Volume 76 — Mississippi Reports

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. Á. H. Longino, Chancellor. Held: that where the celebration of a marriage is proved, the validity of the marriage, in all its essentials, is presumed as matter of law. Wilkie v. Collins, 18 Miss., 196; Blanchard v. Lambert, 13 Iowa, 288; Canjolle v. Ferrie, 26 Barb. (N. Y.), 177.

From the circuit court of Choctaw county. Hon. W. F. Stevens, Judge. Held: that an officer is justified in shooting or killing a prisoner under arrest for a misdemeanor for trying to escape by simply running away, while there is an unbroken line of decisions, both English and American, against any such barbarity.

Erom the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. EL. Longino, Chancellor. The husband of Mrs.- Clark, the appellant, complainant in the court below, nearly thirty years ago took out a policy of insurance in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, the appellee, for the sum of $10,00-0,. and before his death he had paid the company nearly that sum.

From the chancery court of Clay county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. The facts are fully stated in the briefs of counsel and the opinion of the court. The appellants, Carey Beaver et al., were the complainants in the court below. Tbe demurrer to the cross bill, filed by Mrs. Alice H. Crump, presents the question as to the rights of Mrs. Crump to the property of Seth P. Pool, deceased.

From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. W. F. Stevens, Judge. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The judgment of the court below was in favor of plaintiff Pose, appellee, and the defendant below, the West Point Telephone & Telegraph Co., appellant, appealed to the supreme court. There is no implied contract to pay co-promoters for services where one acts as secretary. Baileys.

From the chancery court, first district, Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The appellants, George S. Edgell and others, were the complainants in the court below,' the appellee, Fabius M. Clarke, was defendant in said court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. The appellant, Gilley Bell, was the plaintiff in the court ■•below, and the Gulf & Chicago Railroad Company was defendant there. The facts are stated in or are clearly infer-able from the opinion of the court. For the purposes of this appeal, we have the right to treat as proven everything the testimony tends to prove.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. Hon. Newnan Cayoe, Special Judge. Timberlake was the plaintiff and Tliayer the defendant in the court below. Held: that the written waiver of “notice and protest” in this case operates of itself to waive and dispense with the presentment of the note to the makers and the demand of payment from them at maturity.

From the circuit court of Adams county. Hon. W. P. Cassedy, Judge. Held: as against Searles’ suit, Wilkinson could use as a set-off the excess in value of corn contracted for in a former transaction over value of inferior corn actually delivered by Searles. The rights and interests of Lowry Hay & Grain Company in the contract were purchased by appellee before the corn left Kansas City.

From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. G. B. Huddleston, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Held: Judge Campbell delivering the opinion, that the section had in view the case of a nonresident protected by the bar of the statute of limitation of the state where he resided, who afterwards came into this state, and we insist that the court seems to take it for-granted that but for the fact that the railroad company resided in both…

From the chancery court of Jackson county. Hon. N. C. Hill, Chancellor. Mrs. Margaret DeJet, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Mrs. Stella B. Waddell, the appellant, was defendant there.

From the circuit court of Union county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The railroad company was the plaintiff in the court below; the town was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Lee county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Allen, West &Bush, the appellees, were complainants in the court below; the appellants, Tishomingo Savings Institution et al., were defendants there.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. 'The appellee, Mrs. Jayne, was the plaintiff in the court below; appellant, Duncan, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Duncan had a statutory lien (Irwin v. Miller, 72 Miss., 174) superior to every other lien, unless it was inferior to that of Jayne. Bul I insist that the conduct of Jayne was such as to operate as a waiver of priority in favor of Duncan.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The appellant, Harry G. Gibson, was indicted for the murder of one John S. Parkhurst. The evidence was largely circumstantial. The second instruction, referred to in the opinion of the court, was in these words: “2.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. J. L. Hurley, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the levee commissioners were defendants there.

.From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county.- Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The appellant, the state, ex rel., was the plaintiff in the court below; appellee, Holder, auditor, was defendant there. Mandamus on the relation of the teachers and officers of the Industrial Institute and College to compel the auditor of public accounts to issue warrants for their salaries. The mandamus was denied and the relators appealed. The opinion states the case.

