Volume 86 — Alabama Reports

Erom the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmes. The defendant in this case, Ulysses Cleveland, was indicted for the murder of Arthur Glennon, by shooting him with a pistol; was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of twelve years. No objection was reserved on the trial, so far as the record shows, to the special venire, or to the organization of the jury.

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

From tbe Circuit Court of Elmore. Tried before tbe Hon. James B. Dowdell. Tbe defendant in'tbis case, Jesse T. Fallin, was indicted for tbe murder of Boss Powell, “by striking bim with a boe;” was convicted of murder in tbe second degree, and sentenced to tbe penitentiary for tbe term of ten years.

From the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The defendant in tbis case, Daniel Crawford, was indicted for an assault on George T. Steel, with the intent to murder him; was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, two policemen of the city of Selma, S. M. Payne and W. 0. Eosser, were introduced as witnesses on the part of the prosecution.

<p>Prom the Circuit Court of Butler.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard.</p> <p>cited Tusk. Bridge Go. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9; Rogers v. Torbut, 58 Ala. 533; Dane v. McArthur, 57 Ala. 448; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 287; Stein v. State, 37 Ala. 123; Allen v. State, 52 Ala. 391.</p> <p>cited Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77; Stein v. Deeper, 78 Ala. 517; BaUeniine v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Gandy v. State, 82 Ala. 61.</p>

<p> Indictment for Enticing away Laborer under Written Contract. </p> <p>1. Constituents of offense. — A conviction may bo had for the statutory offense of enticing away a laborer under a written contract (Code, §§ 3757-8), on proof that the laborer was found in the defendant’s service before the expiration of the term prescribed by the written contract, and that the defendant refused to discharge him after warning and notice of the written contract; but these facts may be rebutted, and the prosecution defeated, by proof that the laborer was in the defendant’s service under a prior verbal contract, for a term yet unexpired, although said contract may be void under the statute of frauds (Code, § 1732), because not to be performed within one year.</p>

Erom: the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case, Giles Smith, was indicted for an assault on Wash. Thompson, with intent to murder him; was convicted under the charges of the court, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. On the trial, he reserved exceptions to several charges given by the court, and to the refusal of several charges asked by him in writing.

From the Circuit Court of Elmore. Tried before the Hon. James R. Dowdell.

From the Circuit Court of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. Wm. E. Clarke. The defendant in this case, Sallie Tate, was indicted for perjury, alleged to have been committed while testifying as a witness on the trial of one Josh. Cade under an indictment for the larceny of a hog, the property of Stephen Boggus. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, the prosecution adduced evidence showing the testimony given by the defendant as a witness on the trial of Josh.

Erom the Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case was indicted for the seduction of,Rebecca LcLendon, an unmarried female. On the trial, the prosecutrix testified that the defendant seduced her, in the summer.of 1886, under promise o£ marriage, she being engaged at the time to marry him; that she gave birth to a child in July, 1887, of which he was the'father; and that she had never had sexual intercourse with any other man.

From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmes. The defendant in this case, Ellis Long, was indicted for willfully setting fire to “a dwelling-house of Thomas Martin, in which there was at the time a human being;” was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of eighteen years.

From the Circuit Court o£ Elmore. Tried before the Hon. James B. Dowdell. The statute approved February 28th, 1887, “to more effectually secure competent and well qualified jurors,” is founded on considerations of public policy, and its provisions are imperative. No discretion is vested in the jury commissioners. Their duties are clearly defined, and are easily understood.

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The defendant in this case was indicted for keeping a gaming-table.

<p> Indictment for Trespass after Warning. </p> <p>I. Election; evidence of other offenses. — In a prosecution for trespass after warning (Code, § 3874), proof of a single entry on the premises, within six months after warning, completes the offense; and it is error to admit evidence of a subsequent entry, particularly an entry after the commencement of the prosecution.</p>

<p>From the Circuit Court of Crenshaw.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard.</p> <p>cited Street v. Sinclair, 71 Ala. 110; Burns v. Campbell, 71 Ala. 271; Watson v. State, 63 Ala. 19.</p>

Erom the Circuit Court of Geneva. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael.

<p> Indictment for Carrying Concealed Weapons. </p> <p>1. Sufficiency of evidence. — In a criminal case, the jury are not authorized to find a verdict of guilty on the testimony of a single witness, if they have a reasonable doubt of the truth of his statements, without reference to the exculpatory evidence adduced by the defendant; and the court should so instruct them, on request.</p>

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

From the Circuit Court of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. Wi. E. Clarke. The defendant in this case, Lewis Crocheron, was indicted for the larceny of a mule, the property of Newton Marx; and was convicted under the charge of the' court.

From the Criminal Court of Jefferson. Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. ■ E. Greene.

From the Circuit Court of Coffee. Tried'before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. The indictment in this case charged that William Bodiford and Fanny Caldwell did live together in a state of adultery or fornication.

Ebom tbe City Court o£ Mobile. Tried before tbe Hon. O. J. Semmes.

Prom the Circuit Court o£ Madison. Tried before the Hon. Henry C. Speake.

From the Circuit Court o£ Greene. Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. H. Sprott.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. Tbis action was brought by Sumner A. Potts, Isaac Hudson and others, against Thomas H. Coleman, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 1st May, 1872.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Henry T. Goodwin, against Bobert Sims, to recover a tract of land particularly described in the complaint, or an undivided one-twelfth interest therein; and was commenced on the 17th February, 1888. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, and the. statute of limitations of ten years.

