Volume 6 — North Carolina Reports

Case agreed from Burke. A suit at Law was commenced in Rutherford County Court, in the name of Wells’s administrator to the use of James L. Terril, against Clarke, upon a promissory note, and judgment was obtained for the sum of £-. Clarke appealed, and( in the Superior Court, judgment was again rendered for the Plaintiff. Clarke filed a bill in Equity, and procured an injunction to stay further proceedings upon the judgment at Law.

Case agreed from Sampson County. This was an action of trover for a number of negroes, mentioned in the Plaintiff’s declaration. On the trial, the following facts appeared in evidence. Laban Taylo died in the year 1800, possessed of the aforesaid negroes, intestate, and without issue, and without brothers, or sisters, or the children of such; leaving no father, but a mother, who became entitled to the ne-groes in question.

Case agreed from Nash. This was a petition for leave to build a mill, filed under the second section of the act of 1779, ch. 23.* Green, the petitioner, owning the land on one side of the run, and Ealman owning the land on the other side. Eal-man having been summoned to answer the allegations of the petition, appeared, and prayed that leave to build the mill might be granted to him, and not to the petitioner Green.

From Craven. This rase was sent up to the Supreme Court from the Superior Court of Law for Craven County, upon a rule obtained by Defendants to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted.

This was a petition filed in the Superior Court of Law for Halifax County, and the facts therein set forth, so far as the same are necessary to illustrate the point sent up to the Court, were a.s follows : In the year 1794, Lunsford Long married Rebecca Jones, by whom he had issue, the petitioners Rebecca Long and Mary Long. At the marriage, the father of Rebecca Jones gave to his son-in-law a number of negro slaves.

, From Hertford. This case was sent up to this Court from the Superior Court of Lav/ for Hertford County, upon a rule obtained by the Plaintiff to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted.

Case agreed from Gates. The Defendants gave a letter to Copeland and Freeman, directed and to be delivered to the Plaintiff, and therein requested the Plaintiff to furnish Copeland and Freeman with goods to the amount of two thousand dollars, and promised to be securities for the payment of that sum.

Case agreed from Chowan. At November Term, 1804, of Bertie County Court, Scott obtained judgment against Drew in an action of debt, upon a bond conditioned in the penalty of £5685 17s. 2d. for the payment of £2842 18s. 6d. with interest from the first of August 1800. Drew appealed, and at March Term, 1807, of Chowan Superior Court, the Plaintiff1 obtained judgment; and on motion, judgment was rendered against his securities for the appeal.

Special verdict from Camden. The Jury found for the Plaintiff, and assessed his damages lo £200, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case. The Plaintiff,' Shepherd, started a boat loaded with brick, from Richmond, on Pasquotank river, down to Davis’s bay, a distance of about seven or eight miles; the boat was rowed by a white man and several negroes, among whom was the fellow Jacob, hereafter mentioned.

Lewis Brown being indebted to John Armstead by bond, binding himself and “ his heirs,” died about the year 1805, having previously published in writing his last will and testament, and therein devised the lands mentioned in the declaration of ejectment, to Anthony Brown.

William Black, one of the Defendants, recovered a judgment at law against the complainant, against which judgment the complainant obtained an injunction, upon the ground that the debt was due to the Defendant and one David Black, trading in partnership as merchants under the name and Ann of William Black, & Co.; which company had failed, and both parties were insolvent, ha\ ing assigned all their debts and effects to their creditors, who had thereupon appointed David Black…

This was an action of covenant, founded upon a bill of sale for a negro fellow named Peter, sold to the Plaintiff by Andrew Robinson and Mary Hamilton, since intermarried with Thomas Bevill, at the price of £240.

Appeal, from Stokes. This was an action of ¡rover brought to recover the value of a luirse claimed by the Plaintiff. Upon the trial there was evidence adduced on both sides, each party setting up a claim to the horse. The evidence was commented upon at length, by the counsel on each side, and stated at large by the Court in the charge, to the .Jury. There was a verdict for the Defendant.

From Carswell. This was au action of covenant brought on a guardian bond in Hillsborough Superior Court.

From New-Htinover. This was an action of debt, commenced by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which- warrant commanded the ministerial officer to whom it was directed., to arrest the body of the Defendant, and have him before some justice of the peace for the county of New-IIanover, to answer the Plaintiff of a plea that he render to him £18, which he owed and detained, &c. The justice before whom the warrant was returned for trial, gave judgment for the Plaintiff,…

From Caswell. The act of 1741, ch. 8, inflicts a penalty of ten pounds proclamation money, for mismarking an unmarked hog, &c. to be recovered in any Court of Record, by any person who will sue for the same. By the act of 1802, ch. Gth, jurisdiction is given to a justice of the peace over all penalties that do not exceed in amount thirty pounds.

From Washington. The lessor of the Plaintiff'claimed title under a grant from the State, by which the lands in question were granted to him as confiscated lands, the property of Governor White; and it was objected by the Defendant, that it was incumbent on him to prove that the land had been confiscated, to authorise the issuing of the grant. The presiding Judge overruled the objection, and,there was a verdict for tiie Plaintiff.

From Northampton. This was an action of debt, to recover the penally given by the act of 1741, ch. 11, to restrain the taking of usurious interest upon money loaned. The usury was received on the 15th of May, J80G, and the writ in this case was sued out on the 9th of December, 1807.

From Pitt. Benjamin Atkinson petitioned tbe County Court of Pitt for leave to erect and keep a ferry across Tar river, at a place where he owned the lands on each side of the river. The granting of this petition was objected to by-Robert Foreman ; and the County Court having heard tbe allegations and proofs of the parties, allowed the prayer of the petition.

From Bertie. The Defendant being’ seised of the lands in question in right of his wife, a writ of fieri facias was let ied thereon, and his interest in the lands sold by the Sheriff, who conveyed to Robert Reddick, the purchaser, and Reddick conveyed to Dunstan, the lessor of the Plaintiff.

¡>From Craven. The lands claimed in this ejectment were granted to John Tamiyhill on the Gth December, 1720. On the 13th February, 1753, Nathan Smith made a deed of bargain and sale in fee of the lands, to Francis Dawson, who de,vised them to Anne Dawson, 17th February, 1781.

From Wayne. This was a special verdict, in which the Jury found, that Risdon Nicholson conveyed the lands in question to Jacob Langston, on the 8th August, 1780 ; that Jacob Langston devised the same to the lessor of the Plaintiff, on the 25th December, 1784, and shortly afterwards died. That a grant from the State, for the lands, issued to Risdon Nicholson on the 10th April, 1792, the survey of which bears date the 10th June, 1782.

From Wilkes. The Defendant was indicted for perjury, charged to ,have been committed in an oath taken before a company court-martial, for the purpose of getting a fine remitted. On the trial a question arose, Whether the commission of the senior officer of the Court ought not to'be produced, to prove his grade as an officer and tiiat the court was legally constituted ?

From Martin. David Perry died seised of certain lots in the town of ’Williamston, which his administrator, the present Defendant, leased for three years, and received the rents, amounting to £70 5s. Subsequent to the making of this lease, the widow of Perry married John Sutton, and they filed a petition praying that her dower might be laid out in the lands of which Perry died seised.