From the chancery court of Noxubee county. .Hon. Adam Byrd, Chancellor. The appellants, Ames and others, were the complainants, and the appellees, Dorroh and others, were defendants, in the court below. The judgment of the chancery court was in favor of the defendants, and complainants appealed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Prentiss county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. The appellants, Pollock & Bernheimer and others, were complainants in the court below. Simmons Brothers and others, including S. M. Barnett, now appellees, were defendants in the chancery court. The decree of that court was in favor of the defendants, and the complainants appealed. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. W. K. MoLaurin, Judge. The appellee, Reed, was prosecuted for the violation of § 1320, code of 1892, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person to go upon the inclosed lands of another without bis consent, after having been notified by the owner, or his agent, not to do so. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Kemper county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. W. H. Lipscomb, the appellant, was defendant in the court below. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. For previous report of case, see Lipscomb v. State, 75 Miss., 559.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. This case was a prosecution of appellant, Stanford, for a misdemeanor—unlawful cohabitation. The indictment was not marked filed by the clerk at the term of court at which it was found, as required by code 1892, § 1346. At the next following subsequent term, the court permitted the clerk to mark it filed.

From the circuit court of Montgomery county. Hon. W. F. Stevens, Judge. Saffold, the appellant, was indicted for the murder of Ingram. He made an application for a change of venue, which was denied. One of the jurors, who, on his voir dire, denied that he was related to the deceased, was shown to be related to him in the fourth or fifth degree; another juror’s wife was related to the deceased.

From the circuit court, second district, of Chickasaw county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. Appellants, John and Charles Wheeler, were jointly indicted and convicted for receiving stolen property.

From circuit court of Yalobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Winfred Richards was convicted of gambling, and appeals. Appellant and one Edward Wilbourn were indicted in the same indictment, which charged that “Winfred Richards and Edward Wilbourn did . . . unlawfully play at a certain game and games of dice, commonly -called ‘ craps, ’ for money, ’ ’ etc. This indictment was demurred to by appellant as being an indictment for separate offenses in which two were joined.

From the circuit court of Yazoo county. IIon. Robert Powell, Judge. The appellant, Morgan Washington, was defendant in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Gode 1892, §969, is in these words: ££ 969 (2984).

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. Mastronardi, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the appellants were defendants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. An easement can be acquired in only one of three ways—by express grant, by implied grant, or by prescription, which always presupposes a grant to have existed. We claim title in this case by prescription.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, J ndge. Ireys and others, the appellants, wore the plaintiffs in the court below; Wallace, the appellee, was there the defendant. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Samuel Jacobs, the plaintiff in the court below, now appellant, sued the Postal Telegraph Cable Co., the defendant and appellee, for damages, charging unreasonable delay in the delivery of a telegram sent him from Port Gibson, Miss., to Leland, Miss., November 25, 1897, addressed to plaintiff in care of J. W. Tate.

From the circuit court of Union county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Iio'N. Claud Pintard, Chancellor. The appellee, John N Bush, was the complainant in the court below. Held: that the error in the square did not vitiate the description, and that the deeds were admissible in evidence. And so it is here. If the land, as the bill asserts, can be easily identified without reference to the section, an erroneous statement of the section will be treated as surplusage.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. The United States, suing for the use of the Melton Hardware Co., the'appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the American Surety Co., the appellant, was defendant there. Stowell & Co. contracted with the. United States to erect a public building at Meridian, giving bond as required by an act of congress, with appellant as surety.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Benjamin H. Grimes, administrator of the estate of Brandon, appellee, instituted the suit in the court below. The appellants were defendants there. Brandon died intestate, leaving a widow and an infant child, each being entitled to inherit one-half of his estate. He left two policies of life insurance, aggregating $5,000, payable to his executor or administrator.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Elnathan Tartt, appellee, instituted this suit in the court below against John H. Horne and many other defendants, the appellants. It was a suit on a guardian’s bond against the representatives of one of several sureties thereon and against other persons now interested in the lands of which the said surety died seized and possessed. No reason is given why the other sureties were not sued.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below, and he began the action by attachment against Harland, appellant, to collect the penalties prescribed by § 1590, code of 1892, for the unlawful sale of liquors, and judgment was rendered against Harland.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Lester, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below. Held: resulting “ against the sale ’ ’ of intoxicating liquors. This result was duly returned and properly recorded.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Foster, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below. The suit was an action of replevin under code 1892, § 2530, providing for the institution of such suit by one whose property has been distrained for rent claimed to be due from another. Scroggins, the landlord, now appellant, was defendant. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. •The Memphis Grocery Company attached the Prentiss Lumber Company, and the writ was levied on certain machinery, part of which, a twin engine, was claimed by the Valley Land Company.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. The infant children of John Henderson,' deceased, by Thomas Allen, their guardian, appellee, were the complainants in the court below; the Independent Order, etc., the appellant, was defendant there. John Henderson, the complainant’s ancestor, became a member of the order of the Sons and Daughters of Jacob, a benefit society, and, in his certificate of membership, named Love Lucas as the beneficiary.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Kendrick, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the defendant there was Nickles, the appellant. Held: as it was in law bound to hold, that the bond had been filed in time, would it be contended that the case was no longer in that court? The seeming conflict of jurisdiction would be apparent, and not real, for [he writ issued by the justice would necessarily be treated as utterly void.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The National Parlor Furniture Co., the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below. Isydore Strauss & Son, of Montgomery, Ala. (defendants in the court below, and now appellants), by their purchasing agent, Harry Strauss, bought of appellee, in Chicago, certain furniture.

