioner further shows unto your worships that the said Hillary died seized and possessed of a tract of land lying in the county of Martin aforesaid, adjoining the lands of John Pliil-pot, Thomas Howell, and the heirs of Kenneth Hyman, which has descended to the said Mary E., one of the heirs-at-law of the said Hillary. Your petitioner further shows to your worships that, in as much as the lands which have descended, as aforesaid, must, in process of time, be sold for the settlement and payment of debts of the said Hillary, to satisfy judgments against said Mary E., as heir-at-law of said Hillary, and for cash, and as the interests of his ward will be advanced by a sale of such lands upon a credit of six months, your petitioner prays your worships that he be permitted to sell said lands upon a credit of six months, in conformity to the act of Assembly in such case made and provided ; and that your worships will make such other and further order in the premises as to your worships may seem right and fit, and to justice may appertain, and your petitioner, &c.”</p> <p>At the same term, was entered on the record of the court this entry: “ Ordered by the court, that the prayer of the above petition be granted, and that, as the facts set forth in the petition are true, as appears by the oath of E. G-. Hammond, the guardian have leave to sell the lands mentioned and described in said petition.”</p> <p>The following is'found also of record in the County Court: “In pursuance of an order of the Court of Pleas and quarter Sessions of Martin county, I have sold the lands of Hillary Whitehurst, upon a credit of six months, and Sarah Manning became the highest bidder at the price of $660, for which I have taken her note at six months, the credit upon which the land was sold. Williamston, April 12, 1S3T.”</p> <p>The defendant, Mrs. Manning, produced also a deed from the commissioner Howell, for all the land described in the petition.</p> <p>It was contended by the plaintiff’s counsel that this whole proceeding is void, and that no title passed to the purchaser, or that at any rate, only a moiety, to wit, the right of Bryan and wife.</p> <p>It was insisted by the defendant that she had title to the whole, but that at any rate, she has title to a moiety — that of Bryan and wife, and that as they have been improperly inserted as lessors, and there is no separate count on the demise of John IT. Whitehurst, the plaintiff cannot recover all. The above facts are stated in a case agreed, and submitted for the judgment of the Court, who gave the same for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant appealed.</p>

Blacldedge, and motion for a rule that he show cause, &c., heard before MaNly, J. The notice was as follows: “You are hereby notified that at the June sessions of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Craven county, 1858,1 shall move the said Court for a judgment against you for the moneys due the Superior Court clerk’s office of Craven county, from the said William S. Blackledge, the former clerk of said county, -which the said Blackledge has failed to account for.” On…

Aotioh of assumpsit, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Spring Term of Beaufort Superior Court. The plaintiff's declared on a parol warranty of the soundness of a schooner called the “ Caroline,” on a sale of her to them by the defendants.

Action on the case, tried before Caldwell, J., at the Pall Term, 1858, of Hash Superior Court. The plaintiff delivered to the agent of the defendant at their station, at 'Weldon, some bacon, to be earned on the road to the station at Battleboro’.

<p>Actiox ok the case for a deceit, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last term of Alamance Superior Court.</p> <p>The plaintiff produced evidence tending to show that the defendant, who resided in Greene county, in March, 1857, sent seven bales of cotton to the railroad station at Goldsboro’, for the plaintiff, which there weighed between thirty-nine hundred and four thousand pounds; that the defendant, soon thereafter, came to the station and enquired as to the weight of the cotton, and on being told, said that it had not held out with the weight at his plantation; that the cotton was dispatched from Goldsboro’ for the plaintiff, directed to Graham on the North Carolina Eail Eoad, and in June or July of the same year, was carried to the Cane Creek Factory in Ala-mance county; that at Graham, the bales were seen to be bursted, the cotton to be of inferior quality, and mixed with sand; that on being taken to the factory, it was put through a process called “ willowing,” and from the seven bales there was cleaned 1579 lbs. of sand ; that the cotton, in consequence of the sand and soil mixed with it, was not worth more than five or six cents per pound. The witnesses all concurred in stating that from the time of the arrival of the cotton at Graham, its quality and the intermixture of sand, was obviously to be seen upon examination. The defendant produced a witness to show that the plaintiff told him, in March, 1857, that he had bought as much cotton as he vmnted, and had given only twelve cents per pound for it. In reply to some remark of witness, as to the lowness of the price, plaintiff said that he did not buy it as a first rate article — that it was of the last picking.</p> <p>Defendant also called a witness who stated that he was the overseer of the defendant, and that he overlooked the picking from the field, of a part of the seven bales sent to Goldsboro,’ and the ginning and packing of the whole of it; that he put more than half the cotton in the press himself; that it did not have any mixture of sand in it, to his knowiedge; nor had he any reason to believe that the defendant had any such knowledge. Tie further stated, that after the cotton had been ginned and packed, it was piled up in the gin-yard, and covered with plank to protect it from the weather; that after this, in the month of March, 1857, he saw the plaintiff and defendant near the cotton so situated.</p> <p>Another witness testified, that he was a neighbor of the defendant; that it was not usual, in that part of the country, to pick out cotton as late as February, — that he saw defendant’s cotton field in February, 1857, and thought it w’as as good as a lot of his own, picked out in that month, which he sold in June succeeding, for 13J cents per pound in Wilmington. The defendant contended that by ordinary diligence, the plaintiff could have seen the sand .in the cotton.</p> <p>His Honor instructed the jury that if the plaintiff, bjr ordinary diligence could have discovered the sand in the cotton, and failed to exercise such diligence, he could not recover, for in such cases he was not allowed to say that he was deceived. Ho special instructions were prayed.</p> <p>Yerdict for the plaintiff, and judgment and appeal by the defendant.</p>

Action of debt on the official bond of a constable, triedbefore Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Wake Superior Court.