From Pasquotank Sarah Pendleton, being seised of the lands in question, devised them as follows, to wit: “ Í give unto Benjamin Pendleton, mv eldest son, this end of a plantation whereon 1 now live, divided by a ditch from the creek swamp to tiie road 5 and one-half of the land I bought of James Jackson, I give to my son Thadeus Pendleton, the remaining pari of this land whereon I now live, and the remainder of the- land I bought of James Jackson : and if either of my sons…

<p>>From Rowan.</p> <p>John Hunter, being seised of the lands in question, dbvised as follows, to wit: “ I order my executors hereafter named to pay and discharge all my just debts, and that they sell and dispose of whatever they think proper and best of my estate, to satisfy my said debts.” He appointed Alexander Martin, James Martin, James Ilun- • ter, John Tate and Edward Hunter, executors of his last will, which was proved in Guilford County Court, at February term, 1778, and James Martin, James Hunter, John Tate, and Edward Hunter qualified as executors. Alexander Martin never qualified, nor in any way intermeddled with the estate of the testator, nor did he ever formally renounce the executorship. John Tate and Edward Hunter having died, James Martin and James Hunter, the surviving acting executors, la the year 1798,-, for the purpose of raising money to discharge the testator’s debts, sold the lands in question, and by a deed of bargain and sale conveyed them to the lessors of the Plaintiff, Alexander Martin being then alive, and having not refused to join in' the conveyance. The question submitted to this Court was, Whether, as Alexander Martin had neither formally renounced the executorship, nor joined, nor refused to join in the sale and conveyance of the lands, th.e lessors of the Plaintiff were' entitled to recover ?</p>

From Wayne. This was an action of trover, in which the Plaintiff claimed to recover the value of certain corn and pork, which he alleged belonged to him, and which Defendant liad converted to his own use. The. facts of the case were, as follow. Atkinson, the Defendant, employed one John Lindsay as an overseer for the year 1806, and agreed to give him a certain portion of the corn and hogs which should be raised on the plantation in that year.

From New-Hanoveiv On bearing the bill and answer in this case, on a motion to dissolve the injunction, it was ordered and decreed, that the injunction be dissolved as to part of the recovery at Law, and that as to the other part, the injunction be retained until further order. It was further ordered, that, this case be transmitted to the Supreme.

From Washington.~ This was an action of detinue for a negro slave, and upon the trial the Plaintiff proved, that some time in the year 1804, the Defendant, in conversation, said that he |ia(] settled his dispute with the Plaintiff, and that he had ^ †()6 p]ajntiff |iave the negro in question in satisfaction 0f a of one hundred dollars, which he owed to him: that as the negro was small, he had agreed to keep her until she was able to do service, or was called for by the…

From Warren. At a Court of Pleas anti Quarter Sessions held for the County of Warren, on the fourth Monday of February, A. D. 1811, Washington, a negro slave, was charged with the crime of rape, before that time committed upon the body of ^Elizabeth Beasley, of said county, and was found guilty by the Jury : and at May term of said Court, he being brought to the bar, and it being demanded of him why sentence of death should not he pronounced on him, Robert H. Jones, his…

S>Fr This was an action of debt against the devisees of John Pope, deceased, on a bond given by the said John Pope, to the Plaintiff, Thomas Hollowell. The Jury found the following special verdict, to-wit: “ That the bonc\ declared on, is the act and deed of John Pope, the devisor of the Defendants, and that they have lands by devise sufficient to discharge the same.

From Lenoir. Henry Taylor, by his will, dated 21st November, 1799, bequeathed to his daughter Lucy, a negro slave, named Harry, in March, 1800, Taylor borrowed ol! William Holliday’, the Defendant, one hundred pounds, and to secure the payment thereof, executed the follow • ing deed, viz. «STATE OF NORTH-CAROI.INA,?

From Perquimons This was a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment recovered in Perquimons Comity Court. Samuel Creecy instituted an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, against Isaac White, who pleaded, “ not guilty, liberum tenementum, justification, licence, trespass involuntary, and tender of sufficient amends.” ■ In rendering their verdict, the Jury responded only to the jilea of “ not guilty,” and assessed the Plaintiff’s damages to ten shillings.

From Granville. This was an action of debt, to recover money won on a horse-race; and the only question in th'e case was, whether as the race was made on one day, and the articles of the race, and the bonds for the monoy bet, were not reduced to writing and signed by the parties until the subsequent day, this was such “ a reducing to writ- “ ing, and such a signing as are required by the act of te Assembly.”

<p>Craven.</p> <p>This was an action on the case for a breach of warranty. William Pritchard exchanged with the Plaintiff a mare of the Defendant’s for a horse of the Plaintiff’s. He was advised or directed to make this exchange by Charles Saunders, in the manner set forth in the deposition of Saunders hereafter mentioned. On the exchange, Pritchard warranted the mare to be sound. Saunders had neither instructed nor forbidden Pritchard to make such a warranty, nor did he know of its being made. Dudley had given no authority whatever, either to Saunders or Pritchard, to dispose of his mare, or to make any warranty of her soundness; but he had offered a few days before, to exchange the same mare with Saunders for a horse belonging to Saunders. After the exchange was made with the Plaintiff,, the horse was taken by Pritchard to Dudley, who was then made acquainted with the exchange, but was not informed of the warranty, He was also told by Saunders that he might either have this horse thus procured from the Plaintiff, or the horse of Saunders, for which he had before proposed to exchange the mare. He took the horse which had been procured from the, Plaintiff.</p> <p>Saunders, in his deposition, stated that in the month of January, 1804, the Plaintiff, being at his house, asked him if he had a mare to exchange for a horse ? Saunders answered in the negative, but informed him that Dudley had one which he would probably exchange, as lie had offered to exchange a mare for a horse belonging to Saunders. A day or two after this conversation, Saunders went to Newbern, and Pritchard borrowed Dudley’s mare. He saw Pritchard, who informed him that propositions had passed between him and Lane, for exchanging the mare for Lane’s horse, and asked Saunders whether he should trade, and upon what terms. Saunders advised him to make an exchange, saying, if Dudley should be dissatisfied, he would keep Lane’s liorse, and let Dudley have his. At this time, Saunders hád not informed Dudley of Lane’s proposition, nor of his remark to Lane, that he, Dudley, would probably be willing to make an exchange. He was influenced entirely by the consideration, that if Dudley should disapprove of the bargain, he, Saunders, could keep Lane’s horse, and let Dudley have his. He did not advise nor consent that Pritchard .should warrant the mare’s soundness : he was not present at' the bargain, and Pritchard never informed him that he had warranted the marc’s soundness, nor had he any reason to suspect that such warranty would be made or required. Afterwards in the same day he saw Dudley, and informed him that he had given such authority to Pritchard, and told him that . if he were displeased, he, Saunders, would keep Lane’s horse, and let him, Dudley, have his.</p> <p>The question in the case was, Whether the warranty of Pritchard bound Dudley ?</p>

From Halifax. - The Plaintiff and Defendant applied to the County Court of Halifax, for the guardianship of the orphan children of the late Lunsford Long, dec. The Plaintiff was the brother of the deceased, and uncle, on the father’s side, to the children. No testimony was exhibited in the County or Superior Court, but the former committed the guardianship to the Defendant, from which the Plaintiff appealed ; and the question was, who was entitled to the guardianship.

From Washington. This was an action of covenant, brought upon the following writing obligatory, to-wit: “Fifteen months after date, we, or either of us, do promise to pay or ‘ cause to be paid unto Joshua Gray, or order, one hundred dollars “ currency, or a good work horse, for value received. — Witness our- “ hands and seals this 3d September, 1808. “JOSHUA YOUNG, (Seal.) , “C. LEARY, (Seah)” The Defendant pleaded among other pleas, “ tender and refusaland the Jury found…

From Rowan. This was au action of trespass quare clausum fregit, to which the Defendant pleaded 46 the general issue/’ and 44 liberum tenementum.” - Michael Moor being seized of the lands .in question, made his will duly executed to pass his real estates, wherein he devised as' follows,' to-.wit: 44 I devise that my executors may (so soon as they can conveniently, and to advantage,) sell my dwelling-house in town, together with the 170 acres of deeded land adjoining…

From New-Hanover. This was a bill filed for the settlement of a copartnership account; and the principal question made in the case was, Whether, as a loss bad been sustained whilst the business was under the exclusive management of the Defendant, and he could not satisfactorily explain how the loss had accrued, and it appearing that he had acted fairly and honestly, the loss should be divided or borne entirely by the Defendant.