From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. Eldridge was convicted of forgery on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charges him with forging, with intent to defraud one F. Elliott, an order of the following tenor and effect: “July 21, 1898. “Mr. F. Elliott: You will please let bearer have the sum of ®7 and forty cents in money. I ever he wants, and charge tome.

From the chancery court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert N. Miller, Special Chancellor. William L. Lewis and others, the appellants, were the complainants in the court below. The suit was once before in the supreme court, and the decision then made is reported—Boguechitto v. Lewis, 75 Miss., 711. The previous report gives the facts up to the time of that decision, and the code section in controversy is there quoted.

From the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. McCalip, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below, and the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The plaintiff was driving a wagon and team of oxen on a street in Brookhaven, which street crosses the tracks of the railroad,, and seeing, as he thought, the crossing unobstructed, started to cross, going east, the railroad track extending north and south.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Wilkerson et al., appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below, and J enkins, appellant, was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Madison county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The appellee, Margaret P. Muse, applied to the chancery court for letters of guardianship upon the person and estate of Martha Muse, a lunatic. Edgar H. Muse, appellant, opposed the appointment, and, showing that he was next of kin to the lunatic, prayed that he might be appointed guardian both of the person and estate, but especially of the estate of the unfortunate person non compos mentis.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Wilmot, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below. The railroad company was defendant there. Wilmot sued the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company in an action of trespass in the sum of $5,000 for the alleged wilful and wanton destruction, in June, 1896, of his crops of cotton growing upon land immediately adjacent to the roadbed of said defendant company and on either side thereof.

From the circuit court of Itawamba county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. The appellants were convicted of manslaughter, on an indictment for murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years, from which they appealed. The opinion states the case.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. The appellant, Longino, was the plaintiff in the court below. The Delta Bank, appellee, was the claimant, defendant. The judgment of the court below being against plaintiff on the claimant’s issue, he appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. For a previous report of the case, see Longino v. Delta JBanle, 75 Miss., 407.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. A. IT. Longino, Chancellor. Mary A. Goode, appellee, was the complainant in the court below. She filed her bill against Reuben T. Golden and Reuben Golden, father and son, defendants, to cancel, as a cloud upon her title to the land in controversy a certain deed executed by Golden, the father, conveying it to his infant son.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge.. The Delta Bank, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Montjoy, Jr., appellant, was defendant there. The circuit court rendered judgment for the plaintiff (Delta Bank), from which the defendant (Montjoy, Jr.) appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. The suit was begun by appellant’s intestate, who was the plaintiff in the court below. Upon his death the cause was revived in the name of E. C. Gillespie, administratrix. The appellee, the Planters’ Oil Mill and Manufacturing Co., was defendant in the circuit court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. It was unnecessary to protest the bill sued on.

From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. Wm. F. Stevens, Judge. Clarissa M. Hamline and others, appellants, were the plaintiffs in the court below. The railway company was defendant there. Held: in M. de O. R. R. Co. y. State, 51 Miss., 138, 139, that § 2424, code 1871 (§ 1050, code 1880; § 3552, code 1892), requiring railroad companies to erect signboards at crossings of public highways only, applied to country roads.

From the chancery court of Clay county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. The appellee, Chickasaw county, was the complainant in the court below. Clay county was defendant there. Clajr county was created in 1871* (laws 1871, p. 800), under the name “Colfax,” which name was changed to Clay in 1876 (laws 1876, p. 128).

