Volume 76 — Alabama Reports

From the Circuit Court of Cullman. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. The defendant in this case, Charles McDaniel, was indicted for the murder of Benjamin Anderson, “by striking him with an iron weight;” pleaded not guilty to the indictment, but was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of three years and six months.

From the Circuit Court of Russell. Tried before the lion. Jas. E. Cobb. The defendant in this ease, Thomas D. Jones, was indicted for the murder of Ivey Doles, by shooting him with a pistol; was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of eighteen years.

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon.. Tiros. M. Arrington. The defendant in this case, Allen Garrett, was indicted for the murder of Charles J. Floyd, by shooting him with a gun; and was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

From the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. John Moose. The defendant in this case was indicted for an assault on Mrs. Hutli Shaddock, with intent to murder her, as alleged in the first count, or, as alleged in the second count, with intent to rob; and on the trial, issue being joined on the plea of not guilty, he was found guilty as charged in the first count.

From the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The defendant in this case was indicted for the murder of Rufus Gill, by shooting him with a pistol.

From the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case was indicted for a rape, pleaded not guilty to the indictment, and was tried on issue joined on that plea.

<p> .Indictment for living in Adxdiery or Fornication. </p> <p>1. Living in adultery or fornication; conviction of misdemeanor, under indictment charging felony. — Under an indictment which describes the defendants as a.'negro man and a white woman, and charges them with tilt* statutory felony of living together in adultery or fornication (Code, § 4189), if the evidence fails to prove that the man is a negro, or of negro blood, a conviction may be had of a misdemeanor in living together in adultery or fornication (lb. § 4184); since the misdemeanor is necessarily included in the felony (lb. § 4904), and a conviction or acquittal of the latter would be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the former.</p>

Prom the Circuit Court of Hale. Tried before the Hon. John Moore.

From the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. IIubbard. The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, Charles Winslow, “ willfully set fire to or burned, in the nighttime, a dwelling-house of Fred. Collins and Newberry Collins, in which there was at the time a human being.” Issue was joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. Tiros. M. Arrington. This was an application' by H. E. Bosenstok, by petition, asking for a mandamus directed to Ellis Phelan, as Secretary of State, requiring him to permit the petitioner to have access to the public records kept in Ins office, and to copy from the books containing the field-notes of the government survey the field-notes of all the lands in Crenshaw county, which, as the petitioner alleged, he was employed to make , by the county…

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed, on the 26th August, 1881, in the name of the State of Alabama, against J. K. McBride, tax-collector of Lawrence county during the years 1875, 1876 and 1877 ; and against the sureties on his official bond as such'collector, and several other persons who held or claimed property which, as the bill alleged, was liable for the default charged against said McBride ; and it sought a discovery from the several…

From the Circuit Court of Lowndes. Tried before Hon. John Moore.

From the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard.

Erom the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. There was no demurrer to the indictment in this,case, and the cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

From the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before Hon. S. II. Sprott. The statute of limitations was pleaded to the indictment in this case.

From the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard.

From tho Circuit Court of Shelby. Tried before the lion. S. II. Srkott. The indictment in this case charged, in a single count, “ that Walter S. Cary, unlawfully and with malice aforethought, assaulted Henry C. Reynolds with intent to murder him.” The defendant pleaded not guilty, and was tried on issue joined on that plea.

<p> Indictment for Carry vng Concealed Weapons. </p> <p>1. Carrying concealed weapons ; constituents of offense.- — Under the statute against carrying deadly weapons “ concealed about the person ” (Code, § 4109; Sess. Acts 1880-81, p. 38), a conviction can not be had on proof that the defendant, while riding on horseback along a public road, had a pistol in his saddle-hags.</p>

<p>From the Circuit Court of Covington.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard.</p> <p>cited Snider v. The State, 59 Ala. 64; Com. v. Harrison, 11 Gray, 308; 34 Ark. 447; 33 Mich. 279; Bish. Stat. Cr. 1070a.</p>

From the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. John Moore.

From the Circuit Court of Covington. Tried before the Hon. H. D. Crayton. “ On the trial of this cause,” as the bill of exceptions states, “issue being joined on the plea of not guilty, the State introduced W. C. Loftin, as a witness, who testified that, within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, and in said county, he met the defendant, who was driving a buggy, selling pills, liniments, and other things, and asked him for some whiskey ; that defendant…

From the Circuit Court of Limestone. Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton.

From the Circuit Court of St. Clair. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box.

Prom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Tiros. M. Arrington.

From the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. The bill of exceptions in this case purports to set out all the evidence adduced on the trial, the substancé of which is stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. The record in this case sets out, 1st, a bond executed by Henry Morrison as principal, and B. F. Kilgrow and M. S. Barganier as his sureties, conditioned for the appearance of said Morrison at the next term of the Circuit Court of Butler, “ and from term to term thereafter until discharged by law, to answer indictment preferred against him in said court for burglary which bond is in the penalty of $400, and was approved by the sheriff…

Tried before the lion. John P. Hubbard. The appellants in this case, as partners, sued out an attachment on the 9th December, 1881, against Jackson & Brother, a mercantile partnership doing business at Troy in said county of Pike; and summoned Coleman & Carroll, the appellees, by process of garnishment, as the debtors of said Jackson & Brother.

From the City Court of Selma. Tried before the Hon. Jona. Haralson. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a stock of goods, between M. Meyer & Co., attaching creditors of George Sulzbacher, as plaintiffs, and Mrs. Bertha Sulzbacher, the wife of said defendant, as claimant.

Tried before the Lion. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action was brought by William Childress against Bufus B. Calloway, tenant in possession, to recover the possession of certain parcels of land, which were described in the complaint as subdivisions of sections eleven (11) and two (2), township nine (9), range four (4), east; and was commenced on the 29th March, 1883.