<p>AotioN of COVENANT on three several policies of insurance against fire, tried before Manly, J., at a Special Term., (January, 1859,) of Craven Superior Court</p> <p>. The policies declared on, were admitted by the defendants. It was therein covenanted, that the company should’, on certain terms, mutually insure the property of each of its members against fire. A part of the covenant in each was, that a true de. scription should be given of the property insured in an application filed, and that such description should become a part of the policy. The policies were effected upon “goods and merchandise” contained in a building in the town of New-Eerne, and in the plaintiff’s application for insurance,, a part of the description of the building- is as follows: “36 x 25.— One chimney. No fire-places. One stove. Pipe enters chimney from second floor — ashes and pipe properly secured.” It was proved that the store-house described in the application containing the goods, took fire during the time stipulated for insurance, but was not entirely consumed. It was extinguished in about half an hour after it commenced burning. This was effected by throwing large quantities of water upon the burning store-house, both inside and outside of the building, part of which fell upon the insured goods and wetted and soiled them very materially. It was proved that the building was in great danger of being entirely destroyed by the fire, and in order to rescue it, many of the inhabitants of the town assembled around, and used the means stated, for its preservation, and that these means were proper and necessary for that purpose. It was proved, also, that during the progress of the flames, great tumult and disorder prevailed — that the goods were removed out of the house — some into the streets, and some into adjacent buildings, with great haste and precipitation, during which period, they were wetted and damaged as stated, and some of them stolen and not recovered. It was also proved that the plaintiff and his wife were present at the-fire, and made every exertion in the removal and preservation of the goods. None of the goods of any value were destroyed by being burned. What remained of the goodfe, after the fire, were taken, back into the store-house and kept for sale by the plaintiff.</p> <p>The defendant proved that previously to the year, 1848, there had been a stove-pipe inserted into the chimney mentioned in the plaintiffs application which was removed, leaving a hole in the chimney about five or six inches in diameter, and that upon the removal of the pipe, this hole was closed in the following manner: the outer circumference thereof was enlarged and a piece of sheet iron cut to fit tightly therein, and sunk into the brick-work of the chimney about one inch and a half; that the iron was pointed upon the edges to hold mortar; that the hole in the inside was filled with mortar, the iron plate then laid and embedded therein, and then the front or outside space filled also with mortar, to the extent of an inch and a half. There was evidence that this work was done by an experienced and skillful mason, and that the hole when thus closed, was as perfectly secure as if it had been done with brick and mortar, or any other material, and that the chimney when thus repaired, was as secure as if no hole had been made therein. This hole was not mentioned in the application filed. It was further in evidence, that after the tumult had subsided, the iron was discovered to be displaced; There was evidence that the fire first took place in the room where the hole in the chimney was; while other testimony went to show that it took place in another part of the building. There was no evidence that there had been any fire in the stove or fire-place attached to the chimney. The Court charged the jury “ that if the plaintiff, in his said application, misrepresented the premises in any material particular, or failed to disclose any fact which would increase the risk of the defendants, and which, if made-known, would have tended to prevent them from undertaking the risk, the policies would be void, and the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover; that it was not unconditionally necessary for the plaintiff to disclose the manner in which the opening for the stove pipe had been closed, if it had been secured safely, i. e. as well as brick and mortar would have secured it. The Court further charged the jury, that if, after the issuing the policies, sued on, there was made any change or alteration in the premises or in any part thereof, which tended to increase the risk, and the plaintiff failed to communicate the same to the defendant, the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover. The Court further charged the j ury that if there was any defect in any part of the premises arising from accident or other cause after the issuing of the policies which the plaintiff knew of, or ought to have known of, which defect or imperfection the plaintiff failed to repair, and the fire took place from his gross negligence, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover; butsuch negligence must beextreme and reckless. The Court further charged the jury, upon the question of damages, that if it was necessary to throw water on the fire to extinguish it, and the goods in the store were thereby wet and soiled, the damage thus done was covered by the policies, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the same, and that if the store-house was in imminent danger of being burnt, and the goods were removed therefrom for the purpose of preventing their destruction by the fire, and in so doing, and in consequence of such removal, the goods were injured or soiled and a portion of them stolen, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover damages to the extent of the loss which he thereby sustained. The defendant excepted.</p> <p>Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment» Appeal.</p>

Actios on Tint cash, tried before Shebeebd, T., at the last Superior Court of Wayne. The declaration contained two counts: 1st. That the defendants had committed a ‘breach of the terms of hiring of three slaves owned by the plaintiff. 2nd. For a want of proper care in keeping and providing for the slaves.

<p>Wliero a creek is called for in a deed, as the terminus of a line, and there is no diverging course, and no particular object on. the creek called for, it must be reached by the shortest direct route.</p> <p>Whether the running and marking of a lino variant from that answering the calls of a mesne-conveyance can at all control it ; Quere ? But, certainty, nothing- short of a running and marking- contemporaneous with such deed) can be allowed to have that effect. Admissions of the parties that a particular line was the true one between the tracts, and acts of ownership up to it by the claimants on both sides of it, do not tend to prove such contemporaneous running- and marking.</p>

I^diotmeNT for the murder of one Sally Cotton, tried before SiiepheRD, J., at the last Spring Term of Lenoir Superior Court. The prisoner's counsel admitted the killing, and put the defense on the ground of delirium or temporary derangement, produced by long continued drunkenness. The prisoner went to the house of the deceased in October last, armed with a rifle, called her to the door, and as soon as she appeared, discharged the gun and killed her.