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. A. H. Longuno, Chancellor. The controversy involved in this case was begun by Frank H. Rice, appellant, who, as complainant therein, filed a cross petition against Jane Gr.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. Edward F. Noel, Special Chancellor. The Delta Bank, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; appellant, Henry Hentz & Co. et al., were .defendants there.

From the circuit court of Prentiss county. Hon. Newnan Cayce, Judge. The appellee (Rees) was the clerk of the chancery court and ex officio clerk of the board of supervisors of Prentiss county. He was indicted for the violation of the sections of the code mentioned in the opinion. His demurrer to the whole indictment was sustained and the state appealed. The code sections ’mentioned are as follows: “1063 (2787).

Fbom the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Geeen B. Huddleston, Judge. Appellant, Julia C. Davis, was the plaintiff in the court below ; appellee, Robert F. Cochran, was defendant there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The case oí Brahan v. Bank, 72 Miss., 266, is conclusive of this case. 1.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Thomas L. Grisham, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Lutric & Chandler, appellees, were defendants there. The purpose of the suit was to recover the value of some cotton upon which plaintiff, as trustee, held a deed of trust, the cotton having been acquired by defendants, appellees.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Wm. K. MoLaurin, Judge. The state, suing on the relation of the city of Vicksburg, was the plaintiff in the court below; the fire company, a corporation, was defendant there.

From the circuit court, second district, of Carroll county. Hon. Wm. F. Stevens, Judge. Mary Kate Bacon, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the appellants were defendants there. The suit was for false imprisonment, in the detention of appellee, a maiden lady of about fifty years of age, in the state asylum for the insane, brought by her against her two brothers, two physicians and two other parties.

From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. St. Clair, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below, the railroad company was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Lee county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Blair & Anderson, lawyers, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Joy L. Torrey and others, nonresidents of Mississippi, and the railroad company, were defendants there. The suit wras an attachment in chancery.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Callicott, the appellee and tenant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Schlicht, the appellant and landlord, was defendant there. The action was an issue made under the statute, code 1892, § 2528, hereinafter quoted, as to debt due after property seized under an attachment for supplies furnished a tenant, by his landlord. The statute authorizing such an attachment or distress is as follows: ■ “2501.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Monroe county, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; Weiler & Haas, appellants, were defendants there. The case -was once before in the supreme court, and is reported— Weiler c& Haas v. Monroe County, 74 Miss., 682. The object'of the suit, which was instituted under code 1892, ch. 123, was to determine and make of record the title to a sixteenth section of land.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The appellee, Brown, was the plaintiff in the court below. Appellant, McCaughan,' was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The plaintiff cannot recover an individual judgment on the note; he does not sue as surviving partner, under code 1892, §§1909 to 1916. Before a surviving partner can proceed to collect the partnership property, he must comply with § 1911 of the code.

From the circuit court of Hancock county. Hon. Thaddeus A. Wood, J. The case was a prosecution in the court below by the state against Quintini; the prosecution there failing, the state appealed to the supreme court as authorized by statute. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. An affidavit in a criminal case can be made upon information and belief. Certainly there are many reasons why it should be allowed to be done.

From the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. The state, acting by and through the land commissioner, was the plaintiff in the court below; one Cyrus, presumably the appellee’s intestate, and the Yazoo & Mississippi Yalley Railroad Co., were original defendants there.

From the circuit court of Marshall county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. When the court ordered that the trial proceed on a certified copy of the indictment, the defendant had a right to plead thereto and should have been arraigned thereon. He might have shown that it was not a copy of the indictment.

From the circuit court of Pike county. Hon. William P. Casseey, Judge. The facts out of which the questions decided arose are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Baird, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railway company and others were defendants there. The opinion sufficiently states the case.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellant, Wright, assignee, etc., was the complainant in the court below. Hardy, the appelllee, was defendant there.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Paxton, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below. The railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. The counsel on both sides agreed that the facts were substantially identical with tbe facts in the case of Wilmot v. Yazoo, etc., R. R. Co., ante, page 374.

From the circuit court of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Hayne & Co., appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below. The railway companj’-, appellant, was defendant there. Playne & Co. bought cotton of one Ellis, at Steen’s creek. The cotton was delivered to the railway company at Pearson, a station five or six miles east of Jackson, on the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth of September, 1897, but none of it was delivered in Jackson till November 8, 1897.