Tried before the Hon. John A. Steele. In the matter of the probate of a written instrument, wliich was propounded by Mrs. Julia M. Hall, as the last will and testament of Mrs. Anne E. Hornsby, deceased, and which was contested by Geo. A. Sharp and others, heirs at law of said decedent.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by George Arntze & Brothers, suing as partners, against W. J. Young, Henry T. Bracken, and Martin L.' Bracken; and was commenced on the 8th July, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The bill in this case was filed on the 8th August, 1888, by W. D. Brown & Co., partners in business having the contract with the State for the public printing during the years 1887-8, against his Excellency Governor Seay, Hon. B. F. Kolb, Commissioner of Agriculture, and other State officers; and sought to prevent, by injunction, the payment of any money out of the State treasury for the printing and binding of a hand-book prepared…

<p> Action for Damages, by Brakeman against Railroad Company. </p> <p>1. Liability of employer for injuries to employee; knowledge of defects causing injury. — In an action against a railroad company, 'to recover damages on account of injuries sustained by plaintiff while in its employment as a brakeman (Code, §§ 2590-92), the complaint alleging that the injury “was caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to provide good and safe brakes and appliances connected therewith, and by the defendant’s negligently and carelessly omitting to keep its brakes on said train in good repair, and knowingly allowing the same to remain out of repair,” it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove knowledge by the defendant of the defects in the brakes and appliances.</p>

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Tennent Lomax, P. C. Massie, and T. S. Sayre, against Jacob Griel, to recover $100, with interest, which the plaintiffs had paid to the defendant on a purchase of his interest in a lot or parcel of land in the town of Sheffield; and was commenced on the 21st June, 1887.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th February, 1888, by George L. Thomas and J. C. Kyle, against the St. Paul’s M. E. Church, a private corporation, Trim Smith and others as trustees of said church, W. J. Yann and S. E. Laird; and sought equitable relief against an outstanding incumbrance on a tract of land, which the complainants had purchased from said church trustees, or obtained in exchange for another lot conveyed by them to…

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by N. E. Thompson, against the appellant, a private corporation, and was commenced on the 4th October, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Wilson & Ingram, partners in business as real-estate brokers and agents in Birmingham, against Calvin L. Sayre, claiming $250, “with interest thereon from June 1st, 1886, for negotiating the sale of two lots in the city of Birmingham, now or lately belonging to defendant; one being on Eifth Avenue in said city, sold by plaintiffs for defendant, at his request, on or about March 27th, to W. D. & C. H. Mills;…

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Lee.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael.</p> <p>This action was brought by C. E. Little against the appellant corporation, to recover damages for the loss of goods which were destroyed by fire in the defendant’s depot at Auburn, on Sunday night, October 10th, 1886; and was commenced on the 4th January, 1887. The goods were bought by the plaintiff in Montgomery, and were delivered to the defendant for transportation to Auburn, where they arrived on Sunday morning, October 9th, between the hours of ten and eleven o’clock; and they were there stored in the defendant’s depot, where they were destroyed by fire on the next night, together with the depot building. The bill of lading contained a special stipulation, which is copied in the opinion of the court, and the validity and effect of which, under the rulings of the court below, presents the main points decided by this court. The court below allowed the plaintiff to prove, against the objections and exceptions of the defendant, the intemperate habits of the defendant’s depot agent at Auburn, the fact that he was ascertained to be a defaulter soon after the fire occurred, and the bad character of the servant employed at the depot, not stating in what particulars. These rulings on the evidence, with the charges given by • the court, and the refusal of several charges asked by the defendant, are now, assigned as error.</p> <p>cited Railroad Co. v. Kidd, 35 Ala. 209; Wood v. L. & N. Railroad Co., 66 Ala. 167; Bedfield on Bailroads, vol. 2, pp. 75-7; Hutchinson on Carriers, §§ 367-77; M. & G. Railroad Co. v. Preiuiit, 46 Ala. 63; 9 Amer. & Eng. N. N. Cases, 249, 161; 7 lb. 404, note; 2 Amer. & Eng. Cyc. Law, 878.</p> <p>cited L. & N. Railroad Co. v. McGuire & Co., 79 Ala. 398; Ala. Gr. So. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 71 Ala. 611-14.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Mrs. E. A. Wood, suing as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, W. B, Wood, to recover damages for the alleged negligent act of the defendant’s servants, who were in charge of the engine and cars by which he was run over and killed; and was commenced on the 26th February, 1885.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. Tbe bill in this case was filed on tbe 6tb November, 1886, by Mrs. Louisa Bolman,' and ber daughters, against G. Y. Overall, as executor of tbe last will and testament of Mrs. Augusta Lobman, deceased, and the devisees and legatees under ber will; and sought to establish, as a contract founded on valuable consideration, a former testamentary paper executed by Mrs. Lobman in favor of the complainants, and to enforce a trust on ber…

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 9th March, 1888, by Solomon E. Scruggs and others, children and grandchildren of Pinch P. Scruggs, deceased, by his first marriage, against the Decatur Mineral and Land Company, a private corporation organized under the general statutes, Mrs. Susan J. Nelson, formerly Murphy, and several other persons; and sought to vacate and set aside, on the alleged grounds of fraud and undue influence, a…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th July, 1888, by the Childersburg Land Company, a private corporation organized under the general statutes, against Mrs. Amanda J. Knox and William E. Knox, her husband; and sought to compel the specific execution of an agreement on the part of the defendants, with several other persons, each to convey certain lands, particularly described, to one R C. Carter, as trustee, for the use, benefit and…

Tried before tbe Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Henry Allen, against tbe appellant, a private corporation, to recover compensation for work and labor done in tbe construction of several brick-kilns for tbe defendant; and was commenced on tbe 29th June, 1887.- Tbe complaint contained only tbe common counts, and tbe only plea was tbe general issue.