AotioN of assuMpsit, as bailees, tried before Caldwell, J.. at the Spring Term, 1859, of Guilford Superior Court. The plaintiff declared on two counts, one against the defendants as bailees, to keep a quantity of cotton in store, for Irire, at a fixed price, and the other, upon a special contract to cover the cotton, so as to protect it from the weather.

Actioh of debt on a former judgment, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of Moore Superior Court. This was a suit commenced by warrant, and carried by appeal to the Superior Court.

<p>Aotioit on the case against the defendant as a common carrier, tried before Person, J., at a special Term of New Hanover Superior Court, (January, 1858.)</p> <p>The defendant was the owner of a public ferry, near "Wilmington, across the Cape Fear and Brunswick rivers, (Eagle’s Island being between them) and took tolls for transporting men, horses, &c. The plaintiff had certain horses and mules carried over the ferry, and in the passage, one of the horses was thrown partly out of the flat, and falling npon an iron spike or pin several inches long, which was fixed in the side of ihe flat (at the place where an oar-pin usually is,) was penetrated by it in the lower part of the belly, so that it died of the wound shortly afterwards.</p> <p>One Souse swore that when the plaintiff came to the Brunswick ferry, having a considerable number of mules and horses, the ferryman said lie should have to take a part of them at a time, that they looked skittish, and if all of them were taken at once, some of them would likely be injured. The plaintiff insisted on taking all of them at, once, and said, “if the flat will hold them I will take the risk.” The ferryman said, “I will risk the flat if you will risk the horses and mules.” Two horses were first led in by a servant of the plaintiff, and held in the forward part of the flat; the mules, being loose, were driven in after them, and two other horses were held by another servant of the plaintiff in the after part of the flat. The flat was open and had no guards, or other barriers, to keep the animals on it. Ho oars were used,- but the flat was pulled over the river by means of a hawser, stretched from bank to bank. The iron spike or bolt mentioned, was about five inches long, and stood perpendicularly in the gunwale of the boat, about opposite to where the first horses were placed, one of which was that killed. There were two persons acting as ferrymen. After getting within twenty or thirty yards of the shore, the mules became frightened, made a rush forward and crowded the two horses in front, so that one of them fell with a hind leg out of the boat, across the gunwale and upon the iron spike or pin. The ferrymen both became alarmed and jumped over-board, one from the bow, and the other from the stern of the boat. Before this, the mules had made a start, and the front ferryman, with a piece of plank which he used for pulling the boat, had, with the assistance of the plaintiff’s servant, kept them back. Neither of the plaintiff’s servants jumped over-board or left the flat until it reached the shore.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s counsel contended—</p> <p>1st. That a common carrier could not limit his liability by reason of what was said by the plaintiff, abont taking the risk.</p> <p>2ndly. That even if he could, yet the ferryman was guilty of gross negligence, and on that account liable.</p> <p>The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s agreeing to take the risk, so limited the ferryman’s liability, in law, as to make him responsible for gross negligence only, and that the evidence did not make out such a case.</p> <p>Upon the first point the Court charged as the defendant contended.</p> <p>Upon the second point, his Honor told the jury, if they should find that the ferryman took all the mules into an open fiat without guards, or other barriers, when he thought it likely that some of them would be injured, they being skittish, and most of them not confined in any way, and that an iron spike or bolt, was sticking upright in the gunwale as described by the witnesses, and that both of the ferrymen jumped over-board when it was not necessary for their safety to do so, (for the law did not require they should run the risk of their lives or great bodily harm by staying) instead of-standing their ground, and endeavoring to prevent accidents, in law, it constituted a case of gross negligence, and they should find for the plaintiff. Defendant’s counsel excepted.</p> <p>"Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment and appeal by the defendant.</p>

AotxoN of debt upon tho official bond of a derlc, tried before Shepherd, J., at the last Term of Jones Superior Court.

INdictmeNt for MUEDEE, tried before DicK, J., at the last Spring Term of Wake Superior Court. The defendant was indicted for the murder of one Sherwood II. Parrish. The latter was employed at Winton’s Hotel, in the city of Ealeigh, and the prisoner had been a boarder there.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Dick, J., at the Spring Term, 1859, of Northampton Superior Court. The plaintiff produced in evidence an account for articles furnished the defendant, which it was alleged, had been sold and delivered to him at different times between the 20th May, 1851, and the 20th June, 185G, and used upon his farm.

AotioN of Covenant tried before DioK, J., at the last Spring Term of Edgecombe Superior Court.

INDICTMENT for illegal voting, tried before Dick, J., at last Superior Court of Pitt. It was admitted that the defendant lived in the county of Greene and voted in the election of Governor in August last in Pitt.

Indictment for muedeR, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The defendant was indicted for the murder of one Richard Martin in Gaston county, and the cáse was removed to Meck-lenburg.

Teespass for assault and batteey, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of Uew-TIanover Superior Court. The plaintiff offered one William H. Keith as a witness, whose evidence was material, but he was objected to by the defendant as being incompetent, because he had been convicted of manslaughter in Wake Superior Court, and the record of the proceedings m that court was produced.