Tried before the lion. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action was brought by the appellant, a domestic corporation, against Thomas P. Brewer, and was founded on a penal bond executed by the defendant as surety for one R. P. Priester, which was dated June 1st, 1877, and conditioned as follows: “Whereas the above-bound R. P. Priester has been, by said Mobile & Montgomery Railway Company, appointed freight-agent at Mobile Station, which appointment has been accepted by said R. P. Priester;…

Art’KAL from the Chancery Court of Lawrence. Heard before the Hon. Tiros. Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th August, 1878, by Mrs. Martha 31.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. * The original bill in this case was filed on the 15th December, 1883, by Mrs. Mary Ann King and her husband, Henry W. King, as judgment creditors of Josephine Martin, against the said Josephine Martin and one Thomas Conboy ; and sought to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a conveyance of a house and lot in the city of Mobile executed by the said Josephine to her co-defendant, and a discovery from the said Josephine of equitable assets…

Abijeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. This action was brought by John T. Parmer against William M. Harrison, to recover the possession of a plantation, which was described in the complaint as the “Old Calloway place;” and was commenced on the 28th January, 1884. The defendant pleaded “not guilty, in short by consent;” and the cause was tried on issue joined on that plea.

Tried before the Hon. Jno. ,P. Hubbard. This action was brought by James Williamson, against W. W. Wilkinson, to recover the sum of $141.32, which the plaintiff claimed as the balance due him for the price of timber sold and delivered by him to the defendant, on or about February 15th, 1882. The complaint contained only the common counts; the defendant pleaded, “ in short by consent, the general issue and paymentand the cause was tried on issue joined on these pleas.

Tried before the lion. James E. Cobb. This action was brought by II. J. Callen, against John M. Rottenberry and Emily J., his wife’, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 4th October, 1882.

Tried before the TIon. Jno. P. Hubbard. This action was brought by J. A. Searcy, against W. W. Wilkinson.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 27th November, 1883, by Mrs. Amelia Ilelmetag, as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Frederick W. Ilelmetag, against John W. Miller; and sought an account from the defendant of moneys which he had received on a policy of life-insurance assigned to him by said decedent in his life-time, and a decree in favor of the complainant for the balance which might'be found in his hands,…

Tried before the Hon. Jon a. Haralson. This action was brought by B. E. Higgs, against Thomas J. Hatcher and Julia E. Barnes, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land in Hallas county, containing about 340 acres, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 26th September, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The appellants in this case recovered a judgment in said Circuit Court, on the 13th June, 1879, against M. Munter & Brother, described as “ a late partnership composed of Marcus Munter and Solomon Munter;” and an execution on this judgment, which was issued on the 10th October, 1883, and commanded the sheriff to make the money out of “the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of Marcus Munter and Solomon Munter, composing the firm of…

Appear from the Chancery Court of Mobile. Heard before the lion. John A. Foster. The original bill in this case was filed on the 8th December, 1883, by Joseph Felratli, as a creditor of Siegmund Yogel, deceased, against Mrs. Henrietta Yogel, his widow, Mrs. Caroline Schonfield (who was the mother of Mrs. Yogel), Henry Bernstein (who was the brother of Mrs. Schonfield), the Mobile Life Insurance Company, and several other corporations in the nature of insurance associations.

Appears from the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. These two cases, involving substantially the same facts, were argued and submitted together; each being a statutory action in the nature of ejectment, commenced on the 15th December, 1882, by Mrs. Minnie Guilmartin, a married woman. ■ The defendant in one case was John II. Wood, and in the other James A. Clark and wife, tenants in possession.

Heard before the Hon. Joi-in A. Foster. The appeal in this case is taken from an order and decree granting a writ of assistance to Joseph M. Lyon, on his petition, to put him in possession of certain lands, of which he claimed to be the purchaser at a sale made by the register of said court; which petition was resisted by John W. Kemp, E. T. Kemp, James M. Kemp, and Robert W. Kemp, who were in possession of the land, and were also defendants to the suit in which the decree…

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged conversion of a mule called Cricket/ and was commenced on the 24th October, 1882. The complaint contained a count in trover, and several counts in case; and the cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. Price Williams,-Jr. • In tlie matter of the probate of a paper which was propounded as the last will and testament of Mrs. Agnes O’Donnell, deceased, by Anna B. Rodiger, who was therein made sole legatee and devisee, nominated as executrix, and relieved of giving bond ; and the probate of which was contested by Michael O’Donnell, the surviving husband of said decedent, on the ground of mental incapacity on her part to execute a will.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. In the matter of the petition and application of Bichard W. Burt, a citizen of said county, for the writ of mandamus, addressed to the lion. E. II. Foster, the probate judge of said county, requiring him to issue and grant to the petitioner a license for retailing spirituous liquors in the town of Court-land, for the period intervening between September 1st, and December 31st, 1881, on the payment of $37.50 as the price.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by John W. Schaffer, against the Pensacola Railroad Company, a domestic corporation, to enforce an alleged statutory lien, in favor of the plaintiff as original contractor, upon and against a building erected and used as a hotel, at Pensacola Junction in said county; and was commenced on the lfith April, 1878.

Tried before the lion. E. M. Russell. In the matter of the probate of a paper which was propounded as a copy of the last will and testament of Dr. Jacob Y. Cantwell, deceased, who died in said county of Morgan, on or about the 11th February, 1883, as the proponent’s petition alleged, leaving assets therein.

Tried before the lion. Lekoy F. Box. This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, and as the assignees of James M. Wooten, against A. W. Perry and J. II.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This was a statutory action for the unlawful detainer of land, commenced.in a justice’s court on the 1st September, 1883, by Randall R. Brown against Vm. M. Beatty, and removed by appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, into the Circuit Court.