From the circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Emma Prude was indicted for having killed a child of which she was averred to have been pregnant. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained by the court below, and the state appealed to the supreme court. The averments of the indictment are stated in the opinion of the court. The section of the code considered is in the following words, viz.: 1157 (2884).

From the circuit court of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. This case was before the supreme court on a former appeal. 75 Miss., 275. The action was one by the revenue agent for the taxes due the cities and towns on that part of defendant’s line extending from Jackson to Greenwood inclusive.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Leflore county, appellant, was complainant and Bush, appellee, defendant in the court below.

From the circuit court of the first district of Chickasaw county. Hon. E. O. Syices, Judge. This case was tried de novo in the circuit court on appeal from a judgment in favor of Thomas & Davis, plaintiffs, who had seized, under execution, certain cotton produced by one Brasfield, the judgment debtor, on land rented from R. M. Dulaney. Shell Bros., who were in possession of the cotton, made affidavit and gave bond as claimants, and retained the property.

Erom the chancery court of Lafayette county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The opinion states the case. No wonder that the chancellor, although holding adversely to us, was constrained to admit that the transaction was suspicious. If it was suspicious, it ought to have been set aside.

From the circuit court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Dogan, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below. Barnes, the appellee, was defendant there. Dogan recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace, in 1891, against Barnes. In 1896 certain lands were levied upon and sold under execution issued on the judgment.

<p>Railroads. Baggage. Rules. Procu/remmt of cheeks.</p> <p>A rule of a railroad company, that baggage shall not be checked until a ticket has been procured, is reasonable; but a rule that a baggage master shall not receive baggag-e into the baggage room until a ticket shall have been procured, is unreasonable and void.</p>

From the circuit court, first district, of Perry county. Hon. A. Gr. Maters, Judge. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Draughn was indicted for burglary, under §991, code of 1892, the charge being that he broke and entered the dwelling house of West, “ with intent to commit the crime of larceny therein.” The indictment was not a good one under §996 of the code.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. T. A.. Wood, Judge. ■ The opinion states the case. 1., Had the defendant appeared for trial there-would have been no breach of the bond, and the same result attends a trial in his absence when the state waives his appearance. 2. The court below lost control of its judgment when the term ended, and could add nothing thereto at -a subsequent term. The judgment of the court below is correct. Code 1892, •§§ 86, 946.

From the circuit court of Franklin county. Hon. W. F. Cassedy, Judge. The opinion states the case. The appellant offered to give the crossing as demanded, but wanted to provide gates through its fence on either side of the track, and to this the appellee refused to assent, and brought his suit for the. penalty. The statute only requires the making and maintenance of a convenient and suitable crossing over the track for a necessary plantation road.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. T. A. Wood, Judge. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the case. 1. The court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s replication. The writ of attachment was the basis of the suit and should have been abated.

From the chancery court of Lincoln county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Cohn & Brothers, appellees, were the complainants in the court below; appellants, Moyse & Brother and others, were defendants there. Cohn & Brothers, resident citizens of Lincoln county, were the owners of a debt due from Cicero Boyd, a resident citizen of Lawrence county, which debt was secured by a deed of trust on personal property and crops located in Lawrence county.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Bogan, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Holder, auditor, etc., appellee, was defendant there.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. Jordan Jackson, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the Illinois Central Railroad Company, appellee, was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Madison county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Edward C. Yellowly, Jr., the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Beardsley and others, the appellees, were defendants there. In 1876 James B. Yellowly and his wife, parents of complainant, executed a deed of trust on the land in controversy to secure a note to one Thomas Helm.

From the chancery court of Tallahatchie county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Tallahatchie county, appellant, was complainant and Forsdick, appellee, defendant in the court below. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts, which disclosed the matters set out in the opinion of the court. The lease of the lands in controversy was made under the act of February 27, 1833, as amended by the act of February 27, 1836. Hutch, code, 213 and 217.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. The appellants, Michael Higgins and others, were complainants, and the appellee, Lou Haberstraw, defendant, in the court below. The appellants inherited the property in controversy from their mother, Mrs. Roberts, who died leaving it incumbered by a deed of trust in favor of the appellee, executed in 1878.

