Volume 9 — South Carolina Law Reports

Trespass to try titles. The plaintiff’s grant calls for William Hills, John Gladdens, and John Morris's lands; but to reach William Hills and John Gladden's lands, would require an extension of the lines far beyond what is called for in the original plat; to extend them to John Morris's land would entirely J distort the plat, and render it difficult, if impossible, to close them; the Jury, therefore, limited the plaintiff’s claim to his courses and distances, without regard…

<p>This was an action of trespass tó try titles to * a tract of land which the plaintiff claimed in her own right during her coverture with her late husband, -Brown; she had joined him in ' ~ . _ „ _. rn i ca i a conveyance oi it to John JVvLawlev. one also J made a formal renunciation of dower, according to the form prescribed by the act of Assembly of i */ <j one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, This deed was made in the year 1804. Brown, J 7 the husband, died in the year 1808. M‘Cawley Conveye(j j-Q £¿¿c¿ac/cer jn the year 1804. Linebacker went into possession in the same year, and continued in possession until the year 1811, when he conveyed to the defendant, who has been in possession ever since. This action was commenced in the year 1812. The plaintiff established a good title to the land in herself. But it was contended on the part of the defendant, 1st. That she had divested herself of her right by joining her husband in a conveyance, and a subsequent renunciation of her interest and estate. That although she had not literally pursued the act of 1795, directing the method by which married women may renounce their right of inheritance, yet she had virtually complied with it.</p> <p>2d. That if her conveyance did not operate as a bar to her recovery, she was barred by the act of limitations. And,</p> <p>3d. If her action was not barred by the statute of limitations, she had forfeited her right by her long acquiescence, and permitting the defendant, and those under whom he claimed, to go into possession, and build and improve on the land without interposing her claim sooner.</p> <p>The cause was tried in Sumter District, before Mr. Justice Smith, Fall Term, 1815, when a verdict was found for the defendant. An appeal was made from that verdict, and a motion made .for a new trial, on the same grounds that were made in the Court below.</p>

<p>This was an action of trespass to try titles to and both plaintiff and defendants claimed titles through William Richards, who died intestate, in March, 1809. William Richards was a native of Ireland, and consequently an alien, and was naturalized agreeably to the laws of the United States, in July, 1805; but he had purchased, and the lands in dispute were conveyed to him before his naturalization, and the Legislature, by a special act, passed on the 20th December, 1806, legalized his title to the lands thus acquired, to the same extent and effect as if he had been a citizen of the United States at the time of the conveyance to him. The plaintiff! who appears from the evidence, to be the second cousin of the intestate, William, was also an alien by birth, but was naturalized in March, 1807, before the death of the intestate,so that he was rendered capable of inheriting. The defendant, Adam Richards, and Eleanor, (the wife of the defendant, James McDaniel, and in whose right he claimed,) were the brother and sister of the intestate, and if capable of inheriting, were entitled, in exclusion of the plaintiff! Both Adam and Eleanor were, however, also natives of Ireland, and aliens by birth; the former being a lunatic, has never been naturalized; and Eleanor was not naturalized until about a year after ^he death of the intestate, and the principal question was, whether she was capable of taking by descent;. and the Jury, contrary to the opinion of the presiding Judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a motion is now made for a new trial.</p>

This was an action of trover, to recover for . . i • ' , conversion to his use, by the deiendant, of sun-7 v 1 dry head of cattle and hogs, &c. It was proved that the articles which were the subiect or the *> suit were, in the year 1812, and before and at the time of executing the bill of sale, hereafter tioned, in the possession of John Tutt, as hisprorru t i r* /¡i 7 perty.

This was art action of assumpsit against the deiendant, as an endorser oí a promissory note 7 * ^ given by Thomas Lee to the defendant, and by him endorsed by the plaintiff’s testator.

<p>Where a note is endorsed after it is due, although* it _ has lost its negotiable quality, and the strict rules which thev law imposes on' the holder do not apply, yet he is bound to demand payment from the maker in some reasonable time, or to make reasonable efforts to But the duties and responsibilities between endorser and endorsee, may be varied from the general rule by private stipulations; and it is not deemed a violation of any rules of evidence to admit parol proof of such special stipulations, in an action against the endorser of such anote. ,</p>

This was an action of assumpsit on two notes of hand. It was proved they were given for the * * 0 purchase money of a tract of land. At the time the notes were given, the plaintiff bound himself l>y an instrument of writing, which was given in evidence, to make titles to the defendant after the payment of these notes, and the clear meaning of the instrument was, that the payment of the notes should precede the making of titles.

This was an action of trespass to try title. It ^ . on to be tried under a writ of inquiry. Charles F. Lesesne not appearing, the evidence x 1 ° offered was, that Charles Lesesne lived on the land, _ , , . , , aBCl was the person on whom the writ was served, who, supposing that it was meant for Charles JT, Lesesne, conveyed the writ to him. As no 7 ^ trespass was proved to'have been committed by Charles F. Lesesne, the Jury found for the defendant.

<p>In an action foe $£ /uerry somltoegSarny £jfí¡|:lyvas dici°d b> tl>e im</p> <p>A widow who claims dower, is not obliged to show the deeds by which the seizin of the husband is manifested, asshe is not entitled to have the title deeds.</p> <p>A 'widow not giving notice of her claim of dow«r, when the land is advertised for sale, is no bar to her recovery.</p>

This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory note, to which the general issue and statute of limitations were pleaded.

This was an action of debt on a single bill. The brief states that “ the writ demanded the sum of 400 dollars, to wit, that he render unto him a certain debt of 400 dollars, which to him he owed,” &c. The defendant contended on the trial, that the Jury could not give more than the sum of 400 dollars.