, Tried before the lion. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by Alex. L. White, and was commenced by original attachment, which was sued out on 27th November, 1882.

Aureal from the Chancery Court of Pickens. Heard before the Hon. Thomas Coisiss.

Tried before the lion. John Moore. This action was brought by Randall R. Brown, against Wm.

Appeals from the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the lion. S. H. Speott. This action was brought by R. II. ^Seymour, against Benj. F. Herr, county treasurer of said county, and the sureties on his official bond as such treasurer ; and was commenced on the 11th January, 1884.

Tried before the lion. S. II. Speott. This action was brought by James ¡Roebuck against the appellant, a domestic corporation, to recover damages for injuries to two horses, which were run over by a train of cars on the defendant’s road, about daylight on the morning of April 16th, 1882, one being killed, and the other injured; and was commenced on the 30tli October, 1882. The cause was tried on issue joined, but the record does not show what pleas were .filed.

Appear from the Circuit Court of Bibb. Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. This action was brought by the appellants, as the executors of the last will and testament of Rufus H. Clements, deceased, against Elisha T. Hays, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing 320 acres, which was part of section sixteen (16), township twenty-two (22), range seven (7) west; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, on the 22d June, 1882.

Heard before the Hon. Ti-iomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 8th July, 1884, by Henry M. Waldrom,.against his children, Marvin Waldrom, Frederick Waldrom, Bettie Wilkinson and her husband; and sought to enjoin a decree which had been rendered against the complainant, as guardian of his said children, by the Probate Court of said county, on the 14th January, 1884, or to establish an equitable set-off against it, on account of moneys alleged to have been…

Tried before the Hon. Price Williams, Jr. On the final settlement of the accounts of George F. Werborn, as executor of the last will and testament of Adolph M. Solomon, deceased, a decree was rendered by said Probate Court, on 11th July, 1881, by which a balance of $203.37 was ascertained to be due from the executor; and the decree then proceeded thus : “ And the said executor is hereby directed to pay the said balance of $803.37 over to said Amanda M. Pinney” [the widow of…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 10th November, 1884, by William Otis, a creditor of John Maguire, on behalf of himself and all other creditors who might come in and make themselves parties complainant with him, against the said John Maguire and several other persons; and sought to have a certain conveyance, which said Maguire had executed to his co-defendants, declared and established as a general assignment, enuring to the…

Tried before the Lion. John Moore. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary E. Steed (formerly Ray), against J. L. Hinson ; and was founded on the defendant’s written contract for the payment of rent, which was dated Nov. 14th, 1881, and in these words: “On or by tjre first day of October, 1882, I promise to pay M. E. Ray twelve hundred and fifty lbs. lint-cotton, to be packed in merchantable form, and delivered at Fort Deposit ; the same being for rent of her entire plantation…

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott This action was brought by John K. Hill, against the appellant, a domestic corporation, to recover an alleged balance due plaintiff for wages, or compensation, as defendant’s depot-agent and telegraph operator at Entaw, on the line of the defendant’s road, from December, 1878, until June 1st, 1883, under a special contract of employment at the salary of $75 per month.

Tried before the Hon. II. C. Speaks. ■ The record in this case shows that, on the 17th February, 1883, Edward IT.