Action of debt upon a former judgment, brought from before a single justice by appeal, and tried before Caldwell, J., at Granville on the last circuit. Plea, former judgment. The plaintiff produced in evidence a judgment, entered on a warrant, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, dated 22nd November, 1845 ; below this, was entered an appeal in regular form. There was evidence, that this appeal had been withdrawn at the instance, and by direction of the defendant.

This was an action of teeseass, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Guilford Superior Court. The plaintiff declared in trespass against the defendant, for killing his hogs.

Action of trovee, tried before Heath, J., at the last Eall Term of Sampson Superior Court. The action was brought by the executors of Moses Cox, in behalf of legatees, for the conversion, after his death, of a woman named Sylvia, and her four children. This woman was the daughter of a woman named Mourning, who, together with other slaves, had been conveyed in 1817, by a deed from Joab Blackburn to the wife of Moses Cox.

AotioN for SLANDER, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term, 1859, of Eo wan Superior Court. Pleas — Not guilty, and justification. The plaintiff declared in five counts: 1st. That defendant had maliciously said of the plaintiff that he stole his, defendant’s, watch. 2nd. That he stole defendant’s money. 3rd. That he stole sixty dollars. 4th. The charge was of stealing twenty dollars. 5th. Of stealing generally.

Action oh Tins case, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Term of Randolph Superior Court. The case arose upon a warrant from a justice of the peace, for the penalty of $100, given by the statute, Revised Code, chapter 34, section 92, for unlawfully trading with a slave. There was, upon the evidence, a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant then moved in arrest of judgment; which Being refused, and, judgment given on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Action of Assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Term of Eowan Superior Court. The action was brought to recover for an injury done to Alfred, a slave, hired to the defendant upon a special contract.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at file last Term of Bo wan Superior Court. The plaintiff was the tenant in remainder of the slave, Alfred, in whom Mrs. Jane C. Knox had an estate for her life. The slave was killed under the circumstances detailed in the preceding case, (Knox v. JV C. Rail Road Go., ante 415,) and the plaintiff to recover for the injury done to his remain--der, brought this action, and declared on the contract stated therein.

<p>Action of ejectment, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Term of Guilford Superior Court.</p> <p>The only question arising in this case was upon the sufficiency of a deed from one Avy IIoocl to the defendant. It was conceded in the argument, that unless that deed was good, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The right to the estate being in the said Avy, she intermarried formally under license, and before witnesses, with one James ITood. She and Hood made a deed, as husband and wife, to the defendant, but the same never was authenticated as the act directs by the privy examination of the feme. She was proved to be dead, and the plaintiffs’ lessors, her heirs-at-law. This appearing to the Court, by the exhibition of the imperfect deed, the plaintiffs insisted on their right to the premises.</p> <p>The defendants, however, insisted that Avy Hood’s deed was good, because the marriage between her and James Hood was null and void, he being at the time the same was solemnized married to another woman, one Grace Patterson, who was then alive ; and to make out that case, it was in evidence that he had lived with Grace Patterson ; that they had several children, and passed and were recognised as man and wife.</p> <p>His Honor charged the jury, “ that where a man and woman lived together, and passed and were recognised as man and wife, it was evidence, to submit to them, of a marriage,” and also, if such marriage had taken place between James Hood and Grace Patterson, and she was alive at his marriage with Avy- Johnson, the latter marriage was void, and her ¿feed, though made in the name of Avy Hood, and made as a married •woman and signed by her pretended husband, and not registered, was, nevertheless, sufficient to pass her estate in the premises. Plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>Yerdict for the defendant. Judgment. Appeal by plaintiff.</p>

This was an indictment for the mukdeR of one John Phillips, tried before Diok, J., at the last Spring Term of Halifax Superior Oourt.

Petition for partition of land, descended to the petitioner and his sister, Harriet, the feme defendant, tried before Saun-dees, J., at the last Superior Court of Chowan. By the petition, and a supplemental petition, and the answer and exhibits, the following case is made : In October, 1849, Joseph Cannon, the father of the plaintiff, conveyed to the plaintiff, in consideration of natural love, a tract of land, containing seventy-five acres, in fee simple.

Action of Replevin, tried before Dick, J., at the Spring Term, 1859, of Martin Superior Court. The action is Replevin on the statute, for a slave, which was delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and property in the defendants, and, on the trial, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

Tins was a rule on the plaintiff to vacate a judgment, and set aside an execution thereon, heard before Caldwell, J., at the last Fall Term of Guilford Superior Court. The facts were, that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against Toomer, in the Superior Court of Guilford, on which lie sued out a ca. sa., returnable to the term of that Court, held in the autumn of 1858.

, at the Pail Term, 1858, of Johnston Superior Court. The defendant, Daniel, having been chairman of the board of superintendents of common schools, for the county of Johnston, the preceding year, without any new appointment in January, 1855, executed the bond upon which this motion is predicated, with the other defendants as his sureties, which is in the penal sum of $7000, and is admitted to be in proper form.

Indictment against the defendant, a free person of color for-carrying fire-arms, tried before Shepheed, J., at the last Spring Term of Craven Superior Court.

Scire Facias, suggesting a fraudulent trust in property, tried before Heath, J., at the last Spring Term of Moore Superior Court.