These were actions of assumpsit on two notes A of hand, payable at different times, for the pur- , i rm -, r* chase money oí a neuro boy. 1 he detence set up in both cases was unsoundness, of which he afterwards died, by which the consideration had entirely failed. The two cases were tried at different times, and before different juries. In the first case a verdict was found for the plain- . . A tub and m the second for the defendant.

This was an action of trover for a negro wo» 1 , i t • i i man and three children. It appeared in evidence that plaintiff's father, about the year 1804, or 5, had given her the negro woman in question. Some years after, her father (or brother) sold her to the defendant, He had heard of plaintiff’s claim before he purchased, but the vender told him that it was a mere pretence, without any foundation.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover damages, on the false warranty of a negro, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff! The declaration contained two special counts on the warranty, r -J and a count for money had and received. The . case was tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at land, in the Spring Term of 1814, who ordered a nonspit.

Trover, for the conversion of a negro fellow. This negro had left the service of his master, in the state of New-Jersey, and gone to Philadelphia, where he assumed the character of a free, man, and had been reputed and treated as such 7 Jr for several years. The defendant being in Phi- , . teaelphia, and having occasion for a coachman to drive him to his place of residence in South ,Caroima, this fellow tendered ms services.

This was an action of trespass to try the title to a tract of 300 acres of land, which was granted to William Hoivell, on the 19th August, 1774, who died in 1782 or 1783.

This was an action of debt on the defendant’s bond, as Sheriff of- district, to which the defendant pleaded performance of condition, and the plaintiff, by his replication, assigned as a breach, among other things, that defendant had, . . - . , as Sheriff of the said district, made or levied a large sum of money on a writ of fieri facias, issued * , _ „ *1 , „ from the Court oi Common rleas, in the case oí E. Holm,an, as guardian of - — -, an infant, against John and B.…

This was an action of detinue for the recovery oí certain negroes which were claimed by the ° # J plaintiffs under the will of William McDonald) ceased; and the only question m the case, was on the construction of the following clause of the will: “ Item, I give and bequeath hxmy two ° * N ^ last mentioned children, William McDonald and Charlotte Elizabeth McDonald, the following four negroes: Tuff Dinah, Farm, and Sam, son Fann, them and their increase, to them and their…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought on a note of hand for 500 dollars, the consideration which was a tract of land sold by plaintiff’s to the defendant. The defence setup A a defalcation of a part of the land for which defendant was entitled to a deduction.

In this case judgment by default had been en- ■ terea up against the defendant for non-appearanee and want of bail, pursuant to the terms the attachment act; and the case went to the Jury as a writ of inquiry.

In this action there was a release pleaded by -i r -t i i • /■ • T defendants to the plaintiff s cause of action, in reciting the release, it was stated to have been ♦ i , 7 • 7 t • i i given on the 15th. under a videliat; and upon the production of the same, it bore date on the 14th of the month.

This was an action of assumpsit, to which the defendants had pleaded the act of limitations. The plaintiff replied, a promise by one, of the de- „ . . ., , , •, tendants, to pay the debt. 7 x The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Fairfield, Spring Term, 1815, when a verdict was obtained for the plaintiff

Mrs. Ballard was before coverture indebted to William Nelson, who was also indebted to the plaintiff; and it was agreed between them, that she should pay to the plaintiff the amount due A ^ A % him from Nelson, and he credited her account with him for the amount.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Sumpter, in October Term, 1816, and was an action of trespass to try titles to land. The 1 J plaintiff claimed under a grant to John Francisco, c\ ... . -b p • ni* dated m 1785, and the only question involved m 7 J T-the case was, whether this grant covered the land in dispute? if it did, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; if not, the defendant, who claimed under a younger grant, was so entitled.

These were rules against the defendant, as ° Sheriff of Orangeburgh, to show cause why he not pay over a balance of moneys in his hands, made on an execution, in the name of one °f the plaintiffs, against George Dash and James Toole.

This was a scire facias on a recognizance for J ■the appearance of Gilson Foot, one, of the defendants, which had been forfeited by his non-ab tendance. The cause shown why judgment should not be given against the defendants, was, that the recognizance was without seal. It purported to be a sealed instrument, and wras signed by the defendants, but not sealed.

This was an action of trover for two negroes. The plaintiff produced and proved a bill of sale for them from Robert Dale to himself. He also proved that he had paid a valuable consideration for them; that they were in the possession of the defendant; that he had made a demand of them, and that he had refused to deliver them up.

<p>The defendant was indicted under an act of the Legislature, passed in 1762, usually termed the Lottery Act, (2 Brevard's Dig. 26, 7,) for setting up a lottery, under the denomination of a sale for the disposal of two watches.</p> <p>There was a demurrer to the indictment, and an objection to the evidence intended to be offered in support of it, both of which were by consent argued at the same time, and the Court below, without expressing any direct opinion on the demurrer to the indictment, sustained the objection to the evidence, and a motion is now made to reverse that decision.</p> <p>The evidence was, that the defendant had set up the watches to be raffled for, which is usually conducted after this manner: the owner fixes the value of the article set up, which is equally apportioned among the adventurers, and the chances are usually determined by throwing of die, pieces of coin, (the latter of which are charged in the indictment to have been used on this occasion,) or some substitute. And the question was, whether this constituted a lottery within the meaning of the act ?</p> <p>The preamble and clause of the act on which this indictment is founded, is in these words: “ Whereas many persons have presumed to set up lotteries, under the denomination of the sale* of houses, lands, plate, jewels, goods, wares, merchandise, and other things, by chances; which practices are highly prejudicial to the public, and to the trade of this province, and tend to defraud his majesty’s subjects : therefore be it enacted, that all and every person or persons whatsoever, who at any time after the passing of this act, shall publicly or privately erect, set up, or expose, to be played, drawn, or thrown at, or shall cause or procure to be erected, set up, exposed, to be played, drawn, or thrown at, any lottery, under the denomination of sales of houses, lands, plate, jewels, goods, wares, merchandises, or other things whatsoever, or for money, or by any undertaking whatsoever, in the nature of a lottery, by way of chances, either by dice, lots, cards, balls, numbers, figures, or ticketsand, after enumerating several other offences connected with these, concludes with imposing a penalty of £1000, proclamation money.</p>

This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of exchange drawn by one Charles Martin O J on the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff for -i i i 400 dollars; and the only question was, whether the defendant had accepted it? ... .