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster.</p> <p>The bill in this case was filed on the 10th September, 1881, by Lucinda J. Sharp, who was a daughter of William M. Sharp, deceased, against the personal representative of her deceased guardian, Josephus P. Sharp, and against the personal representative, widow and children of Samuel M. Sharp, deceased, who was a surety on the official bond of said guardian. Its object and prayer was — 1st, to remove the guardianship from the Probate Court, and compel a settlement of the accounts in the Chancery Court; 2d, to condemn- the money and property in the hands of the administrator of said Samuel M. Sharp, so far as necessary, to the payment and satisfaction of the amount which, on the settlement of the guardian’s accounts, might be found due to the complainant; 3d, if any balance should remain unpaid, to sell for its satisfaction a tract of land containing eighty acres, which was claimed as a homestead by the widow and children of said Samuel M. Sharp ; and, 4th, if any balance still remained unpaid, to subject to its satisfaction, by a sale under the decree of the court, a tract of land which said Samuel M. bought, in the name of his wife, from W. P. Yanderveer, and which said Yanderveer conveyed to Mrs. Sharp after the death of her husband.</p> <p>The complainant’s father died in October, 1857, and letters of administration on his estate were duly granted to said Josephus P. Sharp ; and on the settlement of the accounts of said administrator, two decrees were rendered against him in favor of the complainant — one for $80, rendered on 2d October, 1880, on the settlement of his first administration; and the other for $309.40, rendered on the 10th March, 1870, on final settlement of his accounts under a second appointment. On the 14th June, 1870, said Josephus P. Sharp was appointed, by the Probate Court of said county, guardian of the complainant; and he gave bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, with Samuel M. and Wade H. Sharp as his sureties. Said Josephus P. died, as the bill alleged, “in the early part of the year 1871, insolvent and intestate,” never having settled his guardianship, nor accounted to the complainant in any manner for the money due on said two decrees in her favor. Letters of administration on his estate were granted on the 29th March, 1871, to Wade II. Sharp and W. J. Wilson ; the latter of whom was still acting as administrator when the bill was filed, and was made a defendant as such representative ; while it was alleged that said Wade II. Sharp, who was also a surety on the guardian’s official bond, “died since the 29th March, 1871, intestate and insolvent, and no administration has ever been granted on his estate.” Samuel M. Sharp, the other surety on the guardian’s bond, died in October, 1879, intestate, leaving a widow and two infant children ; and letters of administration on his estate were granted on the 1st September, 1881, to Frank A. Hall, who was made a defendant to the bill in his representative capacity.</p> <p>The bill alleged that said Samuel M. Sharp owned, at the time of his death, personal property of value less than $1,000, and a tract of land containing eighty acres, on which he did not reside; that the widow collected and retained the personal property, claiming it as her own, and none of it had gone into the possession of the administrator. As to the lands purchased from Yanderveer, and conveyed to Mrs. Martha Jane Sharp, the wife of said Samuel M., the bill averred that the purchase was made by said Samuel M., in the name of his wife, with the intent to defraud the complainant, and to prevent her from subjecting the lands to the payment of her demand ; and that the purchase-money was paid by him, or was paid out of the proceeds of the crops raised on the lands. The bill contained, also, an allegation in these words: “Your oratrix is notinformed as to whether the property which the said Samuel M. Sharp died possessed of will be sufficient to pay her said claim, but believes that said property, by itself, after the expenses of administration have been deducted, will not be sufficient to satisfy her claim, and that it will be necessary that the property now claimed by the said Martha Jane, and by the said Mary Ann Sharp, shall be sold, and subjected to the payment of her said claim.”</p> <p>Wilson, the administrator of Josephus' P. Sharp, filed an answer, in which he pleaded the statute of non-claim as a defense against the complainant’s demand. Ilall, the administrator of Samuel M. Sharp, filed a formal answer, requiring proof of the allegations of the bill, and alleging that he did’ not know whether his intestate’s estate was solvent or insolvent. An answer was filed by Mrs. Martha Jane Sharp, in which she claimed a homestead in said eighty acres of land of which her husband died seized and possessed, and also claimed the personal property as exempt to her and her children; and she claimed the lands conveyed to her by Yanderveer, alleging that the purchase was made, on credit, for her and in her name, and that the purchase-money was paid in cotton raised on the lands. She pleaded the statute of non-claim, insisting that the complainant’s demand was discharged, as against her lands and her husband’s estate, by the failure to make due presentation to the administrator of Josephus P. Sharp; and she demurred to the bill, because of the failure to aver such presentation, and because of the'failure to aver that the estate of Samuel M. Sharp was insolvent, and because it was multifarious. Mary Ann Sharp adopted the answer, demurrer and plea of said Martha Jane Sharp.</p> <p>The chancellor overruled the demurrer and the plea, and, on final hearing on pleadings and proof, rendered a decree for the complainant, granting relief as prayed in the bill.</p> <p>The appeal is sued out by Mrs. Martlia Jane Sharp, who here assigns as error the overruling of her-demurrer to the bill, and' the final decree; and the other defendants below join in her assignments of error. . - .</p> <p>— (1.) The claim asserted by the bill is not only barred, as against the estate of the deceased guardian, by the failure to present it to his personal representative within the time allowed by law, but it is thereby extinguished. — Code, § 2568; Fretwell v. Molemore, 52 Ala. 139. If it is still a subsisting demand against the estate of the surety, then, on being paid by the surety, or out of his estate, it may be again presented as a valid claim against the estate of the principal, and the purpose of the statute be thereby thwarted. The- cases decided under the old statute, which only barred the remedy, have no application. The creditor has lost his demand by his own laches. — Brandt on Suretyship, § 384 ; Gillespie v. Darwin, 6 ITeisk. 21; 2 La. Ann. 427. (2.) The bill is multifarious. It seeks to remove the guardianship from the Probate Court, and to compel a statement and settlement of the guardian’s accounts by his administrator, against whom no decree can be rendered; to compel payment of the amount found due, out of the assets belonging to the estate of the surety, and, if necessary, to 'sell his lands for that purpose ; and to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances. That such a bill is multifarious, see Felder v. Davis, 17 Ala. 418 ; State Bank v. Ellis, 30 Ala. 478 ; Quarles v. Grigsby, 31 Ala. 172; Johnson v. Parkinson, 62 Ala. 456 ; Story’s Eq. PI. §§ 280-81. (3.) The bill is without equity, in seeking to enforce payment of a debt out of lands descended, when it is not averred that the estate is insolvent, or that the complainant has exhausted his legal remedies. Scott v. Ware, 64 Ala. 174. It is filed, too, against an administrator, nine days after the grant of letters to him ; and a decree is rendered against him before the expiration of eighteen months. — Code, ’§ 2614. (4.) The lands sold and conveyed by Yanderveer belong to the statutory estate of Mrs. Sharp, and can not be subjected to the payment of her husband’s debts. Oowles v. Memdcs, 53 Ala. 499 ; Prout v. Iioge, 57 Ala. 28; Wimbish v. B. <& L. Association, 69 Ala. 575.</p> <p>— (1.) The liability of the obligors on the guardian’s bond is joint and several, and the surety is not discharged by the failure to present the demand as a claim against the estate of the deceased principal. — McBroom v. Governor, 6 Porter, 33; Gawthorn v. Weisinger, 6 Ala. 716 ; Inge v. Br. Bank, 8 Porter, 108 ; Evans v. Evans, 16 Ala. 465; Minter db Gayle v. Br. Bam.k, 23 Ala. 762; Chapin v. Livermore, 13 Gray, 561; Ashby v. Johnston, 23 Ark. 163; Johnson v. Bcmk, 4 Sm. & Mar. 165 •; Marshall v. Hudson, 9 Yerger, 63; Roberts v. Galvin, 3 Grat. 358; Kerr v. Brandon, 2 How. Miss. 910; People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 331; Humphreys v. Oreme, 5 Cal. 173. (2.) The bill is not multifarious. — Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 573 ; Allen v. M. & W. P. Railroad Go., 11 Ala. 437. (3.) The right of a simple contract creditor to file a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, and subject the property to the payment of his antecedent debt, is well established. — Code, § 3886 ; ZJlnicker v. Brigham db Go., 74 Ala. 598; Evans v. Welsh, 63 Ala. 250. (4.) The complainant being a creditor of Samuel M. Sharp at the time he bought the lands from Yanderveer, they are liable for her debt, unless it was clearly shown (what is not pretended) that the money of Mrs. Sharp was used in paying for them. —Peitterson v. Campbell, 9 Ala. 933 ; Rives v. McGinLy, 10 Ala. 138; Simerson v. Bank, 12 Ala. 205 ; Pickett v. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520; Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. 392; Harrell v. Mitchell, 61 Ala. 278 ; Hubbard v. Allen, 59 Ala. 283 ; Horn v. Wyatt, 60 Ala. 297. This principle is recognized by other courts, in the following cases: Seitz v. Mitchell, 4 Otto, 580; Gamber v. Gamber, 18 Penn. St. 363 ; Blaek v. Nease, 37 Penn. St. 433 ; Connors v. Connors, 4 Wise. 131; Elliott v. Bentley, 17 Wise. 591 ; J)vm,ean v. Roselle, 15 Iowa, 501 ; Cramer v. RaMord, 17 N. J. Eq. 367; Boyd v. Montague, 73 N. Y. 498 ; Keeney v. Good, 21 Penn. St. 349; Gerry v. Gerry, 11 Gray, 381; Hoyt v. White, 46 N. II. 45.</p>