Heard, before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by George G. Brown, against the Commercial Eire Insurance Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of Alabama; and was founded on a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendant on the 4th January, 1886, in favor of one T. B. Sage, by whom it was assigned to the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by M. Wimberly against McKenzie & Morton as partners, and was commenced in a justice’s court. The cause of action was the defendants’ promissory note for $18.90, which was dated February 7th, 1883, and payable on the 30th of the same month, to W. J. Nicholson, by whom it was transferred to the plaintiff. The note was not produced on the trial, but affidavit of its loss was made.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 8th March, 1886, by Martha T. Russell and Mary A. Walker, against Bradford Hambrick and wife, and Joseph M. Hambrick; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage on a tract of land. The mortgage, a copy of which was made an exhibit to the bill, was dated.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. Tliis action was brought by J. W. Beard, an infant suing by his next friend, against H. M. Horton; and was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 8th October, 1887. The complaint contained the common money counts, each claiming $318.21; and another count was added, claiming the same amount as due on account from the defendant to Farabee, Hunter & Co., which had been transferred to the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. Bobert B. Savage. In the matter of the petition of the Borne & Decatur Bail-road Co., seeking to condemn a right of way through certain lands therein particularly described. The petition was filed on the 11th May, 1887, and sought to condemn a right of way through the lands of several persons, and, among them, “through the lands of Willie B. Brown, wife of John Brown, Mollie McElrath, Lula McElrath, Thos. C. McElrath, Wm.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Annie Roper, the widow of Jerry Roper, deceased, both former slaves, against Sumter Jones and another, tenants in possession, to recover a tract of land containing about 200 acres; and was commenced on the 23d October, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by A. W. Key, against the appellant, a manufacturing corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, to recover commissions on sales of machinery made by plaintiff as agent for defendant; and was commenced on the 8th December, 1886. The complaint contained the common counts, and several special counts. The defendant pleaded the general issue, payment, and set-off; and issue was joined on these pleas.

Appeal Norn the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried, before tbe Hon. Leroy F. Bos. This action was brought by Hurley & Brown, suing as partners, against the Alabama Iron Works, a private corporation, to recover damages for the breach of a special contract, which, as reduced to writing, and signed by both parties, was in these words: “Birmingham, Ala., Jan. 13, 1888.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by the Dunham Lumber Company, a private corporation, against H. W. Clark, and was commenced on the 6th April, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 14th September, 1886, by William S. Denny, against C. C. Hodges, and against the administrator, children and heirs at law of John O. Pearson, deceased; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien on a tract of land, for the balance of purchase-money unpaid, as evidenced by the two promissory notes of said Hodges, which the complainant held by transfer and assignment from said Pearson.

Heard before the Hon. Ti-ios. Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 29th March, 1888, by William Eaul, against R. E. Houston and others; and sought the reformation and foreclosure of a mortgage on a tract of land.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Poster. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th March, 1888, by Murray, Dibrell & Co., a mercantile partnership doing businss in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and several other mercantile partnerships, on behalf of themselves and other creditors of McNealy & Cureton, a mercantile partnership doing business in the town of Columbia, Henry county, Alabama; against said McNealy & Cureton, John T. Davis & Son, bankers in said town, and M. S.…

Tried before tbe Hon. John B. Tally. Tbis action was brought by Henry A. Manning, against William J. Ware, and was commenced on tbe 51b November, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. Tbis action was brought by Thomas Glasscock against tbe appellant, a private corporation, to recover damages for a breach of contract.

Tried before tbe Hon. J. A. Corbitt, as special judge, selected by tbe parties on account of tbe incompetency of tbe presiding judge. Tbis action was brought by tbe appellees, suing as partners, to recover tbe possession of a tract of land, particularly described in tbe complaint; and was commenced on tbe 18tb July, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Carl Dietrich against George Lunsford, to recover damages for a malicious prosecution on the charge of larceny; and was commenced on the 9th December, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. Wm. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Martin Gilligan against Martin C. Robbins, and was commenced on tbe 6th November, 1886. The only matter assigned as error is the exclusion of two deeds offered in evidence by the defendant, under the facts stated in the opinion of the court.

Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. This, action was brought by E. H. Pogue & Son, merchants and partners, doing business in North Carolina, against the appellants, a partnership doing business in Montgomery, to recover several boxes of tobacco; and was commenced on the 18th December, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 27th April, 1887, by Martin Oonnor, against Charles Armstrong, as the executor of the last will and testament of his deceased wife, Mrs. Clemmie Armstrong, and their children as devisees under her will; and sought an injunction of an action at law, which Mrs. Armstrong had brought against the complainant, and a reformation of the conveyance under which the complainant claimed and held the land sued…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 16th August, 1884, by James H. Long and others, as administrators of the estate of Wesley Bishop, deceased, against W. J. T. C.. Efurd, his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Efurd, and Thos.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by J. S. Melbourne and R. M. Troy, suing as partners, against A. J. Hargrave and C. E. Newman; and was commenced on tbe 2d June, 1887.

Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. Action for damages, by S. A. Jones and F. B. Jones, against George Harold, Andrew Harold, and Samuel Scott. Tbe bill of exceptions purports to set out all tbe' evidence. Tbe opinion states tbe material facts.

Tried, before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. Tbis action was brought by J. M. Collier, against J. T. Stephenson, W. P>. Henderson, and A. T. Lockard; and was commenced on tbe 10th February, 1887. Tbe action was discontinued as to Stephenson, who was not served with process; and tbe trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for tbe other defendants.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by H. D. Boyd, as guardian of Sallie Stricklan, an infant, against Charles S. Lee and W. P. Mount, to recover damages for the alleged conversion by the defendants of certain municipal bonds issued by the city of Troy under authority of law; and was commenced on the 13th January, 1887.

■ Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 8th November, 1887, by Level Moseley, against Tim Moseley, and alleged, in substance, that in January, 1885, complainant bought a town lot in Decatur from M. C. Wade, at the agreed price of $100, paid part of the purchase-money, entered into possession, and commenced the erection of valuable improvements; that in February, 1887, being unable to pay the balance of the purchase-money, he…

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by John E. Swift & Co., against the Eastern Warehouse Company, to recover damages for the defendant’s alleged failure to “ship seventeen bales of cotton when ordered to do so by plaintiffs;” and was commenced in a justice’s court, on the 11th September, 1888.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 28th December, 1886, by Mrs. Martha E. Olds, as sole complainant, against Humphrey Marshall, who was her brother; and sought to enforce a resulting trust in a tract of land, which had been once conveyed to the complainant by Anselm Marshall, since deceased, but was afterwards sold by the register in chancery, under a decree setting aside that conveyance as fraudulent against the complainant…

Heard before tbe Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 4th June, 1887, by 'White B. Campbell and Bobert F. Proctor, against Jesse B. Durham; and sought to compel tbe specific execution of a written contract for tbe sale of a tract of 'land by tbe complainants to tbe defendant. Tbe contract, a copy of which was made an exhibit to tbe bill, was dated December 14th, 1886, signed by both parties, and under seal.

Tried before tbe Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Celia A. Griffith and others, against Needham Marsh, to recover the possession of a tract of land, particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 15th August, 1887.

Tried, before tbe Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the appellant, a corporation chartered under the laws of Virginia, against Nathan Hall, as a member of the firm of Hall & Mobley; was founded on several promissory notes executed in the name of said partnership, and was commenced on the 22d February, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by Lewis B. Thornton, register in chancery, suing for the use of Sarah J. Harland and James T. Harland, against Alfred S. Person, ~W. A. Johnson and John C. Goodloe; was commenced on the 9th February, 1883, and was founded on an injunction bond, executed by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiff as register in chancery, the condition of which is set out in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Calboun.</p> <p>Tried, before tbe Hon. John B. Tally.</p> <p>cited Woolf v. Shelton, 51 Ala. 425; Brewer v. Baine, 60 Ala. 153; Vaughn v. Smith, 69 Ala. 92; Mitcham v. Moore, 73 Ala. 542.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by J. C. Bryant, against A. A. Cobb, Joseph Clark, and D. C. Lassiter; and was commenced in a justice’s court. The original complaint was in the name of J. C. Bryant, “agent of the Singer Manufacturing Company;” but these superadded words were struck out by amendment in the Circuit Court, as the judgment-entry recites.

Tried before tbe Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Mrs. Sallie Morgan, against Matthew Brunson, to recover the possession of a tract of land, particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 25th August, 1887.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The bill 'in this case was filed on the 20th September, 1887, by Mrs. Regina Parmer, asking a divorce from her husband, John Farmer, on the grounds of cruelty and habitual drunkenness. The defendant answered the bill, denying its material charges, and alleging adultery on the part of the complainant.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Cabmiohael. This action was brought by Ben. D. Mills, against Oswell Albright and others, sureties on said Albright’s official bond as sheriff of said county; and was commenced on 22d August, 1884.

Tried before tbe Hon. ¥i. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Edward Dorgan against George W. Weeks and Dorval W. Weeks, to recover a tract of land particularly described in tbe declaration; and was commenced on the 17th October, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. The facts of this case are substantially the same as on the former appeal. — King v. Paulk, 85 Ala. 186. The charge of the court was in favor of the plaintiff, and that charge is assigned as error.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 9th March, 1887, by Mrs. Louisa J. (or Jane E.) Yincent, a married woman, the wife of William C. Yincent, against Elijah J. Walker, and sought to have a conveyance of land, which the complainant and her husband had executed to said Walker; declared a mortgage, and cancelled as void and inoperative, because the land conveyed belonged to her statutory estate.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard.. The appellees in this case, J. Kyle & Co., suing as partners, commenced a suit by attachment against A. Mc-Neill, on the 30th December, 1886; and the attachment was levied on-a stock of goods, to which a claim was interposed by C. M. Gardner, and bond given for the trial of the right of property.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in this case was filed on the 30th November, 1888, by Matthew Strenna, against the corporate authorities of the city of Montgomery; and .sought to enjoin the sale of a store-house and lot in said city, under a decree rendered by the City Recorder, in enforcement of a lien for the costs of a concrete pavement, which tbe municipal authorities had laid in front of the property.

Tried before tbe Hon. John B. Tally. Tbis was a statutory claim suit between D. A. Miller, plaintiff in execution against Daniel Liddell, and Mrs. Mary Y. Liddell, tbe wife of said Daniel Liddell, as claimant; tbe property involved being an undivided interest in a stock of goods wbicli constituted tbe partnership effects of tbe firm of Crump & Liddell.’ Tbe plaintiff’s judgment was rendered on tbe 9th April; 1887, and bis execution was levied on tbe goods on tbe 6tb June,…

Heard, before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on tbe 17tb January, 1887, by the appellants, suing as partners, against Bobert J. Mason and his wife, Mrs. Mary H. Mason; and sought the reformation and foreclosure of a mortgage, which said Mason and wife had executed to them.

<p> Bill in Equity for Cancellation of Conveyance as Cloud on Title to Wife’s Lands. </p> <p>1. Conveyance of wife’s lands; cancellation as cloud on title. — As a general rule, a party can not come into equity to cancel a conveyance as a cloud on his title to land, unless he is in possession; and this rule applies to a married woman seeking relief against a mortgage of lands belonging to her statutory estate, which is no bar to the assertion of her rights in a court of law; but, if her lands have been conveyed by the joint deed of herself and her husband, executed in conformity with statutory requirements, though in consideration of her husband’s debt, she may come into equity to cancel it as a cloud on her title, whether in or out of possession.</p>

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 26th January, 1886, by C. H. Parsons, against E. R. Martin; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien… Held: that the complainant was entitled to enforce a lien on the land, but that the assigned note had a prior lien; and he rendered a decree accordingly. The complainant appeals from this decree, and assigns as error the part thereof which declared the priority of lien in favor of the assigned note.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by J. J. Curtis against R. H. Folmar, to recover a hog; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, on the 13th April, 1888. The case was removed into the Circuit Court by certiorari, and there submitted to the decision of the court without a jury.

Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in this ease was filed on the 9th May, 1887, by David Manning, against Mrs. Minnie F. Pippen and others, heirs at law of his deceased wife, Mrs. Mattie C. Manning, by a former marriage; and sought (1) an injunction of an action at law, which Mrs. Pippen had instituted against him to recover a large tract of land, (2) a cancellation of the conveyance under which she asserted title to the land, and (3) general relief.

Tried before the Hon: John B. Tall'S. This actioti was brought by J. M. Stewart, against Mrs. Mary A. Mount, as administratrix of the estate of D. Y. Heifner, deceased, and was commenced in a justice’s court, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, as the justice’s docket showed, “for $67.10, .balance due, with interest, on waive note dated January 2, and due October 15, 1883.” From this judgment the defendant took an appeal to the Circuit Court, and gave bond with E.…

Heard before tbe Hon. John A. Poster. The bill in this ease was filed, on what day the record does not show, by John T. Davison and others, as children and heirs at law of James Davison, deceased, against M. C. Cooper and his wife, Mrs. Texas J. Cooper; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage on a tract of land, which was executed by defendants to said James Davison, dated March 29, 1881; and it also prayed that a deed for the land executed to Mrs. Cooper by Mrs. L. N.…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill iu this case was filed on the 15th December, 1888, by Lehman, Durr & Co., against R. T. Ashurst and wife; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage which said defendants had executed to complainants, conveying a tract of land, with the crops to be grown thereon during the year 1888, and other personal property; and it also prayed the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the crops.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This case is reported in 79 Ala. 338, under the name of Montgomery The defendants demurred to this count, assigning the following as grounds of demurrer: 1st, because it shows that the side-track belonged to plaintiff, was connected with the main track, and plaintiff had the right to control it, and it was plaintiff’s right and duty to keep it free of all obstructions to passing trains; 2d, because it shows that said sidetrack belonged…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 4th April, 1888, by Samuel B. Marshall and Stephen E. Marshall, a son and grandson of William B. Marshall, deceased, against his other children and grandchildren, as heirs and distributees; and Mrs. Mary A. Marshall, his widow, was afterwards brought in as a defendant by amendment.

Heard, before the Hon. John A. Postee. The bill in this case was filed, on the 22d January, 1886, by M. E. Leonard and M. E. Floyd, against Mrs. Susan M. Brewer and Charles Floyd, her former husband; and sought to quash an execution under which the sheriff had sold said Charles Floyd’s interest in a certain tract of land, to set aside the sale, and to cancel the sheriff’s deed to Mrs. Brewer as purchaser, who was the plaintiff in the execution, as clouds on the complainants’…

<p> Motion for Summary Judgment, against Tax-Collector and Sureties. </p> <p>1. Who is proper party plaintiff. — By the express provisions of the statute (Code, 1876, § 3396), a motion for a summary judgment against a tax-eollector and his sureties, for moneys of the county collected or received and not paid over to the county treasurer, may be made in the name of the county, and is not required to be in the name of the treasurer.</p> <p>2. Where motion must he made; appearance as waiver. — The motion is required to be made in the Circuit Court of the county in which the defendants reside; but, if the defendants appear, and suffer judgment by nil dicit, it is not necessary that the record should affirmatively show their residence in the county.</p>

Tried, before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought in the name of Pike County, against W. T. Coleman and others, as sureties oil the official bond of J. E. Tyler, deceased, as county treasurer of said county; and was commenced on the 6th September, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. W. J. Sameorl, as special judge, selected by the the parties on account of the incompetency of the presiding judge. Action on foreign judgment, by Prank M. Plack and Philip M. Wales, against Joseph E. Andrews. Plea, nul tiel record.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by McGuire, Scoggins & Co., merchants and partners carrying on business in Nashville, Tennessee, against Joseph Wheeler; and was commenced on the 21th August, 1883. The cause of action was an account for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant, on the orders of'T. A. Tatham as bis agent, amounting to $291.13. The complaint contained only the common counts.

Heard before the Hon. Ti-ios. W. Coleman. The bill in this case was filed on the 2d January, 1882, by Mrs. Lucy B. Noble, wife of Edward E. Noble and daughter of B. H. Micou, against Moses Brothers, a partnership doing business in the city of Montgomery; and sought equitable relief, on allegations of fraud, undue influence, and usury, against a judgment for $13,035.53, which the complainant had confessed in favor of the defendants, in the City Court of Montgomery, on the…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 20th February, 1883, by Joshua H. Beadle and William H. Echols, the latter suing as administrator of the estate of William Echols, deceased, against Joseph C. Steele, as administrator with the will annexed of Adam Hall, deceased, and Patrick H. Moore; and sought to subject a certain tract of land, in the possession of said Moore, to the payment and satisfaction of a claim or demand asserted by the…

Tried ‘before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Mrs. Effie Young, a married woman, against the Queen Insurance Company of Liverpool, a foreign corporation; and was founded on a policy of insurance on a stock of goods against loss or damage by fire, which the plaintiff had effected in her own name with the defendant. The policy was dated November 13, 1886, for $2,000, and the risk continued for one year.

John A. Foster, The bill in this case was filed on the 22d November, 1886, by Martin H. Sullivan and Mrs. Emily S. Sullivan, as executor and executrix o£ the last will and testament o£ Daniel E.… Held: as purchaser at a sale made by the sheriff of Escambia county, in June, 1886, under executions and orders of sale on several judgments rendered by the Circuit Court of said county, in actions against said corporation commenced by attachments, which were levied on said lands.

Tried before tbe Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Kennon & Hill, suing as partners, and afterwards prosecuted in the name of S. H. Hill as surviving partner, against C. W. Nelms and E. G. Nelms, to recover three horses, two mules, and a two-horse wagon; and was commenced on the 28th May, 1885.