<p>The defendants were indicted for under the act. of 1791, 1 Faust, 78; which, after enumerating a number 01 tacts, which shall stitute the offence of swindling or cheating, provides generally, that it any person or shall “overreach, cheat, or defraud, by , x . . _ . other cunning swindling arts or devices, so that the ignorant or unwary, who are deluded thereby, lose their money, or other property; every such person, exercising such infamous practices, shall, on conviction thereof, in any Court of this state exercising criminal jurisdiction by trial by Jury, be deemed guilty of enticing, inveigling, defrauding and swindling, and shall forfeit a sum at the discretion of the Court and Jury, besides refunding to the party aggrieved double the sum he was defrauded of, &c.”</p> <p>The indictment charges, that the defendants “ falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully did pretend and assert to one Thomas Presley, an ignorant and unwary person, that they, the said' James Wilson and Benjamin Strange, were possessed of a certain mulatto girl, aged about nine years, as of their own proper goods and chattels, and that the said mulatto girl was a slave, and liable to be transferred from one person to another by the laws and usages of this state, and that the said James Wilson and Benjamin Strange,</p> <p>- under the colour and pretence aforesaid, then and there, falsely, fraudulently, and unlawfully, did overreach, cheat, and defraud the said Thomas Presley, by then and there selling the said mulatto girl to the said Thomas Presley for a slave, at the price of three hundred and twenty-five dollars; and then and there falsely and fraudulently did take,have, and receive the said sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said mulatto girl did not of right belong to the said James Wilson and Benjamin Strange, as of their own proper goods and chatties; but, on the contrary thereof, was, by the laws of this state, free, and not a slave;” and that “ the said James Wilson and Benjamin Strange thé said Thomas Presley of the said sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars in manner and form aforesaid, then and there falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully did overreach, cheat, and defraud.”</p> <p>To this indictment the defendants demurred, and the grounds taken in support of it were, 1st, That it does not charge that the defendants knew the girl was free at the time of the sale ; 2d, Admitting that it is supplied by the general allegation of fraud and dec’eit, yet the exhibition of a false token was necessary to coxhplete the offence, and that the exhibition of a person of colour as a slave, knowing that it vras not, does not constitute a false token. The Circuit Court awarded judgment for the plaintiff in demurrer, and a motion is now made to reverse that iudgment.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, counting, 1st, work and labour; 2d, For cotton; 3d, For money had and received; 4th, For corn and cotton baap'ing;. The account filed with the decíao© © ration contained nothing of money had and re- . _ . . _ . - ceive The .1 ury found for the plaintiff thirteen dollars.

This was an action of assumpsit for had and received, tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Abbeville, in the Circuit of 18 — .

. . # f . « •» * hJS was a scire facias to revive a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs’ intestate against the defendants’ testator, in the Common Pleas at Orangeburgh, which is signed on the 12th day °f April, 1792. The defendant pleaded, mil tiel record, solvit ad diem, and solvit post diem.

<p>This case was brought before Mr. Justice Smith, in the SpringTerm of 1814, at Edgefield, on a rule - ___i , to show cause, 1st, Why the judgment and execution in the case should not be set aside for irregulanty; and 2d, Why the plaintiff should not be compelled to submit the condition of the bond, which was for the performance of covenants, and the special circumstances, to a to assess the damages actually due, according to the act of Assembly of 1782. **</p> <p>. The circumstances of the case, as alleged by the defendants’ counsel, who were the actors in the motion, were these: This was an action of debt on a bond, in the penal sum of 3,000 dollars, conditioned for the performance of nants. The issue was on the plea of non est factum. At the trial, in the Spring Term of 1813, a verdict was. obtained for the plaintiff, with ten cents damages, and without any other verdict or assessment of a Jury. The plaintiff entered up his j’udgment for 2462 dollars 75 cents, sued out his execution, and levied on the property of the defendants, and sold it to satisfy this amount. The rule was discharged. The plaintiff’s counsel denies, or does not admit, the existence of the irregularities stated by the defendants’ connsel, and neither the original record, nor an exemplification of it, or any other official document, is adduced to prove these irregularities.</p>

The prisoners were indicted for horse-stealing, and on the last day of the last Term at Gran-by, were brought up before Johnson, J. for trial, This day, early in the Term, had, at the request of . .. the prisoners, been assigned for their trial.

t # motion to set aside the service of a writ in Kershaw District. In this case the Sheriff returned the writ, as having been personally served on the defendant. The motion to set aside the service was bottomed on affidavit, which went to show that the residence of the defendant was without the geographical limits of Kershaw District, and that the service was made in the District of Sumpter.

<p>The penililtjng Lm!,Pwhenssue°(Í the bond or note given for the. purchase-money, good title in the Sí has bienio eviction, is peculiar to the Courts of this f¿Sífp^oy^anS ought notntoipbc extended; nor ¿“°e!y b¿ fm’not"dciS a C0IBpiete chain Jeif^utae'SahSwibettei""™ actually subsist-pnersonsome other</p> <p>whether an erasure in a deed J®t> ™‘®rl'fom0¿ qSo“votVfact</p> <p>a party cannot stop interest The ¿s‘e™io™or the land is genetotieinSfSr neypurclia3e~mü'</p>

This was an action of deht commenced on a bond, in the penalty of 360 dollars, with a condition to make good and sufficient titles in law to a ° certain plantation, or tract of land, containing 180 acres, on or before the 1st December, 1808. The defendant pleaded a general issue of non est factum.