From the circuit court, first district, of Coahoma county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. This suit was an eminent domain proceeding instituted by the board of levee commissioners, the appellant, although the issue tried in the circuit court was made up on the appeal of Brooks, Neeley & Co. el dl., the appellees, who, having appealed to the circuit court, filed their demand for damages in excess of that assessed by the three parties who had acted as appraisers.

From the circuit court, first district, of Coahoma county. . Hon. T. A. Montgomery, Judge. •The opinion states the case. The brief of Ooojper Waddell, for appellant, is not in the record, and cannot be found by the reporter. 1. I do not understand that a rule has ever been applied in proceedings of this kind different from that applied in ordinary-cases.

From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. W. F. Stevens, Judge. Miller, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the appellants, Gathings & Watson, were defendants there. The opinion states the facts of the case. 1. On the trial the plaintiff did not introduce any record or paper evidence of title, but relied on adverse possession.

From the chancery court of Ittawámba county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Adams, state revenue agent, appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Arnold, county treasurer, and the sureties on his official bond, appellees, were defendants there. The safe in which Arnold, the county treasurer, had the public funds was burglarized, and a large sum stolen. Arnold made no secret of this, but promptly reported the loss to the proper authorities.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. William Dudley Walton, Jr., the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; his father, William Dudley Walton, Sr., the appellant, was defendant there. Walton, Sr., owned and lived on the property in controversy with his family, consisting of his wife and eleven children; the appellee, Walton, Jr., being the oldest son.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Adams, state revenue agent, the appellant, was complainant in the court below; the appellees, Watt and others, were defendants there.

From the circuit court of Lawrence county. ■ Hon. William P. Cassedy, Judge. McIntosh and Newsom, the appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; Hooker and another, appellants, were defendants there.

From the circuit court of Lincoln county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. William Thomas East, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the New Orleans Insurance Association was defendant there. The insurance association, on the twenty-third day of May, 1896, insured James W. East for one year from that day against loss by fire to the amount of $500 on a residence described in the policy.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Aurelia Jackson, the appellant, a woman, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railway company, the appellee, was defendant there. A demurrer was interposed by defendant to the declaration; the court below sustained the same, and, plaintiff not asking to amend, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Pike county. Hon. William P. Cassedy, Judge. The appellant, Westbrooks, was defendant in the court below, was convicted, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts, out of which the questions decided afose, are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Adams, state revenue agent, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the railroad company and others were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Under the code of 1892, § 4190, etc., the powers of the revenue agent extended only to bringing suits touching ‘ ‘ revenue ’ ’ and taxes.

From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. McKnight, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Mrs. Speed and others were defendants there. McKnight bought certain lots of land in 1896 from the land commissioner, which had been sold to the state for taxes, and filed his bill for the confirmation of his title.

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. Hon. William K. MoLaurin, Judge. Daniel H. Smith, Jr. ,was indicted for keepingagambling table, gave bond for his appearance in the circuit court, with Daniel H. Smith, Sr., and John S. Porter as his sureties. The defendant Smith, Jr., appeared in the circuit court at the term next after the execution of the bond, and upon being arraigned, pleaded guilty of gambling.

From the circuit court, second district, of Chickasaw county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge.

From the chancery court of Noxubee county. Hon. Adam Byrd, Chancellor. Lena Davis and others, the appellants, were the complainants in the court below; Danella Patty and others, appellees, were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge, Julia Bishop and others, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The plaintiffs were the mother and next of kin of Oscar Bishop, deceased, and the suit was to recover damages for his death, which occurred in Louisiana while the deceased was there in the service of the railroad company as a section hand.

From the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. George Chew, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; Hilliard and others, appellants, were defendants there. The suit sought to perpetually enjoin a judgment, rendered against Chew in appellants’ favor, before a j ustice of the peace of district four of the county.

From the circuit court of Copiah county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Ejectment by Salter, plaintiff, against Higdon and others, defendants, in the court below. The land in controversy was sold in March, 1896, for the state and county taxes of 1895. The opinion states the other material facts.

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The appellee, Mrs. Hafter, was the complainant in the court below; the appellant, the building and loan association, was the defendant there. The opinion states the case. The written contract between the association and Mrs. Hafter shows' that it is not simply a contract of loan.

From the chancery court of Jefferson county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. The appellant, Lily Whitman, was the plaintiff in the court below; Owen, county superintendent of education, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion states the case. It is admitted that Blanchard was not qualified to hold the office of trustee, but petitioner contended and offered to prove that he was a de facto trustee. The court refused to permit such proof.