Wm. E. Clarice, presiding judge of the first judicial circuit, sustaining a demurrer to a petition filed- by tbe appellant, asking for a mandamus to C. B. Cleveland, as clerk of the Circuit Court of Marengo county, requiring him to approve an attachment bond, which had been tendered by the appellant for his approval, in a case pending in said court, wherein said appellant and petitioner was plaintiff, and Askew Brothers were defendants.

Appear from the Circuit Court of Blount. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Bos.

Tried before the Hon. ¥n. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Abe Evans, to recover an undivided half interest in a certain lot or parcel of land in the city or Mobile. Mahala Loughridge was named as tenant in possession, in the original notice; and a summons was issued against her on the 23d January, which was served on the 28th January, 1878.

Tried before the Hon. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Joseph W. Thompson, against William B. Duncan, receiver and trustee of the Mobile & Ohio railroad, who was operating said road under the appointment of the United States Circuit Court at Mobile, to recover damages for personal in juries sustained by plaintiff, by being thrown violently to the ground, from and through the open door of a “ caboose car,” in which he was a passenger from Mobile to Whistler, a…

Tried before the Hon. II. C. Speake. This action was brought by Burns & Co., a mercantile partnership doing business in Nashville, Tennessee, against R. R. Moore and Henry McGee, as joint makers of a promissory note for $264.50, which was dated “Nashville, Tenn., August 7th, 1875,” and payable six months after date, to the order of said Burns & Co., at the bank of Fordyce & Rison, in Huntsville, Alabama, “ with interest after maturity at ten per-cent, per annum.” The…

Tried before E. A. Powell, Esq., an attorney of the court, selected by the parties on account of the incompetency of the presiding judge. This action was brought by Mrs. D. J. Sharp, against the executors of John C. Robertson, deceased, to recover an undivided one-sixth interest in a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 10th January, 1882.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 5th November, 1883, by the appellees, suing as late partners, against William Conant and James McHan, and sought a discovery and relief, but, by an amendment of the bill, the prayer for discovery was stricken out.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 2d November, 1883, by Peter E. Alba, in the name of himself and one Oarmelick (whose name was afterwards struck out by amendment), against J. A. Shakespeare, J. M. Lewis, John T. Hardie, and the Elyton Land Company, a private corporation ; and sought to enforce the specific execution, by said corporation, of an agi-eement to lease certain real estate in Birmingham, for the term of five years, to one…

A RPR,at, from the Circuit Court of Barbour. Tried before the Hon. H. I).

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th August, 1883, by William B. Glass, against his late guardian, Williamson Glass; and sought relief against a decree rendered by the Probate Court of Marengo, on the 14th January, 1878, which purported to be on final settlement of said guardian’s accounts. The material parts of the decree are stated in the opinion of the court.

The record does not show the name of the presiding judge. This action was brought by J. A. Eowler & Co., suing as partners, against the Manhattan Eire Insurance Company, “ a foreign corporation doing business in this State; ” and was founded on a policy of insurance against fire, effected on a stock of goods which, as the complaint alleged, were destroyed by fire while the policy was in force.

Tried before the ITon. IT. C. Speake. This action was brought by W. R. Hensley, against J. J. Rose and W. B. Irwin, but abated as to the latter, on his death pending the suit; and was founded on an attachment bond, executed by said Irwin as principal, and said Rose and another as his sureties.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 21st December, 1882, by Mrs. Sarah F. Dickerson, against William H. Carroll; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien on a house and lot in Green-ville, which the complainant had sold and conveyed to said Carroll. The contract was made, and the conveyance executed, on the 10th May, 1880 ; and Carroll was put in possession of the property.

Tried before the lion. John Moore. This action was brought by A. C. Howze, as the administrator cum test. ann. of Thaddeus D. Jones, deceased, against Nathaniel J. and Albert F. Davis, but was discontinued as to the latter defendant, who was not served with process; and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $791.20, dated March 16th, 1882, and payable to said testator on the 1st January, 1883, with interest from date.

Appeai. from the Circuit Court of Coffee. Tried before the Hon. H. D. Ci.ayton.

Tried before the ILon. H. D. Clayton. This action was brought by Miles B. Carr, against the “Central Railroad and Banking Company of Georgia,” a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of Georgia, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, on or about the 8th December, 1882, while travelling as a passenger on the defendant’s railroad, at or near Georgetown, in Quitman county, Georgia; and was commenced on the 24th March, 1883.