The motion in this case is to set aside the decree of the presiding Judge, and for a new trial.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to * two small islands in the Catauba River; and the OnlV question ox difficulty was, whether they x J 1 J were or were not included in the defendant’s 4 . grant? Ihe Jury, contrary to the opinion of the presiding Judge, found a verdict for the defend- . . , • ant; which, m effect, established the fact, that the islands were, included in the defendant’s grant.

Eli Alexander, Abraham Alexander, William ry-, and Samuel JWJYair, were indicted and tried r * , /- The counsel for the defendants then gave evidence to impeach the character of the prosecutor, and evidence was given in reply to sustain it.

This was an action of trespass, to try title to a small portion of land in the village of Pinckneyville. McMahon, the plaintiff had purchased a tract of land, of 300 acres, which formerly belonged to James Bankhead, to whom it was originally granted, on which the village of Pinckneyville was situated.

Hirr • r\ x ned before Mr. Justice Ban. ¿/ This was a case upon a sum. pro. which it is came before me at Fairfield, m which it is said, (and I hare no doubt of the fact,) that I ' 9 y gave a decree for the plaintiff!' It must have been given in the hurry and bustle of business? # ** conclusion of the Term, without having a true and correct state of the case; but it is due to justice, that wherevdr a mistake of that kind has happened, it should be rectified.

was an action on a note of hand given Pari; *or price of a negro fellow; a portion of consideration money having been paid down # J ° A Before suit; price, 200 dollars. Defence, unsoundness of the property sold. To support this defence, the defendant proved that the negro had the cholic two or three times before the and that he had it several times afterwards, but upon drinking, a little spirits and black pepper, he got better.

This was a summary process brought by the plaintiff against the defendants on a note of hand, which had been transferred before due.

The present was an action of debt, brought on a bond, given by the defendant, Quarks, to the executors of William Forties Taylor, deceased, for a negro man slave, purchased at the sale oi the ° L personal estate of the testator.

This was an action on a note endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. , . . . The note was made by John Brown and John Tern to defendant, dated 9th March, 1811, payable 20th November following, the endorsement in blank. There was no notice given to the fendant, at the time the payment was demanded of the makers, off their refusal to pay; but the plaintiff sued Brown and Terry on the 12th February, 1812.

This was an action to recover the amount an account for commissions on the sale of some cotton. It was proven on the part of the plaintiff, by _ _ it t Mr. Ihomas, that the defendant had agreed to 7 o pay the plaintiff commissions on the sale of the . . . cotton; but that it was the custom m that neighbourhood not to charge commissions, the freight -i! n* . ° for boating being considered a sufficient compensation: this fact was also proven by other wit- # # nesses.

John M-Fall, the defendant, had formerly com-7 7 J menced an action, in the name of Moses Holland, # . . i aga^n®l the plain tin, on the trial ot which, judgment was given for the defendant. The costs then taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Holland, the nominal plaintiff which was returned mllu bom. This action was then brought against John M-Fall, to recover the costs against him.

This ivas ah action of assumpsit on a note of hand. The defence was an illegal consideration. A witness was called, who proved that A he was present when a note was given for the amount expressed in this note by the defendant to the payee. He believed this to be the same note. He was pretty certain it was. He could not swear positively. The case was tried at Newberry, Fall Term, 1816, before Mr. Justice JYott.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to iand. The plaintiff deduced a regular chaip of title down to his ancestor, from whom he held by devise. The title was derived through two sisters who were co-parceners, the daughters of J°hn Oswalt. At the time of the conveyance from these two sisters, the youngest was a minor, After the conveyance, and during her minority, she intermarried with Jacob Gross.

This action was brought on a note of hand, given by the defendant’s testator to the plaintiff as treasurer of the Board of Commissioners of the Roads ; to which the statute of limitations was pieaueu. On the part of the plaintiff it was contended that this was a case exempted from the operation of the statute of limitations, as a debt due to the public.

This was an action for a malicious prosecution, JT ' tried before Mr. Justice Bay, at Edgefield, Spring Term, 1817. The plaintiff had been indicted for hog-stealing, and the bill refected by the Grand JQry- A copy of the indictment was offered m évidence, but the presiding Judge refused to ad- ° it? because it had been obtained without an order of the Judge, before whom it had been ° preferred.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover, among other things, certain penalties for obstructing the streets in the town of Columbia; also certain taxes imposed by the Town Council on the defendant, for each beef sold in market.

This case had, hy an order of Court, been ferred to the arbitrament and award of four persons, with power of umpirage. On the hearing, . ’ . r , . r ® „ . . , ° three of the arbitrators were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; but the ■ # fourth dissenting, they chose an umpire, who awarded in favour of the plaintiff On a motion to show cause to the contrary, the Court affirmed the award, and a motion is now made to reverse that decision.

The brief states that this was an action brought to recover a sum ot money, paid, laid out, and expended by the plaintiff, for the use of the estate of Geors-e Swicard, defendant’s intestate. Plain- The presiding Judge being of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, as there was no promise on the part of the defendant to pay the amount so awarded, directed the Jury to that effect, who found a verdict accordingly.