Tried before tbe Hon. James B. Dowdell. Tbis action was brought by Mrs. Anna Bridges, as administratrix of tbe estate of ber deceased husband, John J. Bridges, against tbe appellant, a domestic corporation, to recover damages for tbe death of ber husband, alleged to have been caused by tbe wrongful acts and negligence of tbe defendant, its agents and servants, while be was in its employment.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. In this case, as the agreed facts'show, a bill was filed on the 1st April, 1885, by Charles Mittenight, against the executors of the last will and testament of James T. Shelton, deceased, with his widow and children, as devisees and legatees under his will; and sought to compel a settlement of the estate, and to enforce a legacy bequeathed to the complainant, as a charge on the unsold lands.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thus. M. Arrington. Tbe bill in this case was filed on tbe 15tb October, 1886, by W. A. McBryde and bis wife, with W. D. Sayre, against Calvin L. Sayre and E. B. [Randolph and his wife; and sought to enjoin, prevent and remove an obstruction by the defendants of a passage or hall-way through and between the third stories of adjoining buildings, or stores erected in a block, in the city of Montgomery, under the facts stated in the opinion of the court.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 16th July, 1887, in the name of Calhoun County, against John H. Eorney; and sought to enjoin an action of ejectment, which said Eorney had instituted, to recover an undivided one-seventh interest in a block of land in the town of Jacksonville, on which the court-house now stands. The opinion states the material facts.

Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. In this case, an application was made on the 30th January, 1889, in the name of the State, on the relation of Joel White, for a mandamus to T. Gardner Poster, as secretary and treasurer of the Montgomery Gas-Light Company, or the Montgomery Light Company, a private corporation, requiring him to allow the relator, who was a stockholder in said corporation, to inspect and examine its books, records and papers.

<p>Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Lee.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael.</p> <p>This action was brought by R. J. Trammell, against G. N. Hudmon and O. M. Worthington, to enforce a statutory lien on a house and lot, for materials furnished by plaintiff and used in its construction; and was commenced on the 27th May, 1881. The lot belonged to Hudmon, and the house was built on it by Worthington under a contract with him. The complaint (or complaints) contained five counts, some of which alleged that the materials were furnished by plaintiff-under a contract between him and Hudmon, and claimed a lien for the whole amount due, $720.45; while the others alleged a contract between Hudmon and Worthington for the erection of the house, the furnishing of lumber for it by plaintiff at the instance of Worthington, and notice of his claim to Hudmon, and sought to enforce a lien for the unpaid balance due Worthington at the time this notice was given. The defendant Hudmon demurred to the complaint, “because it attempts to make this defendant liable for an alleged debt due from him to plaintiff, and also liable for an asserted lien from him to said Worthington, to be condemned in favor of plaintiff on a debt owing him by said Worthington.” The court overruled the demurrer, and the cause was tried on issue joined; the pleas being “the general issue and the statute of frauds.”</p> <p>The deposition of Worthington had been taken, on interrogatories filed by the plaintiff, and cross-interrogatorries filed by Hudmon. When the case was called for trial, an order for the publication of the testimony having been made about an hour previously, the defendant’s attorneys stated to the court that they had not had time to read the entire deposition, and asked the court to grant them time to do so before announcing whether they were ready. The court allowed them a few minutes more for that purpose, “but not sufficient to enable them to read more than one-half of said answers, when lie bad tbem called, and directed tbe parties to go to tbe jury, stating that be would let them object when the interrogatories and answers were read to tbe jury; to wbicb action and ruling of tbe court tbe defendant objected and excepted.” Before filing cross-interrogatories to said Worthington, tbe defendant bad filed numerous objections to different questions propounded to tbe witness by tbe plaintiff — as, “because said question is leading;” “because the said question calls for a conclusion, and not facts;” “because the witness is asked to construe tbe contract,” &c. When tbe plaintiff ■offered the deposition as evidence to tbe jury, it being tbe first evidence offered by him, the defendant called tbe attention of the court to these objections, and asked the ruling of tbe court upon tbem; “but tbe court declined to do so, and allowed said interrogatories and answers to be read to tbe jury, without any ruling upon said objections; to wbicb action of tbe court tbe defendant objected and excepted.” Tbe court then adjourning until tbe next morning, tbe judge directed tbe defendant’s attorneys “to examine said interrogatories and answers, and prepare their objections in writing by the opening’of tbe court tbe next morning.” When tbe case was called tbe next morning, tbe defendant submitted a motion to suppress tbe entire deposition, on account of tbe failure of tbe witness, as alleged, to answer certain questions propounded in tbe cross-interrogatories; and be excepted to tbe overruling of this motion. He also objected to certain portions of the answers of tbe witness, in wbicb be testified as to tbe terms and stipulations of the contract for tbe building of tbe bouse, on tbe ground that a sufficient predicate bad not been laid for tbe introduction of secondary evidence of tbe written contract; and exceptions were reserved to tbe overruling of these objections.</p> <p>Tbe plaintiff, testifying as a witness in bis own behalf, stated that tbe account for the materials furnished was charged on bis books to said Worthington; and be was then asked by bis own counsel, “if be did not so charge it in order to keep it separate from other accounts for lumber wbicb Hudmon was getting.” Tbe defendant-objected to this question, and excepted to its allowance. “Plaintiff further testified, that be would not credit Worthington, and bad before refused to credit him; and tbe reason why said account was charged on bis books to Worthington was because it was done by bis book-keeper, and not by himself; to whicb last testimony of said witness the defendant objected,” and excepted to the overruling of his objection.</p> <p>As to the notice given by him to Hudmon, plaintiff testified, “that said notice was in writing, was-sent by his book-keeper to Hudmon, and was in words and figures substantially as follows: ‘I claim $720, balance on account for materials furnished to build a house (on lot one, block six), and I claim a lien on the house;’ and with this statement of the contents of said notice the witness stopped;” but the court afterwards allowed him to testify, against the objection of the defendant, that it also stated that the amount claimed was due January 1st. “This being all the testimony as to the contents of said written notice, the defendant moved to exclude the same from the jury;”. which motion the court overruled, and the defendant excepted. The court charged the jury, among other things, “that the contents of the written notice given to Hudmon by Trammell, as testified by Trammell, is all that the law requires it should be, and is sufficient to constitute a lien on the property sought to be charged.” To this charge defendant excepted.</p> <p>All the rulings of the court to which exceptions were reserved, is above stated, are now asssigned as error.</p>