Tried before the ITon. S. II. Spkott. This action was brought' by T. Stringfellow, against D. S Curry & Co. as partners; and was commenced on the 16th November, 1883. The complaint contained only a single count, which claimed $200 for the defendants’ use and occupation of a store-house and lot in the town of Pickensville, from the 1st September, 1882, to the 1st February, 1883.

ELeard before the lion. Titos. M. Arrtngton. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d June, 18*5, by Calvin L. Sayre, against Thomas II. Watts and Thomas H. Watts, Jr., individually, and as partners in business under the firm name of Watts & Son ; and sought to enjoin the collection of a judgment which said Watts & Son had recovered against the complainant, and to establish as a set-off against it, to the extent of the interest of said Thomas II.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. "War. E. Clarke.</p> <p>cited Osborne v. Mobile, 16 "Wall. 479; Telegraph Go. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 464; 15 Wallace, 284; Packet Go. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 IT. S. 430; Packet Go. v. Gatlettsburg, 105 IT. S. 559; Transportation Go. v. Parkersburg, 107 IT. S. 691; Dorman v. The State, 34 Ala. 249; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713; Amer. Tel. Go. v. W. U. Tel. Go., 67 Ala. 26.</p> <p>cited Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; 15 Wall. 284; 93 IT. S. 116, 123; License Oases, 5 Wall. 462; Bender son v. New Pork, 92 IT. S. 259; Telegraph Go. v. Texas, 105 IT. S. 460. And on petition for rehearing they cited the following additional eases: Sinnot v. Oommissioners of Pilotage, 22 How. 227; Foster v. Damn-port, 22 Iiow. 244; Moran v. New Orleans, 112 IT. S. 69; also, 22 Fed. Beporter, Dec. 30, 1884, p. 276; Deoty’s Sup. Court Beporter, vol. 5, p. 38.</p>

Tried before the Hon. H. O. Spicake. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to two mules, a buggy and harness, between Anderson, Green & Co., plaintiffs in execution against William Conant, and Daniel Sandlin as claimant; and on the death of said claimant, the suit was revived in favor of his administrators, who are the appellants.

Tried before the Hon. S. IT. Sprott. This action was brought by Thomas C. Clark, against Edward IT. Lamb and others, as sureties on the official bond of John Alley, deceased, as sheriff of said county, to recover the sum of $260.77, alleged to have been collected by said Alley, as sheriff, under several void executions against plaintiff, and which, as alleged, he failed to pay over to plaintiff on demand.

Ai’mcal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the ITon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Thomas Molton, against'Wm. T. Hatchett., to recover a sum of money which had been paid over to the defendant by Jeff. Falkner, and which he had received as attorney of record for A. J. Terrell et al., under a judgment in favor of said Terrell et al. v. Cunningham.

Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmbs. The record in this case shows that, on the 18th March, 1884, L. P. Waganer commenced an action in a justice’s court, against Hugh Eox and wife, and sued out a garnishment against Chamberlain & Co., as the debtors of said defendants ; that said garnishees appeared, and filed an ansyver denying any indebtedness, but stating that they held four notes, called Seamen’s Advance Notes,” which had been deposited with them for collection by J.…

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This action was brought by John M. Hoyle, as the administrator de bonis non of the insolvent estate of Alexander Baker, deceased (and revived in the name of Henry II. Barclift, his successor in the administration), against William H. Baker, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 15th April, 1880.

<p> Bill in Equity by Creditors to set aside Fraudulent Conveyance. </p> <p>1. Parties to bill. — When a bill seeks to set aside, on the ground of fraud as against creditors, a conveyance executed by the debtor to his wife directly, the debtor himself is a necessary defendant to the bill, and on his death, pending the suit, his administrator and heirs are necessary parties.</p> <p>2. Conveyance by husband to wife. — A conveyance of lands by the husband to his wife directly, without the intervention of a third person as trustee, passes to her only an equitable estate, the legal title remaining in the husband as her trustee; and on his death, the legal title descends to his heirs.</p> <p>3. Non-joinder of parties. — The absence of an indispensable party, in a chancery cause, is available on error, and will work a reversal, without previous objection in the court below.</p> <p>4. Judgments and decrees ; from what day operative. — -The rule of the English courts, which regards a term of court as a single day, and all judgments rendered during the term as rendered on the first day, is never allowed to prevail over the substantial equities of third persons; and it has never been adopted in our practice, which assigns to judgments and decrees the exact date on which they are rendered.</p> <p>5. Neath of party after submission, and while cause is held under advisement. — By the settled practice of this court, when a cause has been submitted for decision, and one of the parties dies while it is held under advisement, his death does not affect the validity of the judgment after-wards rendered, which is declared on its face to take effect as of the day of submission; but the court will not extend this rule to a judgment or decree rendered by the primary court, under similar circumstances, after the death of an indispensable party, whose administrator and heirs have never had a day in court.</p> <p>C. Homestead exemption ; extent-, and by what law determined. — As to debts contracted after the constitution of 1868 became operative, but before the passage of the statute approved April 23d, 1873, the value and extent of the homestead exemption are to be determined by that constitution, and it can not exceed eighty acres.</p>

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th August, 1879, by Thomas A. Sikes, against N. J. Ganey and others, as heirs at law and distributees of the estate of Walter D. Compton, deceased ; and sought the reformation of a conveyance, by the correction of an alleged mistake in the description of the government numbers and subdivisions of the land, which liad been sold on the 20th January, 1869, by the administrator of said Compton’s…

Tried before the Hon. John. P. Hubbard. This action was brought by S. H. Powell against Robinson & Ledyard, warehousemen in the city of Montgomery, to recover damages for their alleged conversion of two bales of cotton, which the plaintiff had stored with them, and which they afterwards surrendered and delivered under a judgment recovered against them by W. IT. Merritt.