This was a summary process brought for the price of a seine against the administratrix of r _ . nT -111 James Pernn, deceased. It was proved, that the plaintiff was by occupation and calling a seine-maker, whose books were offered in evidence, but were rejected on the ground that he was not such a tradesman or handicraftsman as the law contemplates, whose books are allowed in evidence.

was an action of deceit brought against - _ _ _ „ . . . defendant, tor imposing; on the plaintiff a 1 x o r note of hand for 383 dollars, in the purchase of a horse from the plaintiff. It appeared by the evidence, that the defendant had sold his cotton Barnet & Walker, the former of whom dying, Walker had given this note as survivor of that co-partnership, and as a security for the payment of that debt.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note . A mi • hand, which was alleged to be lost. The exist-Pit j iij *i ence oi the note was proved by two witnesses, ^ J t one of whom had seen it in plaintiff’s possession. He afterwards assisted again in examining his ° 0 papers, and it could not be found.

This was a process brought by the . * ° « against the defendant, on the promise of the latter to pay the debt of another, to which the statute of frauds was pleaded. The presiding _ - •, . -¶ . n ,i Judge permitted evidence to be given oi another « r o promise, made by the defendant to pay this independently of that set forth in the body of the process, and gave a decree for the plaintiff

The plaintiffs, in this case, had brought an aeof trover against the defendant for certain negroes, and obtained a verdict for 800 dollars, to be released upon the payment of 30 dollars, r i j 7 and delivering him the negroes. The defendant appealed from that verdict to this Court, where a decision was also given against him. He then filed a bill of inj unction in the Court of Equity, after the usual delay, ivas also dismissed.

This case came before the Circuit Court, by James Johnson, deceased. p ir* j i /n j p /-v -* • way or appeal irom the Court ot Ordinary, on J * L J 7 •an issue devisavit vel non, as to the estate of The deceased had made, and formally execu- ,, . ted, a last will and testament, and two questions 7 7 A arose out of the evidence: -vtti ¶ ti i hirst, YV hether the deceased was, or was 7 7 7 compos mentis, at the time of making the said last will and testament ? and, Second,…

<p>This was an action of slander, and the defendant is charged in the declaration with saying of ,the plaintiff “ that he was a damned rascal, and not fit to give medicine to a puppy, and that he .should not give medicine to a sick puppy ot his. The witness, who proved the publication of the words, stated, that the defendant asked her, in a ■conversation about the plaintiff what she thought of him ? To which she replied, that she thought very highly of him; that he had been very successful in his practice as a physician, and was generally much esteemed in the district; and .that in reply to this he used the words stated in the declaration. It also appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff had practised in the neighbourhood with considerable success for seven years, an the character of a physician, and was highly esteemed. The Jury, under the direction of the Court, found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 200 .dollars damages.</p> <p>A motion is now-made to arrest the judgment, on the ground that the words are not in themselves actionable, and that the declaration contains no colloquium from which it can he inferred that they related to his skill in his profession, nor is special damage charged; and for a new trial, on the grounds, 1st, That there was not sufficient evidencG the plaintiff was a physician ; 2d, Because the damages were excessive.</p>

<p>WherQ piloper_ pledge, the POasession of the “fe SoitTiídpií son, and the bailee The proplrty to log Tendered" a. tb^’píeSüe'6^ mfcunt, so that no v™™* can be made, it is Xfof. coi' version to sustain vendee'</p> <p>to trover, any £?mdthf?rSpe£ wSTconvex</p> <p>1st evidence of a demand, in an action of trover, it is not requisite to prove that plaintiff, at the time, exhibited his title to the property, if the defendant were apprised of the title otherwise.</p>

<p>J'aXifSn of(ííSrfíy“1s receñí, “aid the richt to do so witíf amiste while his lands ave unenclosed, theexerciseofJ|t 0 e'3’</p>

<p>This was an action of debt on judgment recoo vered on a summary process. The action was brought for sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents. But the declaration set forth, a judgment for . .7 • sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, with interest thereon from the fourth day of January, one thou- ^ # J sand eight hundred and nine. Defendant had pleaded nul tiel record. A paper understood to be an exemplification of the proceedings on which the action was founded was produced, containing these words, “ It appeared unto the Court that the defendants are justly indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, and interest thereon from* the fourth day of January, 1809; therefore it is considered that the said John Gage do recover against the said John P. Sartor and Matthew Evans the said sum of sixty-seven dollars fifty cents, with, as aforesaid.” This was treated by the counsel on both sides as a copy of the judgment, and was so understood at the time by the presiding Judge. When it was offered in evidence, two objections were taken to it:</p> <p>1st. That it did not support the action, inasmuch as the declaration sets out a judgment for “ sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, with interest thereon;” whereas this judgment is for “ sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, with aforesaid,” the word “ interest” being omitted. 2d. That the original action and judgment —--were against two defendants, and this was against one only, and there was no suggestion that the other was dead. These objections were both overruled, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict.</p>

This was an action to recover moneys collected by the defendant, as Sheriff of Abbeville District, on an execution in the name of the plaintiff The defence was, that the money had * been paid over to James Cobb, the agent of the plaintiff but the Sheriff had no receipt for the money from Cobb.

This was an action to recover 1425 dollars, ' the amount of a promissory note given by the ... ° defendant lO tile plaintiff’s intestate. The den x 11 iji i • jy fence set up was, that the note was given tor a 1 0 fracf °f *4U0 acres of land, in 75 acres of which the widow of Randal Revil, of whom the plaintiff’s intestate purchased, was entitled to dower,, as she had not renounced her dower in it.

This action was brought to recover a sum * ? _ . i money, which the defendant had promised to pay to the plaintiff, for the board of two young ladies, •daughters of a Mr. Gahaghin^ deceased, whose widow the plaintiff had married.