From Franklin. The Plaintiff having recovered a judgment against Henry Hill, as special bail of one Perry, Hill obtained an injunction to stay proceedings at Law, and gave bond with Martha Hill his security. The bond was in the form in which injunction bonds are usually taken. Jones, the Plaintiff at Law, filed his answer, but before the hearing of the case upon bill and answer, Henry Hill, tiie Complainant, died, and the suit abated.

<p>.If it appear doubtful from the face of an instrument, whether the person executing' it intended it to operate as a deed or a will, it is proper to ascertain the intention of such person, not only from the contents of such instrument, but also from evidence shewing how such person really considered it.</p>

<p>J>From Franklin.</p> <p>The Defendant was indicted for not keeping up a signboard as overseer of a road ; and it was submitted to-the Court, whether the offence was indictable.</p>

!>From Pasquotank. Holloway Sawyer, by deed executed on 20th January, 1798, conveyed, in consideration of love and affection, to his sister Absala Sawyer, as follows, to-wit: “l lend to my sister Absala Sawyer, the use and labour of thy negro girl Lidda and her increase, during her natural life, and at her death ! give the said girl and her increase unto the heirs of my said sister, lawfully begotten of her body, forever.” The question submitted to the Court was, whether…

From Halifax; A bill of exchange was drawn by Defeiidant’s intestate, on Samuel Jackson, of Ncw-York, in favor of Conway and Fortune Whittle, and protested for non-acceptance.

From Hertford. The question in this cabe arose upon the following-clauses of the last will of Hardy Witherington, deceased, to-wit: “ I give and bequeath all my moveable estate, excepting- negroes, of every kind, first to my loving wife, Arcadia Witherington, till such time as my youngest daughter comes to be of the age of twenty-one’ years, and then to be divided equally among my loving wife and daughters, Arcadia Witherington, Anne Witherington, Jane Witherington, Mary…

From Halifax. / This was a motion for a distringas to issue to compel the Defendant to expose to sale two negroes, Anaca and Clary, and one bay horse, theretofore levied on by him, in virtue of an execution of J oseph Scott, assignee, &c. against Durham Hall and William Brickell.' The motion was founded on the following facts, viz.; Joseph Scott obtained judgment against Durham Hall and William Brickell, in Franklin County Court at June term 1792 ; afi.fa. issued to…

From Wake. This was a bill filed in the Court of Equity for Wake County, against Buchanan & Pollok, merchants, of the town of Petersburg, in Virginia.

From Craven. This was a case agreed, sent to this Court from the Court of Equity for Craven county. The case stated that Lemuel Hatch, being seised in fee of lands, devised an interest therein to his widow, one of Complainants, and the residue of his real estate to Defendants. At the death of the devisor, there were crops growing upon the lands, devised to Defendants, which not being included in any other devise or bequest, were gathered by them.

<p>Lands advanced to a child in the lifetime of the parent, are not to he brought into account in the settlement and distribution of the personal property of the parent after his death.</p> <p>The act of 1766, ell. 3, on this subject, is repealed by the act of 1784, ch. 22. The act of 1766, compelled all the children, except the heir at lain, to bring into account in the settlement and distribution of the personal estate of the parent, the lands advanced to them by the parent. The act of 1784-, abolished the right of primogeniture, and gave the lands to all the sons equally ,- and the act of 1795, raised the daughters to a level with the sons, in the inheritance. So that since 1795, all the children compose the heir at law, which the-eldest son did, under the act of 1766, and all are of consequence within the exception of that act; and whether this aetbe considered as repealed or not, by the act of 1784, the consequence is the same. Tor as under the act of 1766, the eldest son was not bound to bring into account in the settlement of the personal estate of the parent, lands advanced to him by the parent, so under the acts of 1784 and 1795, all the children being placed in the same condition as to the inheritance with the eldest son, none of them are bound to bring into account lands advanced to them.</p>

From Guilford. The lessor of the Plaintiff claimed the land in this case, under a sale made by the Sheriff of Guilford county, at which he became the purchaser.

From Gates. John Co field recovered a judgment against Joseph Reddick, as executor of the last will of Simon Stallings ; and Reddick, for the purpose of raising the money to discharge the judgment, offered for sale at auction, a negro slave, belonging to the estate of his testator, for ready money.

om ^owan‘ At August term, 1811, of Rowan County Court, Benjamin Tores came into Court, and prayed that a certain billiard table returned as his property in the list of taxable property in captain Wood’s district, be stricken out, he not having made a return thereof to the Justice to whom he delivered his list of taxable property. Hia prayer was disallowed, and from this judgment he prayed an appeal to the Superior Court, which was refused.

<p>From Brunswick.</p> <p>On the 1st January, .1796, James Bell, jun. not being indebted, conveyed ail his property to his children, who were infants and lived with him. The conveyance was attested by three witnesses, not related to the parties, and proved and recorded at January term, of Brunswick County Court, 1796, and registered within ninety days after the probate. There was no evidence of his having become indebted after the conveyance, which was generally known in the neighborhood. Bell was a drunkard, and in the year 1809, he sold one of the negroes, included in the conveyance to his children, to the Defendant, Benjamin Bianey, at a full and fair price; Bianey having no actual notice of the conveyance which Bell had made in 1796, to his children. Beil remained in possession of all the property mentioned in this conveyance, until the time of his death.</p>

J>Frora Edgcombe. This was an action of detinue for slaves, and it appeared in evidence that Peter Hines, the father of Plaintiffs mother, loaned to the Plaintiffs father, soon after his marriage, the negro slaves in question. The mother died and the father married a second wife. Peter Hines then made bis will, and gave to the Plaintiffs the said slaves.

From Martin. On the trial of this case, the Plaintiff deduced title to the lands in question, to Autcrson Kelly and Nancy his wife; and then offered in evidence a deed, purporting to have been executed by Autcrson Kelly and Nancy his wife, to the lessor of the Plaintiff, which had been duly registered.

<p>Judgment set aside upon motion for irregularity. Judgments confessed before tlie Clerk, where there is no Court, are irregular, and will be set aside upon motion. The rendering of a judgment, is a judicial act to be done by tlie Court only.</p>

From Johnston. This case commenced by a warrant before a Justice of the Peace, in which the Plaintiff claimed the sum of forty-five dollars, “ a balance due to him on exchange of some bank notes.” The Plaintiff declared upon a special agreement, and for money liad and received, for money paid to the Defendant by mistake, &c. There was no evidence of any special agreement, and the only evidence to maintain the other counts was, that the Plaintiff had, by mistake, paid to the…

j>From Edgcombe. This suit was commenced by warrant, before a Justice of the Feace, from whose decision an appeal was taken to the County Court, where it was again decided, andan appoalprayed for and granted, to the Superior Court,” and the counsel for the Plaintiffs moved that Court to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the judgment of the County Court was decisive, and that no appeal lay from it. This motion was disallowed, and the Plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

{-From Edgcombe. J This was an indictment for forgery under the act of 1802.