Tried before the lion. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by David J. Anderson, against George M. Jones and A. A. An trey, to recover four yokes of oxen, particularly described, a log-cart, with chains and fixtures; and was commenced on the 2d March, 1882. The defendants pleaded non debineb, and the cause was tried on issue joined on that plea.

■ Tried before the ITon. F. C. Randolph. In the matter of the probate of a paper which was propounded as the last will and testament of Mrs. Sarah B. Merrill, deceased, who died in Columbus, Georgia, on the 13th February, 1884.

Tried before the Hon. O. L Simones. This action was brought by Mrs. Henrietta Yogel, as the executrix of the last will and testament of her deceased husband, Sigmund Yogel, against the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a corporation chartered by the State of New York ; and was founded on a policy of insurance for $5,000, which the decedent had effected on his own life, with the defendant.

Tried before the Lion. John Moore. This action was brought by B. L. Allen, against George O. Bell; and was commenced by original attachment, sued out before the clerk of said court, on the 24th February, 1882.

Tried before the Hon. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action for the recovery of personal property in specie was lirought by Theodore Guesnard, against the Louisville & Nashville Bailroad Company, and was commenced on the 27th March, 1882.

Tried before the lion. Tiros. M. Arrington. This action was brought by Emanuel Shines, against Victor Steiner and M. Steiner.

Tried before the Iíou. ¥i. E. Clarke. The record in this case shows that, at the January term of said court, 1884, a conditional judgment for $50 was rendered in favor of the State, for the use of Mobile county, against David R. Dunlap; as a defaulting juror; that said Dunlap appeared, on a subsequent day of the term, and asked to have the forfeiture set aside, claiming exemption from jury service as a member of an incorporated fire-company in the city of Mobile, after five…

Appkal from tlie Circuit Court of Barbour. Tried before the IIou. Ii. D. Clayton. This action was brought by Jason G. Guice, against Jonathan M. Thornton, “one of the late firm of Thornton & Locke;” was commenced on the 10th June, 1881, and was founded on a promissory note for $2,000; which note was dated April 3d, 1875, payable to the order of the plaintiff six months after date, and signed “ Thornton ds Locke, per W. II.

John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 19th December, 1882, by Thomas II.

This was an application by petition in the name of the State, on the relation of the Attorney-General, for a writ of mandamus and other appropriate process, directed to Hon. H. A. Sharpe, presiding judge of the City Court of Birmingham, commanding him to vacate and set aside an order made by him as such judge, discharging one Thomas Tate from custody on a hearing on habeas corpus.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speaks. This action was brought by llobert E. Cockburn, against Samuel Watkins, to enforce a landlord’s statutory lien for advances made to his tenant; and Was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 15th January, 1883, on the ground, as stated in the affidavit, “that the said Watkins has removed from the said rented premises a part of the crop raised thereon the year 1882, without paying the amount due for advances, and without the consent of…

Tried before the Hon. Jon. Haralson. This action was brought by Cyrus Yanghan and Matilda, his wife, against S. P. Mcllwain, to recover damages for the conversion of two mules, named Jane and Woolly \ and. was commenced on the 3d April, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hurraed. This action was brought by James Moss, against John E. Honey, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land, particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 5th August, 1880.

Appkal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon. S. II. Sprott. This action was brought by Thomas Y. Huffman, against the appellant, a domestic corporation, as a common carrier, to recover damages for an alleged tort, under the following circumstances : Being in Birmingham, on Saturday, December 31st, 1881, the plaintiff purchased a ticket to travel on the defendant’s road, by a freight-train, to Hanceville, a station ten miles beyond Blount Springs.

Tried before the Hon. II. O. Speaice. This action, which was brought by the appellants, suing as late partners, against Alexander Heflin, was commenced in a justice’s court, and was removed by appeal, at the instance of the plaintiffs, into the Circuit Court; and on the trial in that court, they reserved a bill of exceptions, as follows : “ During the argument of defendant’s counsel to the jury, he said: ‘Gentlemen, this case has been tried once, and plaintiff failed to get…

Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 19th January, 1884, by John S. Espy, as a creditor of the late firm of Clark, Hart & Go., on behalf of himself and all other creditors of said firm who might come in and make themselves parties; against Hugh M. Comer, John W. Drewry, and the personal representatives, widow and children of the two deceased partners, Whitfield Clark and Iienry C. Hart; and sought to have a mortgage, which was executed…

Api>EAL-from the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by John M. Hamil, against John O. Brown, to recover damages for an alleged conver-ioii by defendant of a crop raised on rented land, with notice of plaintiffs lien as landlord; and was commenced on tin 18th September, 1882. The complaint contained a single count, which alleged that the plaintiff leased certain lands, for the year 1881, to one C. II.

Appear from the Chancery Court of Montgomery. Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster.

Application by petition by B. R. Pearson, as administrator of the estate of T. N. Jube, deceased, for a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, to Hon. F. C. Randolph, judge of the Probate Court of Montgomery, commanding him to vacate and set aside an order made on the 27th January, 1885, on the petition of said decedent’s widow, requiring the administrator to pay over to her, as exempt property for the benefit of herself and her several minor children, the sum of…

Tried before the TIon. John P. Hubbard. — At the time of the conveyance by S. W. Alford and wife to the defendant in this case, they were in possession of the premises; their homestead right had not terminated, by abandonment or otherwise, and the plaintiffs’ judgment was no lien on the premises. — Thompson on Homesteads, §§ 390-91, and cases cited in note.

Ai'peal from the Chancery Court of Lowndes. Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. 'The bill in this case was filed on the 19th June, 1880, by C. E. Reese and E. O. Dunklin, as the administrators de bonis non of the insolvent estate of Josiali W. Cowling, against John Gr. Farley and Win.