<p>In this case the writ was against MLMasters. The declaration, after statins: that William M'-JVl.asters was attached to answer, &c. , 7 1 n/1 ti/1- ,1 1 f goes on and names John JvrJVIasten as the defen- ° dant. An interlocutory order for judgment had w been obtained against the defendant for want of a plea, who, by his counsel, moved in the District Court to have the proceedings set aside for irregularity. The plaintiff to anticipate the effect of this motion, moved for leaye to amend his declaration, by striking out, where it occurred, the Christian name, “ John” and inserting “ William,” This motion the presiding Judge refused. The plaintiff then moved to set aside the. declaration, and for leave to file á new declaration, which motion was also refused; and the motion of the defendant’s attorney to set aside the proceedings granted.</p> <p>The action was for slander, and charged the defendant with having said, that the “ plaintiff ran away from Fairfield for stealing;” and that she, the plaintiff, “ dare not show her face there again.” The presiding Judge did not doubt that the pleading was amendable, but he thought it was in the discretion of the Court to grant or refuse the leave asked. He thought the words not actionable, and, therefore, was of opinion, the leave ought to be refused, as, if granted, it would be conducive to no useful end; and he thought the species of action one which ought not to be encouraged. The case was brought before Mr. Justice Colcock, at Newberry, in October Term, 1815.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to re-to ver the sum of 635 dollars 75 cents, which the , • % defendant had collected, as attorney for the plaintiff Defendant acknowledged the receipt of the money; but contended that he was entitled, by contract, to retain one half of it for his fees in the case in which the money had been collected, and other cases in which he had been employed ; and that he had paid over the other half to Benjamin Saxon, Esq. pursuant to…

This action •vVas assumpsit on a promissory * r J note, given by defendant, and John Kirkpatrick, _ _ _ to William Adamson. Upwards oí tour years had elapsed, from the time the note became due, to A . the death, of William Adamson. During one year and five months of this period, William Adamson was of sane mind; after which he became insane, and continued so until his death.

<p>This was an action of trover for a negro girl1 named Amy. It appeared, in evidence, that Mrs. *■' t ^ Cusack was formerly the wife of John Pinkerton; that twenty-two, or, perhaps, twenty-six years before this trial, (for the witnesses differed as the time,) her husband left her, and no certain accounts have been heard of him since. Sometime after his departure, Daniel White executed a deed of gift to Mrs. Cusack, for the negro girl in 7 , | , 7 _ __ question, she being at that time a child. J- 7 c5 deed purports to be .in Consideration of love and , • . , ’ good will, and other good considerations; and authorizes the donor to keep possession during mi • . . ii° his life. The writing is very bad, and the spelling worse; and it bears evident marks being drawn by a very illiterate person. One witness, (a Mrs. Pilkerton) swore, that Mrs. Cusack lived alone with her little children, near Daniel White, after her husband left her. D'aniel White used to visit her, but she did not know the object of his visits. Drury Pilkerton swore, that sometime after the deed was executed, Daniel White requested him to inform Mrs. Cusack that he wished to visit her: he informed her of it, and she made no reply. This evidence was offered to prove that the deed was given in consideration of cohabitation. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Bay, at Darlington, October Term, 1817, when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff</p> <p>A motion was now made for a new trial, on the several grounds hereafter stated.</p>

This was an acíion of trespass, vi et armis, , , . , » . . - brought to recover damages for an miury done, in forcibly throwing down the dwelling-house, and loom-house of the plaintiff, and com-7 r ’ mitting other enormities. The declaration stat- - - . _ trespass to have taken place on or about” the last day of November, 1814; and, on •ipi it „ ■» . the trial ol the cause, the J ury found a verdict in 1 J of the plaintiff for two hundred dollars.

. . This was an action for a malicious prosecution. The case was tried at Edgefield, Spring o 7 x tt Term, 1816, before Mr. Justice Bay. The Jury ^'ound a verdict for the plaintiff for- dollars. A motion was now made for a nonsuit, new trial, or in arrest of judgment, on several grounds; hut as they will all be found in the opinion below, it is unnecessary to give any other statement of the case than is there presented.

This was a summary process, brought on an bond, taken before a Justice oi the v\popp p^ciCC. The defence insisted on at the trial of the case, was, that the defendants were not liable to be sued on this bond, until the defendant, James JCirkpalrick, had failed, and that an execution ought, in the first instance, to have issued for the same.

Trespass for killing a negro. It appeared that the unfortunate subject of this suit ran off on the morning of the day on which he was killed, from his overseer, who was about to correct him; that he was seen by the defendant, who ordered him to stop; he, however, disregarded the command, and continued to run off from the defendant, until he reached the adjoining plantation, where he endeavoured to conceal himself under a fence,’ among some brushes, where he was shot by the…

This was a rule to show cause why the judgment in the above case should not be set aside for irregularity. The plaintiff had sued out a scire facias to revive a judgment previously obtained. The cause was referred to arbitrators, who gave an award for the defendant, with costs, without a notice to the plaintiff, to attend before the Clerk at the taxing of costs. On this ground it was contended, the rule should be made absolute for setting aside the judgment.

<p>This was an action of covenant brought by the ° * plaintiff against defendants, as administrator and administratrix of Yarrington Buford, deceased, on a deed of bargain and sale, dated the 6th March, 1797, by which deed one Mary stone, and the intestate, Yarrington Buford, jointly covenanted, and were jointly, and not severally, bound.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded in bar to the action, that the said M[ary Touchstone, subscribed, sealed, and, as her act and deed, delivered, the said deed of bargain and sale, together with the said Yarrington Buford. That they jointly covenanted, and were jointly and not severally bound; and that the said Mary Touchstone survived the said Yarrington Buford. To this plea there was a general demurrer.</p> <p>The presiding Judge in the District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff! The defendants now move to reverse that decision.</p> <p>The case was brought before Mr. Justice Col-cock, at Barnwell, in November Term, 1815.</p>

<p>Where the Jury fíe tJSSSy of t«Sr''ri10* ^ wMe&wkey;ta» trial.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover back the pnce oí a negro woman, under ,. * ° a warranty contained in a bill of sale under seal, that the woman was sound. The plaintiffs produced their bill of sale under seal, and proved it, and then proved a breach of warranty. The counsel for the defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground, that the action should have been covenant, and not assumpsit.