Action of assumrsit, tried before Dick, J., at the last Spring Term of Edgecombe Superior Court. The declaration was upon a special contract for wages due the plaintiff as an overseer, and upon the common counts. The plaintiff agreed to serve the defendant as an overseer on his farm in Edgecombe county, during the year 1856, and ■was to receive for his wages, for the year, $250. He continued in service, until some time in June, when he was discharged by the defendant.

This was a proceeding, under the insolvent law, sent to the Superior Court, Caldwell, J., presiding, from two justices of peace of Davidson county.

Action of tbbspass guare clausum fregit, tried Before liis Honor, Judge Satjndees, at the Spring Term, 1858, of Cleave-land Superior Court. Pleas, general issue and justification. There was much controversy about the boundaries of various tracts, owned by the plaintiff and defendant; but only that part indicated in the annexed diagram, is deemed pertinent to the question made in this Court.

<p>Action on the case, tried before Heath, J.. at the Special Term, 1859, of How Hanover Superior Court.</p> <p>The declaration was, that the defendants so negligently ran their trains on the railroad track, that six of the plaintiff’s cattle were killed, and, subsequently, on the same day, another yearling was killed.</p> <p>The plaintiff introduced a witness, one Ilenry, who swore that in August, 1854, being near the line of defendant’s railroad, he heard their freight train approaching; that down the road he saw six or eight head of cattle on the railroad track; that they were near a bridge, about a quarter of a mile from the witness; that the train passed the witness, and continued with undiminished speed, so far as he saw, until it reached the cattle, and killed three of plaintiff’s cows and three yearlings; that the embankment upon which the cattle were feeding, was from twelve to fifteen feet high, and that cattle could get down its sides but very slowly; that the road was straight at this point, and cattle could be seen on it for one mile ahead ; that the cattle were killed about four oclock in the evening, the train going at ordinary speed. This witness further swore that on the same evening, about dusk, he was on the same embankment, endeavoring to drive from the track another yearling belonging to the plaintiff; that he heard the mail train coining; that the yearling refused to quit the- track on which the train was passing, and was run over; that the yearling could be seen on the track for one quarter of a mile-ahead. This witness stated on cross-examination, that about the time when the train passed him towards the cattle first killed, the engineer commenced to blow the whistle of his locomotive, and continued to blow until the train reached them near the bridge ; that the embankment was of sand, and cattle were in the habit of passing up and down its side; that the plaintiff’s cattle were in the habit of feeding on the railroad, and that those killed, were on the track when he first saw them. He further stated, that in the evening so soon as he left the track on the approach of the mail train, the engineer commenced to blow the whistle, and so continued to blow until the train reached and killed the yearling.</p> <p>The plaintiff then introduced one Berry who was an engineer and machinist, and had run a locomotive over defendant’s road some eight years before; that the embankment referred to was six or eight feet high; that he thought the freight train could have been stopped in one fourth of a mile; that the whistle was used to drive stock from the road, and was ordinarily sufficient for that purpose ; that cattle passed over the embankment without difficulty.</p> <p>The defendant then introduced as a witness, one James Knif/ht, who swore he was the engineer on the defendant’s train, when the cattle first mentioned, were killed ; that at, and prior thereto, he was at his station, on the locomotive, and' was on the look out for obstructions, as carefully and assiduously us could possibly be done;- that he first saw the cows and yearlings about one fourth of a mile off, and immediately commenced blowing the whistle as a signal to put on the breaks, also for the purpose of driving the cattle from the track, and he continued to blow ’till they were killed; he supposed the brakemen obeyed his signal as the speed of the train ■was sensibly diminished; that they were then on a descending grade; that his train was very heavily ladened, and consisted of fifteen cars, and that it was rffterly impossible to stop it before it reached the cattle; that the embankment was about five feet high, with an ordinary sand-slope, and that the cattle could easily pass'up and down, and were in the habit of doing so; that it was dangerous to the trains and their hands to run over stock, and they always avoided it as much as possible; but, in this particular instance, he did all he could to avoid the catastrophe. That he had been in this business of running trains and engineering for twenty-five years; that he had heard the testimony of Henry in relation to the killing of the single yearling in the evening; that according to his experience and judgment in the business, the train, running at ordinary speed, could not have been stopped in one fourth of a mile. The witness said that from the time the train approached the stock first spoken of, he was at the proper place on the engine, some space behind the smoke-stack, but he could see the road on either side of the smoke-stack, though not so readily as if no smoke-stack had been there.</p> <p>The defendant then introduced Gen. Alexander MeRae, who, after qualifying himself as an expert, stated that neither the freight train, nor the mail train could have been stopped within the distance of a quarter of a mile from the point where the cattle were killed on the road, if running as described by the witness, Henry ; that there was there a descending grade of thirty feet to the mile.</p> <p>The counsel for plaintiff insisted that there was negligence in .law; that if the jury believed the plaintiff owned the stock, and the same were killed in consequence of the negligence aforesaid, he was entitled to their verdict; and, further, that it was the duty of the company so to have their smokestack located, as not to obstruct the view of their engineer, and located, as the one in question was, it was negligence.</p> <p>The Judge charged the jury that there was some conflict of testimony, as to the circumstances under which the stock were killed in the day time; that there was some evidence of negligence to go to them on the plaintiff’s showing, and if they believed the witnesses in preference to those of the defendant, there was negligence, and if the destruction of the stock was iii consequence of it, then they would render the plaintiff a verdict.</p> <p>If, however, they believed the witnesses for the defendant, as they had stated the circumstances, there was no negligence, and the defendant would be entitled to their verdict; and, further, that it was not negligence to run engines of ordinary construction, with smoke-stacks in the usual places. As to the killing of the yearling by the mail train, the Court charged the jury, that there was no negligence, and that if tire train could not have been stopped within a quarter of a mile from where the animal was, and if the engineer, from the first time the beast was seen, made the usual efforts to stop the train and drive it off of the track, and it would not go off, there was not negligence so as to charge the defendant. Plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>"Verdict for the defendant. Judgment and appeal by the plaintiff.</p>

Petition for a certiorari, heard before Caldwell, J., at the last Spring Term of Guilford Superior Court.