Tried before the Hon. F. C. Randolph. In the matter of the settlement of the accounts of Mrs. Louisa Englehardt, as administratrix of the estate of her first husband, John A. Yung, deceased, by her surviving husband, David Englehardt, as the executor of her last will and testament.

John A. Foster. The bill in this ease was filed on the 3d February, 1881, by Mrs. Eliza A. May, the widow of Seth S. May, deceased, against W. W. Wilkinson ; and sought to enforce against him, as a sub-purchaser with notice, an alleged vendor’s lien on a house and lot in Greenville, which the complainant and her said husband sold, on the 2d May, 1868, to William Miller and James M. Withers, and conveyed by deed, with warranty of title, to B. F. Porter as trustee for their…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 5th September, 1881, by Frank A. Hall, as the administrator of Samuel M. Sharp, deceased, against the widow and minor children of said Sharp, together with Willis Y. Bell and Charles Sankey; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of land, which was executed to said Samuel M. Sbarp by Jarratt Sankey and wife, both since deceased.

A['peal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Ii. Marcus, against F. Robinson, to recover a mule, and a “one-horse wagon with patent wheels and spring seat,” together with damages for their detention.

Heard before the Hon. H. W. Caffey. In the matter of the petition of Mrs. Sarah S. Little, surviving widow of Patrick Little, deceased, for the appointment of appraisers, or commissioners, to set apart to her, as exempt from administration and the payment of debts, personal property of the value of $1,000 ; which claim was contested by Mrs. Mary McPherson and her' husband, with several minors, grandchildren of said Patrick Little.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Mrs. Jane F. Cosby, the surviving widow of A. Y. Cosby, deceased, against Willis C. Wood and another; was commenced on the 21st February, 1884, and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $668.26, which was dated October 21st, 1882, .and payable on the 1st October, 1883, “to the order of A. Y. Cosby, or bearer.” The defendant 'interposed a special plea, verified by affidavit, alleging that the note…

Tried before the ITon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Mrs. Frances Boykin, the wife of Burwell Boykin, against the appellant, “ a corporation under the laws of Kentucky,” to recover damages for the alleged conversion of “eighteen hundred car-loads of gravel;” and was Commenced on the 9th May, 1884:.

Tried before the Hon. Tilos. M. Arrington. This was an application by Dr. J. S. Weatherly, a licensed physician, residing in the city of Montgomer, for a writ of mandamus to the Medical and Surgical Society of Montgomery county, a private corporation, to compel the restoration of the relator to membership and office in said society ; and was filed, duly verified by affidavit, on the 19th August, 1884.

Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton. This action was brought by Andrew J. Smith, against the appellant, described as “a corporation created by the laws of Georgia, and doing business in Alabama by agents,” to recover damages for injuries sustained by the sinking of the steamboat George W. Wylly, on the 11th April, 1883, while running on the Chattahoochee river between Columbus, Georgia, and Apalachicola, Florida; the plaintiff having been a passenger on the boat at the time,…

Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham. The bill in this case was filed on the 16th August, 1883, by Mrs. Mary Andrews, the widow of Henry Andrews, deceased, against Mrs. Susan A. Melton and Dallas Melton ; and sought an allotment of dower in a certain tract of land, containing 142 acres, which was described as “the south-east quarter of section twenty-two (22), township twenty (20), range twenty-one (21), except a narrow strip one hundred yards wide,” with rents from the death…

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This action was brought by Hurst, Miller & Co., suing as partners, against William S. Terrell and Wilbourne Yincent, as late partners doing business under the name of Terrell & Yin-cent; and was founded on three promissory notes, each of which was executed in the name of Terrell & Yincent, payable to the order of Hurst, Miller & Co., “at office of Isbell & Co., Talladega,” and each'contained a stipulation in these words: “The maker and…

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This was an application by the appellant, “ a corporation created by the laws of Tennessee,” for a mandamus to D. L. Woolf, a justice of the peace for said county, and B. F. Hughes, plaintiff in an action instituted in said justice’s court, or other appropriate writ, to set aside a judgment in that action in favor of said Hughes, rendered on the verdict of a jury, and to enforce a former judgment in favor of the defendant (said railroad…

Arpear from the Circuit Court of Coffee. Tried before the Hon. II. JD. Crayton. This action was brought by Mrs. Sallie Morgan, a married woman, against Matthew Brunson, to recover a tract of land particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention.

Tried before the lion. John P. ITtjbbard. The appellants in this case, having recovered a judgment against J. D. Hurt, sued out a garnishment on it, and summoned the Mobile and Grirard Railroad Company as the debtor of said Hurt. The garnishee appeared, and answered, stating that said Hurt was in its employment as a night watchman, at a salary of $1.35 per day, payable on the 15th day of each month; and that the company owed him about $125 as wages past due.

Tried before the Hon. Jas. E. Cobb. This action was brought by S. W. John, as the administrator of the estate of Mrs. Harriet Gardner, deceased, against B. Y. Washburn, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 30th July, 1883. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by W. IT. Watson, against E. J. Mancill, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing forty acres, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 4th August, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. II. I). Clayton. The appellant in this case, who was a justice of the peace in said county, filed his petition in said Circuit Court on the 17th April, 1883, addressed to the presiding judge, and duly verified by affidavit, asking a mandamus against E. E. Boykin, as county treasurer of said county, commanding and requiring him to pay two claims held by the petitioner, which had been duly presented and registered, and which he insisted were payable out…

This is an application by petition, by. Gordon Macdonald, for a writ of prohibition, or other appropriate writ, directed to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county, requiring that court to discharge and dismiss the petitioner, without answer, as garnishee in a certain suit therein pending, wherein the State of Alabama wTas plaintiff, and one Fred.