<p>From Halifax.</p> <p>In this case the Jury found the following special verdict., viz. that David Lane being seised in fee of the land in question, on the 12th day of April 1789, made his last will, and therein and thereby devised the same, as follows, to-wit; “ Í lend to my daughter, Anne Shelton, the seven hundred and twenty nine acres of land' where- * - on she now lives, during the full term of !ier natural life, and at iter decease, to descend to the first male child lawfully begotten on her body; but if my said daughter die without sack male heir of her body, then the said land to belong to the present daughter Martha Shelton, to her and her heirs forever.” That the said will was after-wards duly proven; that the said Anne Shelton, had several male children after the death of the testator ; that the eldest one. lived two or three years, and then died in the life-time of the said Anne, living the said Martha, who afterwards intermarried with William Wootten; and they two are the lessors of the Plaintiff. That the otiier male children, five in number, survived the said Anne, the eldest of which afterwards died an infant, and unmarried before the bringing of this suit, and before the act of 1795, letting in females equally with males. That the remaining four children are still alive, and that the Defendant Willis Shelton, claims as guardian to the said four sons and to Mary, who is another daughter of the said Anne.”</p> <p>Upon this special verdict, the Court gave judgment for the Plaintiff for the whole of the said land; and the Defendant’appealed to this Court.</p> <p>Cases in the books, on wills, have no great weight, unless they are exactly on the very point and similar in every respect to the case before the Court. — (2 Wills. 324. 3 Wills. 247.) Every one must have remarked, that a very small difference in the expression, will occasion a quite different construction; as in the two expresssions, dying without having issue, and dying without leaving issue. The principle, says Lord Kenyon, is the tiling which we are to extract from the cases, and apply to the decision of other cases. — (7 Term. 148.) The only principle on which Courts can, with any safety, proceed in questions arising on wills, is the intention of the tes-£0 ke collected from the words which he has used, and not from conjecture, (3 Term. 85, 486, 490 — 2 Ves, 248,) and no sensible word is to.be rejected. — (3 Term. 86.) '</p>

¡>From Chowan, in the year 1790, the States of North-Carolina and Virginia (by acts of their respective legislations,) incorporated a Company by the name of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, and declared the shares of the Company to be real estate, and ihc proprietors thereof, tenants in common. The Canal lies partly in Virginia and partly in North-OaVolimi.

^Fl'om Ncw-Hanovcr. Thomas Clayton, by his last will, gave ids estates, both Veal and personal, to certain persons in trust, to sell his lauds and his perishable property, and hire out Ills slaves, 46 until some one of his grand-children, the lawful children of Isabella Reston, of Scotland, should arrive to the age of twenty-one years, at which time his slaves were to be divided among- his said grand-children, equally, share and share alike; and all the rest and residue of…

1 From Moore. This was an action qui tam, to recover the penalty given by the statute against usury ; and the facts were, that one J abez York was indebted to the Defendant upon a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace, and for forbearing the payment of the said judgment, the Defendant accepted and received from York a sum greater than at the rate, of six per cent, per year.

From Robeson. The Defendant was indicted for petit larceny in Cumberland County Court,1 and being convicted, he appealed to the Superior Court.

Cumberland. In this case a declaration had been filed, to which the Defendant demurred specially, and after argument at the spring term of… Held: to narrow the Common Law rule, of amendments. 1st. “ The act of 1790, is but a repetition of the provisions before made, by the acts of amendment and jeofails.” “ By this act nothing can be amended, but what the other party might have demurred to, and specially set down as the cause of his demurrer.” By the Court in Cowper v.…

<p>A negro slave in the possession of and claimed by B. goes on the land of C. and is there taken possession of by C. in the absence of B. who shortly thereafter pursues C. and attempts to take the slave from him, C. is at liberty to repel this attempt, and is not indictable if he uses only such force as is necessary to retain the possession of the slave, nor is he indictable for the trespass in taking the slave, as the taking was on his own land, without any forcear vio* lence to B:</p>

From Surry. This was an action of debt founded on two judgments recovered before a Justice of the Peace, from which the Defendant had appealed to the County Court, and given security as the act of Assembly directs, for prosecuting the appeals; but the appeal# had not been returned to the County Court. On the trial, the Court nonsuited the. Plaintiff, and he appealed.

<p>-,, -.T TT ^FromNpw-Hanover,</p> <p>Arthur Mabson being seized in fee of the lands in question, departed, this life in the year 1777, having published in writing his last will, duly executed, to pass bis real estates,* and therein and thereby devised: 1. “To. his wife Mary all his household furniture at his plantation on Neps Creek, his riding horses and carriage, and. all such part of Ins plate as was marked M. C. And be gave to tier, “ during her natural life, the use and property of one-fifth part of all his slaves; and after her decease, he gave the said slaves to his children, Mary, Susannah, Arthur, Samuel and William, or the survivor of them, to he equally divided among them. And he also gave to- Ii.is wife during her widowhood-, the use of any one of his plantations she might choose. Sdly. To bis. son Arthur Mabson, his plantation on Neps. Creek, and all his other lands thereto adjoining, and a sixth I>art of all his slaves, cattle and hogs, and the remaining part of hispíate. Sdly. Tolas daughter, Mary Mabson, one house and lot in Wilmington, and qne-sixth part of all his slaves, cattle and hogs,, to be put into her posses, sion when she should attain the age of twenty-one years or she should marry. 4thly. To his daughter, Susannah Mabson, another house and lot in Wilmington, and one-sixth part of his. slaves, &c., 5thly. To his, son, Samuel Mabson,, his plantation on, the Sound and a tract of land adjoining, and one-sixth part of his. slaves, &c-. Ctlily, To his son, William Mabson, all bis other lands and one-sixth part of bis slaves, &c. 7thly. He gave all thp rest and residue of his personal estafe to his aforesaid five children, to be equally divided between them. And Sthly. He directed that in case of the death of any, of his said children, without lawful issue, before, the time 'they could get pos&essmi of their respective legacies, the legacy bequeathed to such child so dying, shall, be equally divided between the survivors or survivor of them*”</p> <p>Arthur Mabson was the testator’s eldest son and Iteir at law. He died intestate hi the year 1793, leaving the lessors of the Plaintiff, Mildred and Louisa, his heirs at law. Mary Mabson, named in the third clause of the testator’s will, entered into possession of the premises, upon the death of her father, and remained in possession of them until the year 1808, when she died without issue, having by her last will, duly executed to pass real estate, devised the premises to the Defendant. The premises described in the declaration were the same with, those devised to Mary Mabson in the third clause of the testator’s will. The question submitted to the Court was, fi What estate in the premises did Mary Mabson take under her father's will ?’*</p>

¡>Frohi Wayne. In this case the jury found a special verdict, stating that Elisha Pipkin died sometime subsequent to the 51st December, 1784, and previous to the 1st January, 1795, intestate, seized of a tract of land containing the premises in dispute, and leaving sons, Joseph, Elisha, charles and James Pipkin ; that the said James died after the year 1794, but previously to the year 1808, intestate and without issue, leaving the aforesaid Joseph, Elisha and Charles, his…

From Hyde. William Clark made a will in June, 1800, duly executed to pass lands, by which he devised lands to his sous. In January, 1809, be made., another will, also effectual to pass lands, by which he made a different disposition of part of his estate ; and subsequently, a paper in the form of a will was drawn by his direction, but neither signed nor attested, which in respect to some of his lands, differed from both of the former wills.

vFrom Ausou. J The special case was this: Johnston, the Plaintiff, w as the subscribing witness to the bond on which this action of debt was brought; and on the trial, lie proved that the Defendants- had acknowledged the execution of the bond ; that one of them had promised to pay it, and the other had said he expected to have it to pay, and it would ruin him. The question submitted to this court was, whether this was a sufficient proof of the execution of the bond.

From Craven. This was an action of trespass for mesne profits.

From Rutherford. Motion to set aside a nonsuit, and for a new trial, upon the following case. The Plaintiff brought an action of trover for a negro, the title of which lie founded on the following instrument of writing, executed by Elizabeth Black, then a widow and the mother of the Plaintiff. The paper was executed about an hour before her marriage with her second husband, Cox, by whom it was known and approved.

From Edgcombe. The bill charged tiiat the. complainant became bound as surety for one Causey, in a,n obligation to.one Stringer, for forty-eight dollars fifty cents, payable in December, 1T96. That Stringer removed to Georgia, and Causey to the county of Pitt, in this state, about forty miles from the complainant, who, inconsequence thereof, heard nothing of the debt until 1804, when Balfour presented the obligation and demanded payment.