Heard before tbe Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Tbe bill in this case was filed on tbe 19th February, 1884, by the Georgia Pacific Railway Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of Alabama, against M. D. Wilks and bis wife; and sought tbe specific execution of a written contract nnder seal, executed by the defendants on tbe 12th March, 1880, by which they promised and bound themselves to convey to A. H. Colquit and bis associates “all tbe coal and iron upon and in” certain…

Tried before tbe Hon. Leroy F. Box. This action was brought by George M. Bentley, as tbe administrator of tbe estate of Isbam Bentley, deceased, to recover damages for bis negligent killing, as alleged, by tbe servants and agents of tbe defendant corporation; and was commenced on tbe 2d February, 1887. The deceased was run over and killed by one of the defendant’s trains, on tbe 18th November, 1886, while walking across a trestle on tbe defendant’s track.

Tried before tbe Hon. Wi. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Wilson, Sage & Co., suing for tbe use of T, H. Cox, against Espalla & Haynie as partners 5 was founded on the defendants’ acceptance of a bill of exchange, drawn on them by W. W. Haughton, and was commenced on March 6th, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed by Comer & Trapp as partners, suing as judgment creditors of Cater & Johnson, against D. F. Constantine; and sought to redeem a storehouse and lot in Anniston, which the defendant had bought at a sale made by Robert P. Thomason, as trustee or assignee, under a general assignment for the benefit of their creditors executed by said Cater & Johnson.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 4th May, 1888, by B. F. Avery & Sons, “a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of Kentucky,” against J. P. Miller, John L. Pogue, and S. L. Whitten; and sought to enforce a, vendor’s lien on certain real estate in Gadsden for the unpaid purchase-money, as evidenced by a promissory note for $1,000, which was made an exhibit to the bill, and of which the complainant claimed to be the…

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th March, 1888, by Thos. P. Miller & Co., partners in business, against Cleveland Prichard, his wife, and Cecil Carter; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage, executed to the complainants by the defendants, which was made an exhibit to the bill.

Appeal fropi the Circuit Courl of Hale. Tried before the Hon. John Mooee.

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dallas.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. Ti-ios. W. Coleman.</p> <p>The bill in this case was filed on the 26th September, 1888, by Alfred V. Gardner, against E. H. Lanford and others; and sought to redeem certain lands, which had been sold under execution against the complainant on the 27th September, 1886, and bought at the sale by said Lanford, the other defendants being his tenants. The only question in the case, as now presented, was the right to the outstanding crops on the land on the 24th September, 1888, when the offer to redeem was made. On demurrer to the bill, so far as it set up a claim to the crops, the chancellor ruled against the complainant’s right; and this part of the decree is here assigned as error by the complainant.</p> <p>cited Samson v. Rose, 65 U. S. 416; Crews v. Pendleton, 1 Leigh, 297; 19 Amer. Dec. 750; 2 Jones on Mortgages, §§ 1654, 1658; Freeman on Executions, §§ 321-2; 2 Taylor’s Land. & Tenant, § 537; 1 Doug. 21; 2 Dev. Eq. 420; 25 Amer. Dec. 721; 24 Wise. 295; 1 Washb. Eeal Property, 10, §5; Gerald v. Morris, 54 Ala. 307; Posey v. Pressly, 60 Ala. 243; Otis v. McMillan, 70 Ala. 46; Carlin v. Jones, 55 Ala. 624; Searcy v. Oates, 68 Ala. Ill; Cramer v. Watson, 73 Ala. 127; Spoor v. Phillips, 27 Ala. 193; 10 Johns. 359; Tied. E. P., § 71; 1 Shep. Touchstone, 121; 4 Amer. & Eng. Encyc. Law, Crops, § 2;'4 Kent, 127; 5 Ohio St. 45; 9 Watts, 46; 5 Oregon, 397.</p> <p>cited Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala. 739; 2 Wait’s Actions & Defenses, 221-24; 4 Kent, 109, mar.; Weems v. Bryan, 21 Ala. 303; Benj. Sales, 109; Tied. B. P. §71; 1 'Waslib. B. P. 132; Camp v. Simon, 34 Ala. 127 \ Otis v. McMillan, 70 Ala. 46, 62; Spoor v. Phillips, 27 Ala. 193.</p>

Tried before tbe Hon. ¥i. E. Clabke. This action was brought by Ernst Brothers, suing as partners, against John L. Hollis and his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth G. Hollis; and was commenced on the 20th August, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Mrs. Sarab Simmons, a married woman, against the city of Eufaula as a corporation, to recover damages caused to her property in Eufaula, on which, sbe resided, by tbe owerflow of sewers and ditcbes, wbicb the corporate authorities of tbe city bad constructed and dug in tbe streets with a view to improving and draining them; and was commenced on tbe 27tb April, 1888.

Mobile. Tried before tbe Hon. O. J. Semmes. This action was brought by Seth Harvey, againt Joseph U. Thompson and N. Q. Thompson, to recover two oxen, with yokes, chains, &c.; and was commenced in a justice’s court, in May, 1888.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by Thomas A. Roberts, against Albert C. Hill and James B. Head; was founded on- the defendants’ promissory note for $192.80, dated February 15, 1879, and payable on the 1st January, 1880, tothe plaintiff’s order; and was commenced on the 22d September, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. This is the third appeal in this case. — Sehuessler v. Dudley, 80 Ala. 447; Baker v. Sehuessler,.85 Ala. 540.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by D. Lubelsky, against the Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool, a foreign corporation; and was founded on a policy of insurance against fire, which the plaintiff had effected with the defendant on a house in Birmingham. There was a judgment on verdict for the plaintiff, under the rulings of the court below, for $2,046.66. The opinion states the material facts.