Indictment for murder, tried before Caldwell, J., at the last Superior Court of Orange. In making a jury, one was challenged by the State for cause, and being interrogated, answered that he had not formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was not guilty; whereupon the solicitor, for the State, requested that he might be ordered to stand aside until the panel was perused, stating that he expected to allege further cause.

Assumpsit, tried before IIbatii, J., at the last Spring Term of Cumberland Superior Court. The declaration was upon a promissory note for $500, against the maker, and the four other defendants as endorsers, negotiable and payable at the bank of Fayetteville, or at the branch bank of Cape Fear, payable to the defendant McKay. Plea, non-assmnpsit.

Indictment for the murder of Elijah Hassell, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Spring Term of Washington Superi- or Court. One Johnson was offered by the State to prove a conversation with the prisoner, which was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, and one Norman was called by the prisoner to to prove what took place the day before the proposed confession, on the occasion, of 1ns arrest.

iNnicTMENT for unlawfully trading with a slave, tried before DiCK, J., at a special Term, (June, 1858,) of Northampton Superior Court. The indictment charged the defendant with unlawfully buying one peck of corn of a slave named Dick, the property of E. A. Jenkins. The proof, by one witness, was that the slave Dick belonged to an orphan girl named Urilla E. A. J. Jenkins; and, by another witness, that the owner’s name was Eosa E. A. J. Jenkins.

<p>The applicant for a writ of error in this Court, given by the 33d chapter, 19th section of the Rev. Code, must give bond for the performance of the judgment in double the amount of the judgment formerly rendered, or where it has been partly performed, in double the amount of what may remain of such judgment unperformed, and where the whole recovery has been satisfied, then a bond for securing the costs.</p>

Petition for a mandamus, filed at the Fall Term, 1858. The petition alleges that at the March Term, 1855, of the County Court of Harnett, the Justices thereof, a majority being present, made ail order, and caused the same to be entered of record, appointing Neill McKay, Alexander D. McLean, Cornelius II.

Detinue, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Superior Court of Eowan. The action was brought for several slaves contained in á deed, dated 13th of Majr, 1820.

Action on the case for a deceit, tried before Dick, J., at the last PalbTérm of’ Chatham-Superior*-0ourt: The defendant, who was the sheriff of Moore'county, was .present afra sale of property,-made by the agent of one Bryant, the owner.

<p>Whether an instrument or weapon be a deadly one, is, at least generally speaking, for the decision of the Court.</p> <p>An instrument, too, may be deadly or not according to the mode of using it, or the subject on which it is used.</p> <p>The actual effects produced by the instrument may aid in determining its character, and in showing that the person using it ought to be aware of the danger of thus using it.</p> <p>Hence, it was Held that an oaken staff, near three feet long, of the diameter of an inch and a half or two inches, with which three blows were stricken upon the head of a man while drunk and unawares, shattering the bones of the head, and rupturing the interior vessels of the brain, was a deadly weap- „ on, and a killing the use of it in that way, was murder.</p>

Indictment for a misdemeanor, tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Lincoln Superior Court.

Ejectment, tried before Manly, J., at the last Term of Jackson Superior Court. Thé General Assembly, at its session of 1835, by an act duly passed, made it, the duty of the Governor to convey to the Justices of Haywood county, certain lands therein described, commonly called the Cherokee lands, remaining unsold within the limits of the county; they, the said justices, complying with certain terms therein required.

<p>Appeal from a,Justice’s judgment, tried before Bailey, J., at the Eall Term, 1858, of Jackson Superior Court.</p> <p>One Sellers made a note to the defendant for $51, which he endorsed to the plaintiff, and the action was by warrant om the endorsement, and it was tried in the Superior Court upon the pleas, “general issue and payment.”</p> <p>The evidence was that Murray, on receiving the note, placed it in the hands of Buchanan, a constable, for collection, and he warranted Sellers and got a judgment The judgment was kept by the justice of the .peace, and in a day or two afterwards, Sellers applied to the magistrate for a stay of execution. The application was made on Sunday, about two miles from the residence of the justice, at which latter place, the warrant and judgment were. The magistrate determined to grant the stay, and. to that end, he then entered Parks’ acknowledgment, in writing, on a small piece of paper, which was signed by Parks and attested by the'justice, and by the latter, attached to the j ndgment a few days afterwards. After the expiration of the stay, Buchanan, the constable, took ont a fi. fa. against sellers and Parks, and sold a horse belonging to Parks, for the debt. Parks afterwards brought trover against Buchanan, and recovered the value of the horse, on the ground that the stay was a nullity as to him, and then this suit was brought.</p> <p>' The only question made at the trial, was whether the stay of execution granted at the time, and in the manner stated, was valid or invalid as against Parks. The presiding Judge held it to be a nullity, and a verdict and judgment being rendered accordingly, the defendaint Appealed*.</p>

Devisavit yee non, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859, of Buncombe Superior Court. The issue was to try the validity of the alleged will of William Wellman.