<p>J>From Burke,</p> <p>A prosecution for a conspiracy was commenced in the Superior Court of Wilkes, and removed for trial to the county of Burke, where the defendants were convicted and fined £100, which sum was paid into the office of ilie Superior Court of law for Burke. This action was brought by the county Trustee of Wilkes, to recover the money for the use of that county.</p>

¡>From Nash. This was an application- for a writ of supersedeas, to set aside an execution for costs. Battle had instituted two suits against Arrington, one in detinue, and the other in trespass for false imprisonment. After issue joined, both causes were referred by the parties to arbitrators, who awarded that in the action of detinue, Ar-rington should return to Battle the negro woman sued for and her increase, and that Battle should pay to Ar-rington the purchase money.

^From ltedell. This was an application to the court for leave to sue in forma pauperis, founded upon an affidavit of the plaintiff, that he was not worth five pounds sterling, and had no property except such as the law allows insolvent detr tors to retain; and that he verily believes, he had good title to the lands for which he wished to institute suit. The only question in the case was, whether in this state, a person can sue in forma pauperis.

S-Frorn Burke, In this case, the Plaintiff declared in indebitatus, as-' spmpsit, for the price of a marc sold and delivered to the Defendant; and on the trial he proved that ata pub-He vendue made by him on the 25th August 1808, con1ducted according to certain terms then publicly proclaimed and made known to the Defendant, the mare was put up and struck off' to the Defendant, at the price of 4250 6s. he being the highest bidder; that the property was delivered to him, but…

¡>From Halifax The Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendant in Halifax County Court, returnable to August term, 1810, when the Defendant pleaded, “Fully administered, no assets, judgment, bonds, &c. no assets ultra, property sold under act of assembly, and the money net yet due.” The case was taken to the Superior Court, and at April term, 1812, the Defendant moved for leave to add, as of November term, 1810. of the County Court, a plea, 4S Since the last continuance,…

¡>From Guilford. In this case a verdief was found for the Plaintiff, and a vule for a new trial being obtained, the case was, that T. Dixon being seized of the lands in question, agreed to sell them to W. Dixon, to which end he made a power of attorney to C. Dixon. \Y. Dixon took possession of the lands under the agreement, and contracted to sell them to Thomas Barnett, who. entered accordingly.

<p>'Vo’ a scíré facias against A. as Sheriff, to subject him as special bail, of B. he pleaded among other pleas, that he -was not Sheriff -when the -writ -toas executed. He had returned the writ “ executed” to August term 1807 of the County Court, and he was elected at May-term 1806, but did not qualify and give bond until August term thereafter, and in the election of Sheriff in that County, that had been the uniform practice. Held, that having qualified and given bond within a year preceding the return of the writ, and having acted as Sheriff in executing the writ, he shall be deemed Sherifl^ and shall not be permitted to contradict his own acts.</p> <p>Parol evidence admitted to prove that a ca. sa. issued, and that the Sheriff returned on it, “not found,” and that it was lost or mislaid.</p>

From Mecklenburg;. Rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, because after the Jury had retired under the charge, of the Court, they came into Court and requested that further evidence- might be heard by them , when the Court permitted two witnesses to be examined, who had not bce-n previously introduced.

<p>’Proof of lost bond. In an action at law upon a bond, the Plaintiff shall not be admitted to prove the loss. He may prov.e the loss by disinterested witnesses, but he shall not be heal’d in his own behalf, unless the Defendant can aleo be heard. This can only be done in the Court of Equity ; and there, if a decree be made for the Complainant, the Court can compel him to indemnify the- Defendant against the lost bond.</p>

From Nash. This was an action on the case for a fraud in the sale of a negro child.

Cpamu The Defendant gave his note negotiable at tbe Bank of Newbern, and having failed to make payment, a notice was served on him and a motion made for judgment and execution in a summary way, according to the directions of tho act incorporating said Bank. The Defendant pleaded that the i‘ight claimed by the Plaintiffs to have judgment of their demand, on notice and motion, was unconstitutional and ought not to be allowed.

[-From Orange. J This was an application to the County Court of Orange for letters of administration on the estate of John Casey, deceased. This application was opposed by James Webb, on the ground of bis being the largest creditor in the state. The Court refused Carthey’s application, and be appealed.

In this case the following questions were submitted io the Supreme Court: 1. Shall one who has purchased lands without a warranty, be permitted to give copies of title deeds, except of that immediately to himself, in evidence, wituout an affidavit by himself, to account for the non production of the originals ? 2. Shall a purchaser with general warranty, be permit ted to give such copies in evidence without such alfi. davit.

<p>A. received from 1?. a Tobacco note, which lie agreed to sell for t!?é - best pi-ice that could be gotfor it, and retain out. of the money a debt which 0. owed to him. A. went, to market and sold Tobacco belonging to himself for the highest market price; but not being able to gel the same price for B’s Tobacco, lie declined selling it at that time, and determined to appropriate it to his own use and pay to B. the same price for which he A. sold his own Tobacco'. B. settled with A. under the belief that A. liad sold the Tobacco in the. market. A. afterwards sold the Tobacco for 5s. in the cwt. more than-he had accounted for to O. and T!. having discovered it, brought suit for the money. Held, that K. was entitled to recover although A. was guilty of no fraud ; for A. acted as the agent of Bi and in all cases, where an agent becomes a purchaser himself, the principal has power to put an end to the sale. He may elect to be bound or not td be bound by the purchase of the iigent.</p> <p>The rule as to purchasers by a trustee is this, that if lie purchase ’ bona fide, he purchases subject to the Bquity, that if the cestui quo trust come in a reasonable time, after notice of such purchase, he may have the estate re-solu.</p>

<p>The bill charged, that David Dickenson, the elder, in the year 1782, conveyed by deed, a slave to Shadraek Dickenson, which deed, on its face, purported to be ab« soltite, and made lor a valuable consideration, whereas, ^j,e ,je¿(j wag m¿d¿ in trust, for the benefit of David, and underlay agreement on the part 6f SJiadrack, that the slave should be conveyed and delivered to David^ or to such person as lie should at any time direct. The bill further charged that no consideration was paid, find that the complainant being a judgment creditor of Dát id’s, the látter did, in 1810, assign all his right in the said slave to him; pf which assignment, Shadrábk bad notice, but refused to give lip the property, insisting that he was hti absolute purchaser for valuable cion-* sideration. '</p> <p>The answer denied the trust, averred a Valuable con* sideration to .hard been paid, and atledged that the transaction was an absolute sale arid purchase.</p> <p>The only question submitted to the decision of this Court was, whether parol evidence was admissible, to she w that the deed whs made under the trust specified in the bill, and that a valuable Consideration was not paid*</p>

. Judgments were taken in 1807, against. Defendants to the full amount of assets then on hand j ,and afterwards James Greenlee obtained a judgment for ¿6280; and about the same time a suit instituted by Defendant’s testator, against one Davidson, was dismissed agreeably to a compromise made in 1 he life time of Defendant’s testator. At the time of Greenlee’s judgment no assets were in the hands of the Defendants, and that fact so found by the Jury.

The only question submitted to the Court iu this case was, whether the lessor of the Plaintiff in ejectment is bound to prove the defendant in possession of the premises which he seeks to recover, although the Defendant has entered into the common consent rule to confess lease, entry and ouster.

Martin. This was an action of debt on a sealed instrument. The Defendant pleaded ce that it was given for an illegal consideration” On the trial, the Defendant wished to give evidence, tiiat the bond was given in consideration of compounding a prosecution for a rape. This was opposed on the ground, that the Defendant’s plea was not sufficiently special for such evidente to be received. This point was rescued by the Court.

This was an action of debt on a penal statute, and after verdict, it was, moved in arrest of judgment, that the writ ivas not in the debet and detinet, but in the detinet only.