Jesse M. Carmichael. Iu this case, a petition was filed by Jacob F. Lassiter ou tlie 22d February, 1888, seeking to supersede and quash an execution, which bad been issued on a judgment recovered against bim and one W. E. Pierce, in favor of M. W. Thompson, on tbe ground tliat said judgment was satisfied by tbe payment of another judgment, founded on tbe same cause of action, which said Thompson bad recovered against Amos Powell and others.

Tried before tbe Hon. ¥s. E. Clarke. This action was brought by M. Forcheimer & Co., merchants and partners doing business in Mobile, against the Insurance Company of North America, a Pennsylvania corporation, to recover $10,000 insurance on “315 double bags of coffee,” which had been shipped to the plaintiffs from New York, on the 1st June, 1887, per steamer Vidette, and was lost, with the vessel, in the Gulf of Mexico, on the night of June 13th, or the morning of the 14th.

Tried before the Hon. John M. Chilton, as special judge. This action was brought by Alpheus T. Copeland, as assignee of Mrs. Dora Roberts, against the appellant, a New York corporation doing business, through its agents, in Alabama ; and was founded on a policy of insurance against loss by fire, which Mrs. Roberts had effected with the defendant, “to the amount of $1,500, on her one-story frame dwelling-house, occupied by her as a family residence, situated on her plantation…

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by W. J. Oates, against the appellant, a domestic corporation having its principal place of business in the city of Selma; and was founded on a policy of insurance on a stock of goods against loss or damage by fire, which the plaintiff had effected with the defendant, through Chandler Bros., defendant’s agent in Montgomery.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. . This action was brought by A. A. Cobb, against Malone & Collins as partners, to recover damages for an alleged conversion by the defendants of a bale of cotton, on which plaintiff claimed a statutory lien for advances; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, on the 17th October, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This action was brought by Henry T. Bradford, as the administrator of the estate of John A. Bradford, deceased, against the appellant, a domestic corporation, to recover •damages for the alleged wrongful and negligent act which caused the intestate’s death. The intestate was in the employment of the defendant at the time of the accident which caused his death, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. Application by petition, in the name of the State on the relation of S. Lacy, “deputy-solicitor for Walker county,” for a mandamus to the Hon. John B. Shields, judge of the County Court of Walker county, requiring him to restore to the docket of that court, for trial, a case therein lately pending against one N. W. Morgan, for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law in force in that county; which case had been transferred to the Circuit…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 23d May, 1888, by Gustav Ulbricht, against the Eufaula Water Company, a private corporation, to restrain by injunction the diversion of the water of a running stream, to the injury of the complainant as a lower riparian proprietor.

<p> Indictment for Burglary. </p> <p>1. Impeaching and sustaining witness. — A witness having been impeached by proof of contradictory statements made by him on the preliminary examination of the defendant-before a committing magistrate, it is not permissible to sustain or corroborate him by proving that, just before his examination as a witness on that occasion, he made statements to the magistrate in substance the same as his testimony on the trial. (Sonnebornv. Bernstein, 49 Ala. 168, overruled.)</p>

Erom the Circuit Court of Blount. Tried before the Hon. John B. 'Tally. The indictment in this case charged, in a single count, that the defendant, Jere. Blackburn, “unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice, killed Mat.

From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmes.

From the Circuit Court of Chilton. Tried before the Hon. James R. Dowdell.

Erom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. Indictment against Travis Hurst and another, charging that they introduced a file into the county jail of Montgomery, with the intent to facilitate the escape of Charles J. Hughes, who was therein confined on a charge of felony.

<p> Indictment for Burglary. </p> <p>•1. Refusal of accused to make tracks, as evidence against him. — In a criminal case, the accused can not be compelled to do pr say any thing that may tend to criminate him, and his refusal to do so can not be proved as a circumstance against him ; as, his refusal to make tracks on the carpet in the hall, on the promise of the prosecutor to release him if his tracks did not correspond in every particular with tracks left there by the burglar.</p>

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The defendant in this case, Wesley Cribbs, was indicted for the murder of Jack Thomas, “by striking or cutting him with a knife;” was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of nineteen years.

<p>From the Circuit Court of Fayette.</p> <p>Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. H. Sprott.</p> <p>cited Code of 1886, § 10; Sess. Acts 1886-7, p. 47; Miles v. State, 40 Ala. 45; Lyman v. State, 45 Ala. 78; 44 Ala. 387; Hart v. State, 40 Ala. 32; 6 Amer. & E. Ency. Law, 643; Ledyard v. Holt, 85 Ala. 596; Henderson v. Stcde, 70 Ala. 23; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 363; Harris v. State, 73 Ala. 495.</p> <p>cited Lore v. State, 4 Ala. 173; Cooley’s Const. Lim. 329, top; 1 Bisb. Crim. Proc., § 940; Watson v. Com., 16 B. Monroe, 15; Perry v. Com., 3 Gratt. 632; People v. Mortimer, 46 Cal. 114; People v. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243; Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164, or 13 Amer. Rep. 492; State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55; Lowe v. State, at present term, p. 47.</p>

Application by petition in behalf of Thomas E. King, “for the writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, or such other remedial whit as may be appropriate,” to procure his release from custody on bail; he being confined in the jail of Mobile on the charge of murder, and bail having been refused him by Hon. O. J. Semmes, of the City Court, to whom the application was first made.

Application by petition of George H. Bobinson, for the writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, or such other remedial writ as may be necessary to procure his discharge from the custody of the sheriff of Mobile county, under a commitment by Mayor Bich of Mobile, on a charge of “acting as agent for an unlicensed foreign insurance company.” Application for a discharge was first made to Hon. O. J. Semmes, of the City Court of Mobile, by whom it was refused; and the application to…