From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Green B. Huddleston, Judge. Guy Jack and Mrs. Lillie B. Stewart, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below; the insurance company, appellant, was defendant there. The action was upon a life insurance policy issued by defendant upon the life of Chas. T. Stewart, deceased, and it was payable to the executor, administrators or assigns of the insured.

From the chancery court of Greene county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Dixon and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; the county of Greene and others, appellees and cross appellants, were defendants there. At its March term, 1898, the board of supervisors of Greene county adopted a plan and specifications for building a new courthouse.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Miss Nixon, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the city of Biloxi, the appellee, was defendant there. The object of the bill was to enjoin a sale of land for delinquent municipal taxes, and the relief was asked on several grounds. A preliminary injunction was granted.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hón. Nathan C. Hill, chancellor. Charles B. Higgins, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Horne, the appellant, was defendant there. .Peter Higgins died, leaving a widow and two sons, and property to the value of seventy-five thousand dollars. One son died, his' one-third interest descending to his brother, the appellee.

From the chancery court, second district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. The White Sewing Machine Company, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the appellants, William C. Chapman and others, were defendants there.

From the circuit court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Mandamus by Jacob R. Wineman et al., plaintiffs in the court below, against Holder, auditor, etc., defendant there. The judgment of the circuit court awarded the writ and defendant appealed.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. The appellees, Mary E. Wark et al., were the complainants in the court below. The appellants, Young et al., were defendants there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The plea of res judicata is a complete bar to the maintenance of the bill by Mary E. Wark and William Sadler.

From the chancery court of Clay county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Tabb and others, appellees, were the complainants in the court below. Byers, appellant, was a defendant there. The decree of the chancery court was in complainant’s favor, and defendant, John M. Byers, appeals to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion. The general rule is that an assignment valid where made is valid everywhere.

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. Hon. William K. McLaurin, Judge. Jackson D. Millsaps, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below. The railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. Millsaps delivered cotton to the railroad company at Carlisle for transportation. The cotton was received by the company and placed on an open platform, where it was permitted to remain for several days.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, chancellor.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. The appellants, McGuire and others, were complainants m the court below. The Union Investment Company and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to confirm complainants’ tax title and to cancel’ the claims of defendants to the land as clouds upon the title. The answers set up -the defects in the assessment under which the tax sale was made, as shown in the opinion.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. F. A. Montgomery, Judge. Held: as the members of the legislature were informed, that the effect of the passage of the act of 1896, consolidating rights of action, abated or took away the right altogether which then existed in certain suits then pending.

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. A. H. Longino, chancellor. Walker, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; Caldwell and others, the appellants, were defendants there. The object of the bill was to set aside, as fraudulent, a certain deed executed by defendant Dudley to Caldwell, as having been executed to defraud the grantor’s creditors,' of whom the complainant was one.

From the chancery court, second district, Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, chancellor. Abramsohn, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the appellants, Lowenstien & Bros, and others, were defendants there.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. Thaddetjs A. Wood, Judge. This case was an action of ejectment wherein Marie L. Jeanin and others, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below, and the appellants, Joseph Torre and others, were the defendants there. The judgment in the trial court was in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently stated in, or are clearly inferable from, the opinion of the court. 1.

From: the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longuno, chancellor. Amelia W.- Alcorn, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below; the appellant, May Yates Alcorn, was defendant there. Complainant is the widow of the late Governor James L. Alcorn; defendant the widow of James Alcorn, deceased, a son of Governor Alcorn.

From the chancery court, second district, Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Held: however, that Reuben had an estate in the property for life, or whatever estate he did have anterior to the vesting of an estate in fee, such anterior estate may be barred, yet there is no bar as to his estate in fee recently vested in him and devolved upon him by reason of his continuous sobriety for the period stated.' The vesting…

From the chancery court, second district, of Coahoma county. Hon. A. H. Longino, Chancellor. Chapman, receiver, etc., of the Clarksdale Bank & Trust Company and several creditors of that institution, the appellees, were complainants in the court below, appellant, Mill-saps, and others were defendants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. The appellants, George King Pratt et al., were complainants in the court below; appellees, Bella P. Hargreaves et al., were defendants there. Defendant, Proot, is and was a notary public of Louisiana. The appeal is from a decree sustaining a demurrer, dissolving an injunction and dismissing the suit.