The bill charged, that William Sheppard, the father of the complainant, being considerably indebted, with a view to make payment, came to an agreement with B. Sheppard, to convey to him a tract of land r for which B. Sheppard was to convey to W, Sheppard two other tracts, of inferior value by £800 ; to satisfy which cl if-ference, B. Shcppapd was to pay off all the debts, and jllt[e(llnify w, Sheppard from them.

From Johnston. This bill was filed against the administrator and dis-tributees of the estate of William Farmer, deceased* charging, that William Farmer being indebted to Jolin Atkinson upon bond, died intestate, and administration of his estate was granted to Benjamin farmer, who was sued by Atkinson, and judgment recovered. Execution issued against the goods of the intestate in the hands of his administrator.

F Cp At March term, 1792, of Newbern Superior Court, the Plaintiff’s testator recovered against Thomas Wade and Holden Wade, executors of Thomas Wade the cl? tier, £2000 for debt, and £8 1 Os. 6d. for costs; but the plea of “ fully administered,” was found for the Defend? ants.

From Guifford. This case commenced by a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace, under the act of 1777, ch. 22, which declares, “ that upon complaint made by any person to ■ any Justice of the Peace of the county, of any trespass or damages done by horses, cattle or hogs, it shall and may be lawful for such Justice, and he is hereby required and authorised to cause to be summoned two freeholders, indifferently chosen, who, together with himself, shall view and examine on…

J- From Northampton. This was a sci. fa. upon a refunding bond given by the Defendant, to which he pleaded, that the judgment stated in the sci. fa. to have been recovered against the Administrator, was not justly duej and that the Administrator fraudulently and in collusion with the Plaintiff, suffered the judgment to be entered against him by confession. To this plea there was a demurrer, and issue joined thereon.

J-From Hertford. J This was an action of trover for a quantify of light-wood set as a tar-kiln on the Defendant’s land, but not banked or turfed. Upon the trial it appeared, that a judgment bad been obtained against the Defendant, on which an execution was issued and levied on the said lightwood, which was duly advertised and sold and struck off to the Plaintiff as the highest bidder.

<p>1 J>From Craven.</p> <p>Held, that the deed of J. H. to B. is not to be considered ail execution of the power,' so that on his death, no power remained in ills wife, surviving him. It is but amere substitution, by J. íí. ofB. for himself and until B. had sold the lands, as in his discretion he was authorised to do, the power of the wife remained undefeated.</p> <p>This case coming on to be heard upon the bill, answers and exhibits, it appeared that Wilson Blount, by deed dated the 25th February, 1799, duly conveyed certain lands in the manner following, viz.</p> <p> “ State of North-Carolina, Craven County. </p> <p>“ This indenture made the 25th February, 1799, bc-tvveenWilson Bloupt and Anne his wife, of the one part,and Edward Kean of the other part, witnessed), that for and in consideration of the sum of six thousand pounds, current money of the state aforesaid, to the said Wilson Blount and Anne his wife in hand paid, at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, by the said Edward Kean, the receipt whereof they do hereby acknowledge, and thereof acquit the said Edward Kean, his lieirs, executors and administrators, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, conveyed, enfeoffed and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, convey, enfeoff and confirm, unto him the said Edward Kean, his heirs and assigns for ever, ail that certain tract or parcel of latid, lying and being in Craven county, on the south side of Neuse river, being all that tract or parcel of land which was granted to John Lovick, by patent bearing date the 1st. November, 1719, which lies to the eastward of a branch which runs into Bachelor’s creek, above the road which leads from Newborn to Kemp’s ferry, and on which Colonel Wilson had a mill, beginning. &c. Also, one other certain tract, &c. &c. To have and to hold the said several tracts or parcels of land and premises hereby bargained and sold, or intended so to be unto the. said Edward Kean, bis heirs and ■assigns for ever, upon trust that the said Edward Kean, his executors, administrators or assigns, shall and will, at any time, át the request of John Haslin, Esquire, of the colony of Demarara, in South-America, or at the'request of Catherine H. Haslin, in case she should survive the said John Haslin, Esquire; or in case John and Catherine H. Haslin, his wife, should die without making such request, then at the request of the executors or administrators of the survivor of them, by good and sufficient deeds, such as the counsel of the said John and Catherine his wife, or the executors or administrators as aforesaid, shall advise, convey in fee-simple, to such person or persons qualified to acquire, hold, and transfer lands and other real estate, in the state of North-Carolina., as the said John Haslin during his life, or Catherine H. Haslin, after his death, in case she should survive, or the executors or administrators of the survivor of them, by writing signed in the presence of one or more credible witnesses, or by last will and testament duly executed, shall direct, limit or appoint. And the said Wilson Blount and Anne his wife do hereby covenant with the said Edward Kean, &c. to warrant .the said land unto the said Edward, his heirs, &c, from the claim of all manner of persons, &c. In witness whereof, &c.</p> <p>WILSON BLOUNT. (Seal.)</p> <p>ANNE BLOUNT. (Seal.)</p> <p> (i,i l ail li,oi red in the presence of </p> <p>DANXJBX. CaRTHEY.”</p> <p>On the 5th of April following, John Haslin executed the following instrument in the presence of one credible witness, viz.</p> <p>“ Whereas by a deed of bargain and sale bearing date 25th day of February 1799, between Wilson Blount and Anne his wife, of the one parts and Edward Kean of the other part, two several tracts of land containing about eight hundred acres, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying in Craven County, on the south side of Neuse River and on Bachelor’s Creek, (all which will more fully appear by a reference to said deed, were conveyed to the said Edward Kean and his heirs, upon trust, to convey the same to such person or persons qualified to hold lands in the state of North-Carolina, as I, John Haslin, during my life, by any writing, signed in the presence of one or more credible witnesses, should appoint. And whereas, I, the said John Haslin, intend shortly to undertake a voyage to the colony of Demarara, in South America, and am apprehensive, of the dangers to which my life will be exposed in the said voyage: Now, therefore, know all men by these presents, that in consideration and in execution of the above power of appointment to be reserved to me, I, the said John Haslin, do hereby direct, limit and appoint, that the land and premises above recited and referred to, may and shall be conveyed, sold and aliened by the said Edward Kean, at his discretion, to any person or persons qualified to acquire^ hold and transfer lands and other real estate in thestate of North-Carolina. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this fifth day of April, 1799.</p> <p>JOHN HASLIN. (Seal.)</p> <p> Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of </p> <p>Win. Wats ok.</p> <p>John Haslin departed this life in March, 1804, and Edward Kean in August following, without either the said John Haslin or Edward Kean doing any other or further act' in relation to the execution of the power of appointment created by the said deed of Wilson Blount and Anne his wife. Catherine H. Haslin survived her husband, and by deed duly executed, subsequent to the death of her husband, in the presence of two credible witnesses, directed and appointed the lands in the said deed mentioned to Wilson Blount, to be conveyed to herself; and she produced a record, duly authenticated, of her naturalization in due form of law, in a court of record of the United States. Upon these facts, it was submitted to this court to decide, 1st. whether the deed of the 5th April, 1799, is of itself Such an execution of the power of appointment created by the deed of Wilson Blount and wife, that on the death of the said John Haslin, no power to appoint remained in his wife, who survived him. — 2nd, Whether it bo competent for the Defendant to deny the ability of the Complainant to hold land, notwithstanding the record of naturalization, by adducing- proof that she had not such residence in the United States as entitled her to be naturalized } and that the facts set forth in the affidavit, upon which she was permitted to be naturalized, were not true, —3rd. Whether it be competent for either of the parties, to give in evidence any other deed executed by John Has-lin in his life time, or his last will and testament, having relation to the deed of the 5th April, 1799, to prove the intention of the said John in said deed.</p>

J>From Cumberland. Archibald M’Craine made bis will and devised a tract to some of the Plaintiffs, and appointed the others his executors, who offered the will for probate. Neil Clarke- and wife, (the latter of whom is one of the heirs at law and next of kin of M’Craine,) opposed the probate, and an issue of devisavit vel non was made up.