This was an action within the summary jurisv v diction of the Court to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, payable to the plaintiff’s negro slave, Joe, to which the defendant de. murred, and the presiding Judge sustained the demurrer.” The motion now is to reverse the decision.

This was a summons in partition for a division 0f the lands of William Reeves, deceased, supposed by the summons to have died intestate.

This was an action for money had and received, to recover from the defendant 150 dollars, • # which it was alleged he had improperly obtained from a stake holder, with whom it had been de- ' posited, to be paid over according to the event of a horse race made between the parlies. There were several witnesses sworn on both sides, and several points of law made in the progress of the cause.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note given 1 ~ by the defendant to the plaintiff in the following words: “ On or before the first day of March next I promise to pay untó Jonadab Gains ninety-four gallons of whiskey, for value received.” The plaintiff declared, as on a promissory note, under the statute, (3 and 4 Ann, Ch. 9.) The defendant demurred generally, and the plaintiff*joined in demurrer.

The plaintiff obtained a rule against Norris, late Sheriff of Pendleton District, to show cause why an execution issued in the above J # cause had not been collected and paid over to him, and in default thereof that an attachment should issue against him.

The plaintiff had brought a sum. pro. against the defendant, but, living out of the state, had been ordered to give security for costs. In the course of the trial it appeared, that the plaintiff was a minor, whereon he was ordered to be non-suit, not having sued by prochcin ande, or guardian, nor having offered any person to become his guardian in this stage of the trial.

Trover for a negro. ■ It appeared, in this case, that Thomas Green had made his will, and devised a negro, named Frank, to his wife, for -life; that when his son Frederick, the defendant, arrived at the age of sixteen, both he and Frank should be put apprentices to a bricklayer; and afterwards he bequeaths _ _ . “le negro? trank, to the defendant, and his heirs for eyer_ Tpg testator made his wife, who intermarried with the plaintiff his executrix, and two other persons, his…

Tills process was brought to recover the value of 500 feet of plank, which Mrs. Julian, a witness, and mother of the plaintiff, proved to have been put into a house in which she had lived, and which had been nailed down therein as a floor. She acknowledged that the defendant had permitted her to live in the house as long as she pleased, and that she was to put it in good repair, and for which she was to pay no rent.

was an action brought to recover the va» lue of a horse which defendant purchased of plaintiff, as he alleged. The defendant set up a discount, which, however, was barred by the statute of limitations; but the presiding Judge, conceiving that the case of the State vs. Guillará, 1 Bay, 492, admitted an account which was barred, to be set off in this way, directed the Jury to find the amount of the discount, for the defendant, under the discount act of the state.

This was. an aetion qui tam, brought on the act of Assembly, inflicting a penalty of £100 cur-J ° A # rency on a magistrate, presuming to marry any persons, the magistrate being a layman. * ° 0 * ,

This was an action to recover the value of negro, who wavS alleged to be unsound. The plaintiff proved, that before he purchased the A x A negro of the defendant’s agent, young Allen, that the agent warranted the girl to be sound, except as to a cast in her eye, and a split which appeared in her lip.

This was an action of trespass to try titles to a tract of land containing 10,000 acres, i he plaintiffs produced their grant for the land, which was dated 7th of March, 1787; proved the lo~ cation of the same; and that they were the heirs the grantee, Colonel William Thompson, sen. They proved also the trespass.

This was a sum. pro. to recover of the the sum of 30doilars upon the following letter: “I l O will raise the money by subscription if I can j and ./> T .. . — . if not, 1 will pay it.” 1 his, it appeared, had been written on account of a poor sick whom a Doctor Bryan had refused to attend unless some person would become security for the above sum.

This was an action of slander, and the declaration contained two counts: the first charged that defendant said of plaintiff, “ he has killed my hogsmeaning that plaintiff had stolen defendant’s hogs; and to support this count, a numher of witnesses were called, who proved that L defendant had frequently complained that plainrr,-, i Ihe second tiff and others had killed his hogs, count charged the defendant with having said of plaintiff, that “ he stole my hogsand to this,…

This action was brought on a note within the c* summary jurisdiction, given by defendant, t i n i .. , . . ble to -Farmer, who passed to plaintiff. The defendant made his mark, and there was no subscribing witness, so that plaintiff having no other way to prove the note without releasing Parmer, served the defendant with a notice to declare on oath at the trial whether or not be gave this note.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover 100 dollars, which plaintiff proved, by three witnesses, that defendant had promised him, if he would ride out and show him where a certain n „ .. . . family of negroes was, and that he (plaintiff) came to defendant’s house, for the purpose going to show these negroes.

This was an action of assumpsit for a breach of warranty in not returning a negro, (Ned,) hired ky defendant of plaintiff, and for damages sustained by loss of labour, &c. J The facts proven that defendant hired the negro of Mrs. Manning, upon condition that her husband, the ° A plaintiff, agreed to the bargain. The plaintiff did agree to it, and defendant took the negro to Chester, but never returned him.