AotioN of EJECTMENT, tried before Manly, J., at the Spring Term, 1859, of Polk Superior Court. The plaintiff deduced title: 1. Through a grant from Willis Scroggins: 2. Legal proceedings by attachment against Scroggins, and sale of the land with a sheriff’s deed to John Hughes. 3. The will of John Hughes, devising the premises to his wife for life, remainder to the lessor-of the plaintiff.

Action of ejectment, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term of Henderson Superior Court. The premises lie in Henderson county, and the declaration contains a count on the demise of Meredith Freeman, and one on the demises of several persons, who are the heirs of Jacob Phillips.

Debt, tried before Bailey, J., at the Fall Term, 1858, of Henderson Superior Court. The declaration was upon the official bond of the defendant, as a constable. The relator, Garrow, had been a constable, and liad in his hands for collection, a judgment in favor of Tollison and Tabor, against one W. W. Hutchison, for $21.53 and interest. This lie paid over to Tollison and Tabor, and then went out of office.

<p>ActioN of TRESPASS on the case, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term of McDowell Superior Court.</p> <p>It appeared in evidence, that the horse was loaned by plaintiffs to the wife of the defendant, Harris, at that time a young woman unmarried, but of full age, to ride to Eutherford on a ■visit to her relations.</p> <p>The horse was blind in one eye when he was loaned, and when he was returned, about eight days afterwards, the other eye was weeping and partly closed up. The horse was returned by the young woman as she came back from the visit and before reaching her home; but as she was about to walk borne, it was suggested by a member of the plaintiff’s family that she might ride the horse home and bring him back next day ; this was assented to by plaintiffs, and she rode the horse to her father’s, a short distance, and lie was there put into tlie common liorse-lot surrounding the stables, where in passing around the lot, he appeared to have slipped and fallen upon a stump and broke bis thigh; the lot bad been used for many years as a horse lot, but was somewhat, slanting, and it was wet -weather.</p> <p>There was no complaint made of the treatment of the horse, or of his appearance, when he was first brought back by the defendant, as slie returned from her journey.</p> <p>Upon the foregoing, as an assumed state of facts, the Court was of opinion there was not proof of such negligent use, or of such want of care, as to make defendant responsible for tlie accident.</p> <p>The plaintiffs contended, that as the injury had occurred to the animal while in the possession of the defendant, that a misuser of it was to be presumed ; but the Court did not think so, especially in the face of the proofs. The plaintiffs, in deference to the opinibn of the Court, submitted to a non-suit and appealed.</p>

<p>EjectMENt, tried before Mahly, J., at the Spring Term, 1859, of McDowell Superior Court.</p> <p>The object of the action was to recover the possession of a parcel of land, marked in the annexed diagram, as “ disputed premises,” lying partly on Mountain creek and partly on Cove creek, and being a portion of a larger tract of land, of which William Gillespie died seized and possessed.</p> <p> </p> <p>The case turned upon the construction of a devise in the will of the said William Gillespie, and the proper boundaries of the land described therein. The devise is as follows :</p> <p>“Item. To my dearly beloved wife, Judith Gillespie, I leave part of the plantation, beginning at the ford of the branch, this side of the barn, take the fence including the garden to the stone chimney, thence with the cross fence to the ditch or creek, thence with the creek to the beginning on a large white oak, including all the houses and improvements to her for life, and Althea Gillespie to have the same at her mother’s death: The balance of the old tract that belongs to me, the rest of the legatees can divide to suit themselves.”</p> <p>There was evidence of a cross fence from B to K, and also of a cross fence from B to C, and from 0 along a ditch to Cove creek at D. There was also evidence, that at F, near Gove creek, stood the “ large white oak” mentioned in the will, as the “ beginning corner.”</p> <p>A was admitted to be the ford of the branch, B the rock chimney — besides the ditch from 0 to D, which was proved, there was evidence that Mountain creek had been straightened by cutting or ditching.</p> <p>The plaintiffs’ counsel contended below—</p> <p>1. That the description of the land, given to the widow for life, &c., was too vague and uncertain to be supported ; that there were no data by which you could get away from the creek and include any land at all.</p> <p>2. And if wrong in this ; that the true running of the line of division was from A to B, thence to K, and so down the Mountain creek to Gove creek, and then down the latter to the beginning.</p> <p>The Court was of opinion, that if the line, designated in the devise, ran from A to B, and thence down either of the cross fences to Gove creek, and then down the creek, and the jury should find the white oak at E, to be the terminus therein called for, it would be proper to go to it.</p> <p>The Court was furthermore of opinion, that it was the purpose of the testator (to be plainly inferred from the language of the clause itself, as well as from other parts of the will) to divide this body of land into two parts, throwing a portion on one side of a line for the use of his wife and daughter, and leaving the residue to be divided among his other legatees, and he, therefore, instructed the jury, that after arriving at E, they might run around the outer boundaries on the east, so as to include the improvements. It was left to the jury to determine upon the proofs, which of the cross-fences was intended, and to which side the disputed premises belonged.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the Court having rendered a judgment accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed.</p>

Trover, tried before Baxley, J., at the last Pali Term of Macou Superior Court. The action was brought for the conversion of a slave, named Adeline, and her six children, in the possession of, and and claimed by the defendant, and was tried on the general issue.