<p>From New-IIanover.</p> <p>The Defendant was returned as a Talisman, to serve o n the Jury during the day on which he was returned. He came into court, and stated that he was a Commissioner of Navigation for the Port of Wilmington, and was exempt from serving on Juries by the act of 1807", ch. 51, sec. S, and prayed a discharge. The court held, that he was not exempt from serviugas a Tales Juror : And it was submitted to this court to decide, whether he was exempt.</p>

From Iredell. The Defendant was indicted for Perjury, alleged to have been committed in swearing to an affidavit. The assignment of the perjury was, that the Defendant swore that he did not know ‘that a writ was returned against Mm in the above suit. The evidence offered in support of the assignment, was an affidavit, in which the Defendant had sworn, that he did not know that a writ was returned against him in the above case.

¡>From Nash. This was a case argued, in which the material facts are as follow Micajah Thomas having three illegitimate children by Ann Jackson, to wit, Mourning, Margaret and Temperance, made his will in the year 1788, and (herein devised “ to his daughter Mourning, all that part of his Manor Plantation,&c. containing 2500 acres; also another tract &c.” And to his daughter Margaret oilier lands in fee-simple ; and to his (laughter Temperance, other Iatids¡iu fee-simple.

HVo,n ftobeson- This was a bill filed for distribution of the slaves of Sterling Powell, deceased. He by his will gave several small legacies, and then directed his executors to sell the remainder of his estate, both real and personal, not before disposed of, and after paying the debts; to dispose of the proceeds as they might think proper.

Washington. The question in this case arose upon a demurrer to a sciri facias- Levin Bozman recovered a judgment at Jaw against John Morrison, who obtained an injunction and gave John Armstead and Benjamin Fessenden, securities. The bond for the injunction bore date on 23d December, 1807. The injunction was dissolved and the bill retained as an original bill, and finally dismissed.

^Fl'om Greene, J This was an action on the case, in which the plaintiff's charged, that they were the owners of a tract of land lying in Greene county, of great value : that a writ of venditioni exponas issued from Greene county court, from.

om Cumbciland. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant’s testator, being executor of the last will of Robert Troy, dec’d. and having assets in bis hands, and the said Robert Troy, being at his death indebted to the Plaintiff, in consideration thereof, promised in writing, to pay to the Plaintiff the said debt- and it was submitted to this Court, whether upon this declaration, the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the…

From Rutherford. This was a petition filed in the county court, for an account and distribution of the personal estate of Judith Goode,-who died intestate. The petition charged that the Petitioners and Defendants were the next of kin of the said Judith, and entitled to. distribution of her estate. That the said Judith died intestate, and the Defendants took the «state into their hands as executors, and* Were bound to distribute it.

, From Rowan. , IN EQUITY. This cause came before the court on an appeal of the Defendants from the judgment and decree from the court beiow, overruling a demurrer to the bill and granting an injunction.

From Burke., Cash agreed. — This was an action of ejectment in which the Plaintiff deduced title as follows : the land in dispute was granted to Abedncgo Inman by patent, dated September 20th 1779, and conveyed by the paten-tee to John Welch the elder by deed, dated 5th of Juno, 1784. Welch died intestate between 1784 and 1795, leaving five sons, the youngest of which came of age in 1803.

From Johnston. petition for partition. — The petitioners set forth that ■William Guy bad died seised of divers tracts of land, leaving the Defendant and the wife of the petitioner his only children and heirs at law ; and that by his last will, William Guy bad directed the said tracts to be equally, divided between the Defendant and the wife of the petitioner, and prayed a division.

From Craven. Ejectment. — Harvey Bryan died seised in fee of the land described in the Plaintiff’s declaration, he devised it to his son John Council Bryan the lessor of the Plaintiff, who is still an infant.

<p>From Robeson.</p> <p>This was an action on the case for non performance of an agreement to sell lands, tried below before Seawexx, Judge.</p> <p>It appeared on the trial that the'Defendant had agreed with the Plaintiff to inform him by letter, as soon as he could determine, whether he (Defendant) would take the price which Plaintiff had offered for the land. The price offered was §2000 payable by instalments, and the cause of Plaintiff’s desiring early information of Defendant’s determination, was, that by the sale of other lands, be might be provided with the purchase money. Soon after this understanding between the parties, Defendant wrote a letter to the Plaintiff informing him that lie had reflected on the subject, and containing these words, “ I do not hesitate to say that you may proceed to make sale of your lands when a favorable opportunity may offer. As the land I am going to let you have, on the back of the plantation, is of greater value than that which I retain on the Elizabeth road, I know you will not hesitate to make me some equivalent of a spot of land on some other corner, joining other land of mine, where it will be no inconvenience to you.”</p> <p>When the Plaintiff received this letter he declared his acceptance of, and closing with, the terms of the original contract j he also tendered his bonds according to the original terms, and demanded a title to the lands. The Defendant declared he would sign no deed which did not reserve to him a few acres out of the tract at a particular place, adjoining the town of Lumberton which from the evidence appeared to be tbe most valuable part of the land. Plaintiff did not tender any deed for Defendant’s signature.</p> <p>The Court directed the jury that the fair exposition of the letter was according to the original offer of purchase,’ and as to that part which related to the reservation of a few acres, the Court directed the jury, that the same was precatory and rested merely in the will of the Plaintiff, and as to the want of having tendered a deed, the Plaintiff was discharged from a formal tender by Defendant’s declarations. Tbe jury were further told, that in assessing the damages, they ought to respect tbe situation of the parties, when mere loss of bargain was the gist of the action ; and that a jury in its discretion was well authorised to assess damages to a greater amount between parties whoso situation and circumstances in point of fortune, placed them beyond ordinary standing, than in a case where they were of the opposite character and liad no opportunity from education or manners, to know the impropriety of violating a contract.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict for Plaintiff, damages ^50, and on a motion for a new trial because of misdirection, the Court entertaining doubts on the former part of the charge to the jury, directed the case to be transmitted to this Court.</p>

From Wilkes. This wras a petition filed for a distributive share of the estate of James Brown deceased, to which Defendant answered, claiming the property by virtue of a nuncu-pative will. It appeared from the record of Wilkes County Court, which made part of the case that the Court had directed to be recorded as a nuncupative will, certain affidavits, which were as follow's : State of North-Carolina, Wilkes Coimty.

From Iredell. Detinue for a negro woman and her three children. — . Simonton intermarried with the daughter of the Plaintiff and removed to Georgia. Afterwards, when Simon-ton was on a visit in North-Carolina, the Plaintiff who was then a widow, gave or loaned the negro woman, then a girl to Simonton and he carried her to Georgia on his return.

From Chatham. This was an action of ejectment and from the case agreed the following appeared to be the facts. On the 2d of February 1804, Robert Harris was seised of a tract of land including within its boundaries the land in dispute, and conveyed the same to Joseph Brant-ley, jr. and John Crump. On the 5th of April 1805, Crump conveyed his moiety to Brantley.

From Rockingham. Petition for a settlement and account. — The petitioners set forth that Isaac Lowe died leaving a wife and children, and having first duly made and published a last will and testament; that Isaac Lowe was the owner of several slaves which by his will he directed his executors to emancipate after the death of his wife ; that the wife was dead, some of the slaves having been emancipated by the County Court during her lifetime, with her consent, that the Court…

From Bladen. Heplevin for a slave. — In December 1814, the negro was the property of one Tryon Smith, when the Sheriff having au execution against Smith, levied it on the negro, and on the 24th of December exposed her to sale at Bladen Court House to the highest bidder, she being then present.