<p>This was a special action on the case, for omitting to take an administration bond.</p> <p>The circumstances of the case were as follows: On the 28th day of January, 1803, the defendant, being Ordinary of Abbeville District, granted letters of administration to his son, William Hamilton, on the estate of---Boggs, deceased. The estate was sold shortly afterwards, by direction of the Ordinary, but no administration bond was taken until March, 1806, or 7. A bond was then taken, bearing cotemporaneous date with the letters of administration, with Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Hamilton, sureties. That bond had been put in suit, and a judgment recovered on it for 4237 dollars; on which an execution had been issued, and 1820 dollars 26 cents made by the sale of their property, and the Sheriff had made a return, that the defendants had no other goods or chattels, lands or tenements, on which he could levy the balance of the money. It further appeared that the surety was sufficiently ample at the time the bond was taken, but had become insufficient afterwards. The count in the declaration on which the plaintiffs principally relied, was that which charged the defendant with not having taken the bond at the time the letters of administration were granted. The several grounds of defence springing out of this statement of facts, which were relied on in the Circuit Court, will appear in the opinion below, and need not be stated here. The case was tried before Mr. Justice JYott, at Abbeville, at the Spring Term, 1814, who was of opinion that none of the grounds were sufficient to exempt the defendant from liability, and so directed the J ury; who, pursuant to those directions, found a verdict for the plaintiff for the balance of the judgment recovered against the administrator, which remained unpaid, with interest thereon.</p>

<p>thenoSimuy0sevS wills, all in his ^differemdS”!; SI6ofwS ™ not completed: “em“eeJSíh was the l<ist will» so far as regarded the personal es-“|4"™6 hiving erated.™llllyox</p>

This was a special action on the case for a breach of contract.

This was an action of assumpsit, to recover overseer’s wages.

This was an action of slander ; the case wasp tried before Mr. Justice Smith, at Marion, in October Term, 1815. The words charged in the 7 ° declaration were, “You are a counterfeiter.”' ^61, jjjg .plaintiff had proved the words a» charged, the defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit, which the presiding Judge ordered, on the ground that the words were not actionable.. This is a motion to set aside the nonsuit.

This was an action brought to recover a year’s ° , ^ wages as an overseer. The declaration contained two counts : i st, For work and labour as # an overseer; 2d, For a quantum meruit.

This was an action of covenant on a bill sale, executed the 14th August, 1812, by which the defendant warranted the soündness of the negro girl thereby conveyed to the plaintiff The proof was, that the plaintiff had purchased the girl in November, 1811; had paid half the money at that time, and only taken a receipt for the same.

This was an action of trover for five head of cattle. The testimony proved that the cattle # # belonged to the wife of the plaintiff before marriage; and it appeared further in evidence, that Williams, the plaintiff, after marriage, exercised the usual acts of ownership: he employed an agent to look after, and attend to them; and who was authorized to sell them by Williams.

This was an action of debt upon judgment obtained some time prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eleven. The plea relii t. i i jt j. /» j.1. ed on, was a discharge under the act tor the re- ° lief of insolvent debtors. There was a demurrer to the plea, and joinder therein — judgment for plaintiff on demurrer.

This was an action of trespass to try title. The plaintiff gave in evidence a grant to Samuel Galla_ _ _ . - , mi • acres, dated 4th May, 1812. This was satisfactorily located, and included the land in dispute. He also gave in evidence a deed from the grantee to himself, conveying the land in fee to him; he proved a trespass, and closed his evidence.

<p>This case was tried at Abbeville, before Mr. Justice ColcOck.</p>

This was a summary process to recover pertain hogs claimed by plaintiff, which he alleged the defendants had converted to their use.

This was an action of assumpsit on a note of a hand. The defence was, want of consideration. it appeared, that this note had been given by Mr. Wade for a lot, or piece of land, adjoining Tt j i i.,,-.. i, ° Gast Granby, which had been mortgaged by Mentin AlTcin to the plaintiff, Mr. Dawson; TUTT'V 1-1/» t 11 Mr. Dawson had foreclosed his mortgage, and had obtained an order from the Court of Common # # Pleas for the sale of this land; that while these proceedings were going…

<p>Under a decíaratiou contaiDin; “uuls,(a/for money had and reSni'expemfeJ)1» special contract, cvi<iencl.líen “</p>

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Columbia, at the last November and was an action of assumpsit, to which the ge_ . _ 4 neral issue, the statute of limitations, (actio non accrevit infra quatuor amos,) was pleaded; to which . 4 x 4 there were appropriate replications, and, among others, an original sued out within four years # J alter the cause of action accrued.

This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, ' at Orangeburgh, at October Term, 18 ¡7, and nm . . . _ _ t t -i was this. Ihe plaintiff’s intestate had sold and x conveyed to the defendant’s intestate a tract of _ _ _ ,• it. • land, and the defendant’s intestate had in consi7 deration given to him two promissory notes, for . * the recovery of which this action is brought.

This was an action of debt, brought on a single bond, in the words foilowing: “ Be it known, that I, John Thurston, do acknowledge myself indebted to Jacob Bollinger ° ° • the sum of two hundred dollars, to be paid m cotton, at ten dollars per hundred weight, and the rise to be allowed to the said John Thurston; the cotton to be delivered on the first day of January, 1813. “ Signed, in the presence of us, this 17th day of January, 1812, the above obligation, given for value…

This was an action on a bail bond against the 0 defendant, as administrator of Moses Hollis, deceased, the bail. The defendant demurred ally, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer. The presiding Judge in the District Court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the action. This is a motion to reverse that decision, on the ground that the administrator or executor of bail is not liable under the bond.

This was an action on a promissory note given by the defendant to Samuel Caldwell, deceased, The note was admitted. The defence was, that _ the consideration ot the note was a sum agreed O to be paid by the defendant, as the difference in value between two negroes, on an exchange between him and the deceased.

The plaintiff had issued an attachment against Matthew Lines, a copy of which had been served on the defendant as garnishee.