AotioN of debt, tried before Manly, J., at the last Spring Term of Caldwell Superior Court. The action is debt on a bond for $24, given by the defendant’s intestate and another, the latter being the principal debt- or.

<p>Where a person was arrested under a warrant from a justice of the peace, and there was a misrecital of the name in the mandatory part of the warrant, but it was recited correctly in the oath, it was Held in an action for a malicious prosecution, brought by the defendant in the warrant.</p> <p>1 st. That the discrepancy was cured by the correct recital in the first instance.</p> <p>2nd. That it was competent for the justice, who issued it, to amend it upon the assurance that he intended to write the name correctly.</p>

This was an actioN on the cask, tried before Mault, J'., at the Spring Term, 1859, of Rutherford Superior Court. The plaintiff declared: 1st. “The defendants maliciously sued out inquisitions of lunacy against the plaintiff.” 2ndly. “Eor conspiring together, and suing out process to to have plaintiff’ declared a lunatic, with a view, and for the purpose of coercing him to make a different disposition of his. property from that which he willed. 3rd.

<p>A. bond made by one of the partners of a firm, for goods sold and delivered, may be evidence of the time for payment, or of the'amount, (as any other statement of one of the partners would be,) but it certainly does not amount to plenary proof of the consideration so as, of itself, to entitle the plaintiff to recover for goods sold and delivered.</p>

Assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., ata Special Term, July, 1859, of Buncombe Superior Court. The suit was brought on the following instrument: “ By the 25th of December, 1858, I promise to pay Ilenry Barrett one hundred and lifty dollars, to be discharged in any good trade, to be delivered at any of my Flat Creek plantations, for yalue received, this 7th of August, 1855.” (Signed,) Joseph Ellee. The pleas were non-assumpsit, set-off, and accord and satisfaction.

ActioN of TRESPASS, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859, of Buncombe Superior Court. Bill of exceptions agreed on by counsel. The plaintiff was the owner of a grocery in the town of Asheville, which said town was incorporated by an act of the General Assembly, passed in the year 1848, which was amended by another act passed at the session of 1850, both of which are sufficiently noticed and set out in the opinion of this Court.

AotioN of debt, tried before BAiusy, J., at the Fall Term, 185S, of Buncombe Superior Court. Plea, that the covenant declared on, contained mutual and dependent stipulations between the plaintiff and defendant, and the same had not been performed on the part of the plaintiff.

Action of assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859, of Buncombe Snperior Court. The plaintiff declared upon a policy of insurance upon the life of a slave, named-, which it was proved was dead. The main point of controversy below was, whether, as the plaintiff did not pay his annual instalment, as required by the charter and by-laws of the company, he had forfeited his right to recover tire insurance money.

EjectmeNT, tried before Bailey, J., at a Special Term, (July, 1859,) of Buncombe Superior Court. The lessor of the plaintiff showed title to the land in controversy, by regular mesne conveyances from; John. Gray Blount, to whom it was granted by the State in-the year 1796.. The defendant offered in evidence, a grant, for a part of the-land conveyed to Blount, to one Jesse M.. Roberts, dated in 1824, which embraced the land in, question.;- also, a deed from.

Action on the case, for a malicious prosecution, tried before Manly, J., at the Spring Term, 1859, of Madison Superior Court. The declaration was for maliciously suing out a warrant to arrest the plaintiff for perjury, alleged to have been committed on the trial of II. B. Deaver, ou a charge for -forgery. The forgery consisted in changing the date of a promisory note from 1838 to 1839, intending thereby to avoid the effect ■of a receipt which the maker held against it.

This was an action of assumusit, tried before PhksoN, J., at Rail Term, 185T, of Iredell Superior Court. The declaration contained two counts: 1st. For the price of the goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff. 2nd. On a special promise to pay for the goods sold.

Action of Replevin for a slave, tried before Manly, J., at the Eall Term, 1858, of Willces Superior Court. The following facts were agreed on, and submitted for the decision of the Court. In 1831, the defendant intermarried with one Chapman Duncan, and lived and cohabited with him until 1835, when a petition was filed by him against her, and a divorce a vin-culo matrimonii obtained, and the marriage declared null and void, she being the offending party.

Tuts was an aotiot of debt, fried before his Honor, Judge Heath, at-a Special Term, (June, 1859,) of Ashe Superior Court. The action was brought for the breach of a bond given by the defendants to the State of North Carolina, in the following words, to wit: “ State of North Carolina, Ashe County. “Know all men by these presents, that we, Martin Hill, Osborne Edwards, Joseph Niehardson, and J. II.

This was an action on the case for a deceit and false waRRANty, tried before ITeath, J., at the Special Term, (June, 1859,) of Ashe Superior Court. There were but two questions made for the Supreme Court: First. The defendant, after exhausting all his peremptory challeges, proposed to challenge Peter McNeal, who Second.

Assumpsit, tried before Bailey, J., at the Special Term, July, 1859, of Buncombe Superior Court. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit upon a contract of guaranty. The defendant passed a note to the plaintiff, executed by one Kansom Thompson, payable to John M. Kinsey, and endorsed by the latter to Samuel McCarson, and by him endorsed to the defendant, Jesse Williams.

ArncAL from an oudee in the Superior Court of Ashe-, made by his Honor, Judge IIeatii, committing the defendant to custody, under proceedings in insolvonsy.

Debt on a bond for $100$. tried before Bailey, J., at the last Spring Term of Catawba Superior Court. Plea — -usury.