From Burke. This was an action on the case in which Plaintiff declared that by an agreement dated September 1, 1806, between himself and Defendant, Defendant was to let him have a Still and 300 bushels of corn, in consideration that Plaintiff would distil for 'him 600 gallons of whiskey, and averred performance of his part of the contract, and a refusal by Defendant to perform his part.

<p>A purchaser at execution sale is not affected by the irregularity oí’ the Sheriff’s advertisement.</p> <p>JFraud and combination between the Sheriff and a purchaser will render the sale void, whether regularly or irregularly made.</p> <p>It is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence ; to the Court it belongs, to say whether what is offered be evidence conducive to prove the fact.</p>

From Iredell. Tliis was an action for a malicious prosecution in taking out a State’s warrant against the Defendant on the charge of perjury. The plaintiff on the trial produced the warrant, and proved that the Defendant had obtained the same as prosecutor, that Plaintiff was arrested under it, carried before a magistrate and bound in recognizance to appear at October term, 1816, of Iredell Superior Court.

Minor Huntington, a prisoner for debt, was brought before his Honor Judge DaNIEI., to be discharged under the insolvent laws. it appeared that he had been arrested by one of his creditors and entered into bond with security to keep within the prison bounds, which bond was returned to the County Court.

1 [-From Cumberland. J The Defendants, seven in number, being Commissioners of the town of Fayetteville, as such were bound to keep all the streets, &e. within the limits of the town in repair ; there were three or four different streets presented as being out of repair, all on the same day, for which separate bills of indictment were preferred against the Defendants in each case.

From Cumberland. A toll bridge was erected in the town of Fayetteville, by a company who associated themselves for that purpose under articles of agreement, containing among others, the following: Art. 4. The owners of stock to have permission to pass without any charge of toll, so long as they continue possessed of stock in the said company.

<p>A bailee who undertakes to do an act gratuitously, e. g. to carry money. is bound to use ordinary care and caution ; if he loses the money entrusted to him, but docs not lose his own, it is clear' that he did not use becoming caution, for had he done so, the money entrusted to him, would have been treated as his own was, and consequently would not have been lost.</p>

<p>From Rutherford</p> <p>Petition to vacate a grant. — Petitioner set forth that he made ail entry in the entry taker’s office of Rutherford, and obtained a grant from the state, on said entry, for a tract of land in Rutherford county — that his entry was made March 26, 1801, and his grant bore date 12th of August, 1805, and was duly registered; that David Miller, who was now dead, being entry taker, had before made an entry in his own office, in his own name, for the same tract of land or a part thereof, without having’ done so before a Justice of the Peace for the county, and without any return having been made by any Justice of {¡,c Peace, of such entry, to the next County Court as the law required ; that in fact no entry ever was made on the records of Rutherford County Court, or on the books of said Miller as entry taker, shewing that the entry of Miller was there inserted by order of the Court; that by false suggestions, Miller had obtained a grant from the state for the land ; that one Peter Manney was now in possession of the land or part thereof, under Miller’s entry and grant, with full knowledge of all the facts connected with Miller’s entry and grant; and petitioner prayed for a sci.fa. to Manney, to shew cause why Miller’s grant should not be vacated.</p> <p>Manney pleaded that he had no knowledge of any irregularity in Miller’s obtaining the grants that he was a bona fide, purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice; that he and those under whom he claimed, had been in possession more than twenty-one years under colourable title; that he had been in possession seven years, and that during that time, petitioner had made no entry; that he was in possession of 50 acres only of the land now claimed, by virtue of the grant to Miller ; and lastly, that petitioner hath not title to the zvhole tract covered by Miller’s grant, issue was taken on all the pleas but the last, to that, there was a demurrer and joinder.</p> <p>Upon the issues submitted to them, a jury, found, that ■ David Miller, made his entry contrary to law as charged in the petition, and under such entry obtained his grant; that Manney at the time of receiving a deed of conveyance for the land, had no notice, and was ignorant of any thing unlawful or irregular in Miller’s entry or grant; that he purchased of Miller for a full and valuable consideration which he paid; that Manney and those under whom he claimed, had not been in possession twen. ty-one years; but that Manney had been in the uninterrupted, adverse possession of the land for seven years and more, before the filing of the petition; that the title of the petitioner did not extend to all the land covered by Miller’s grant, but to part thereof, including all of Miller’s grant which Manney claimed.</p> <p>Upon this finding, the Court ordered the case to be transmitted to this Court for its decision.</p>

From Rutherford. Indictment in the following words, viz; The Jurors for the State, upon their oath present, that James Dalton of the County of Rutherford, on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, with force and arms in the County of Rutherford* by his own head and imagination, feloniously and wittingly, did falsely forge and make, and cause to be falsely forged and made, and did feloniously, willingly and wittingly assent in falsely making,…

From Granville. Case for words spoken.-Tho declaration charged that ~efendant had said, the wife of Plaintiff, while single, bad sexual intercourse with a negro, per quod she lost a n~arriage with one Waddy, who was addressing her, and had offered her marriage.

IN EQUITY. From Craven. This case coming before the Court again,* it appeared from the statement sent up, that on motion below, that a decree be pronounced, pursuant to the certificate sent down before, in this cause, Defendant prayed that the cause should be remanded to the Supreme Court, for their opinion on the following points : 1. Whether the trust expressed in the deed of Wilson Blount, be not void in its creation ? 2.

IN EQUITY. From New-Hanover. The bill in this case was filed in 1804, and was demurred to.

From Guilforj. This was an action originally commenced by warrant, which by successive appeals had reached the Superior Court when it came on for trial before Seawerr, Judge. The warrant was “to answer” Plaintiffs “ in a plea of debt on sale of articles to the amount of one dollar and twenty-seven cents.” The Plaintiffs were the administrators of one Kenlian Vaughan, and at the sale of his effects, made known the following as the articles of sale.

From Cliatham. The Defendant was a Sheriff, and this was an action on the case to recover damages for the escape of one James Wilson, who was in the custody of the Defendant, at the suit of Plaintiff’s testator. Wilson was placed in the prison, and the evidence as to the escape was, that the door of the prison was cut quite across the latch or bolt, and that the prisoner escaped thereby.

From Edgecombe. Indictment for a Rape in the following words : Tbejurors for the State, upon their oath present, that negro Dick, (the property of Mrs. Blount) late of Edge-combe county, on the twenty-first day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousaud, eight hundred and seventeen, at and in the county of Edgecombe, in and upon Judah Wilkins, spinster, in the peace of God and the State, then and there being, violently and feloniously, did make an assault, and her the…

From Cumberland. Trespass against Defendant for cutting timber on Plaintiff’s lands. The evidence was that a slave, the property of Defendant, had cut the timber j and the Court directed the jury, that if the cutting was done by the command or assent of the Defendant, that he was liable; but that if the act was tbe voluntary and wilful act of the slave, then tbe Defendant was not guilty : verdict for Defendant.

~From Bladen. Case agreed.-William Bart~am, in or about the year 1769, died intestate, seised in fee-simple of divevs lands in Bladen County, and leaving one son, William, and two daughters, Mary… Held: deemed and taken by them, as valid to all the intents and purposes for which it was executed. This way of considering the subject steers clear of the second objection, to wit, thatthe Legislature cannot by any act take away the property of one person and vest it in another.

1- From Nash. This was a suit commenced before a Justice of the Peace and came to the County Court by appeal. In the County Court the Defendant pleaded in abatement that the warrant was not made returnable within thirty days, Sundays excepted; whereupon Plaintiff moved for leave to amend by inserting in the warrant, the words, “ within thirty days, Sundays excepted,” which was granted by the Court.

From Montgomery. Tiiis was an action made by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note made by William Moss and Drury Parker to the Defendant. The Note was indorsed before it became due: the makers of the note resided in Montgomery County, and the County Courts of that. County were held on the first Mondays in January, April, July and October in each year.