Newspaper Page Text
Judgment affirmed.
Mynatt A Dell for plaintiff.
Jno. Milledge, Jr., for defendant.
Wm. Iteed va. Jcaae McClendon—Action
on the c-aae for damage*. .
Me KAY, J.
Thin was an action on the case
for <lamagCH alleged to have been
suffered in contteqiience of the
neizure of‘cotton in 1805 or I860, l>v
United Htatea Treasury officer*, which
aeizuro was canoed by the affidavit made
by defendant, to the effect that plaintilf
laid subscribed to the Confederate <*ot-
ton loan, fifty bales ef cotton, but lmd
not paid the name; which affidavit it was
allegiMl was not true. On the trial there
wuh proof that the defendant made the
affidavit; and that though plaintiff had
anbacribed, he had fullv paid up his sub
Hcription. Thdl was rarther proof that
the Treasury’s agents had seized the cot
ton, and that the j^roeeeds thereof had
gone into the United Slates Treasury
and that plaintiff, though |be had tried,
had failed, as yft, to recover the same,
that defendant, who was sub-agent of
the Confederate States, for the collection
of this cotton, had some reason to be
lieve, and did in fact believe, that plaint
iff had never paid his loau to the Con
federacy. The Court was asked
charge that if the plaintiff’s cotton was
thus taken, in oonaeoucnce of the affida
vit made by defendant, and said affi
davit was not true, that lie was liable for
plaintiff’s damages, |and that the measure
of damage was the value of the cotton.
This cliarge tho Court refused to give,
but charged that if the defendant acted
in good faith and mode the affidavit on
proper demand'of the United States au
thorities, honestly ^relieving that he was
telling the truth, und has acted with
proper caution and prudence on his part,
that he would not be liable, even though
he was mistaken.
Held, That aero was no material error
in tho charge, and the jury having
fbund, nnder the charge of the Court,
for tho defendant, it was not error in the
Court to refuse a new trial.
Judgment affirmed, %
Cornelius Van Anduht, vs. Cathlecn O.
Joiner—Trover. Title to pawa.1
McKAY, J.
In an action of Trover for
watch, it appeared that
the true owner of the watch was the
>laintiff, a married woman, that her lius-
>aud had pawned it to secure an advance
of 150. That at the time of the pledge,
the husband had waived in writing his
right to the thirty days’ notice, Ac., aw
required by Miction 2112 of the Code, be-
* »re the saile, in cai.se tho defendant was
not paid; and that tho pawnee, on failure
of pawnor to pay the loan, had aold the
wgteli by an naMiotger, and that the
defeujaiut was tho highest bidder, wus
now in possession and haul refused to de
liver it on demand. There was evidence
taut the wife had authorized the husband
to raise tho money on tho watch. The
Court charged that even if tho wife had
authorized tho liusbuud to raise money
on the watch, this would not authorize
him to waino the provisions of the law iih
to notice, und that her title would not be
diverted unless she had received due und
legal notices and that the measure of
damages was tho value of tho watch, and
refused to charge that if the husband hod
autlioritv to rants the money, the wife
conld|not recover:
Huh I, That the mere authority to raise
mousy ou the watch did not authorize the
husband to consent to. the sale, except
after due 110111*0 to the owner.
2d, The titlo of the plaintiff was not
divested by the sale without notice.
3d. That tho plaintiff could recover,
without paying the money borrowed.
4th, That the purchaser had acquired
by his purchase all tho rights of the paw
nee. and was entitled to reduce the dam
ages by tho amount advanced by the
pawnee upon the watch.
otli, That its thero was evidence offered
on the nuestion as to the authority of the
husband to pledge the watch, it was the
right of defendant to have the law charg
ed to the jury in both aspects of the case,
and as the Court charged the wry, the
THE d
Mf- ifin* Adccrtkcnenti always found
on >Vrtf Page ; Local and Business Notices
on Fourmfage.
(hanfe .roar labMrl,ll.a frlrr.
We ask attention to our new term* of
subscription in Uie tint column on first
page .
■ JO.
Wmdnebdat Moenino Bamou
I % city Affairs.
Stock of liras
Lows, Doacua A Daubs’.
I of Ute latest
furaitoM on tbs WSJ, and in
) room tor stoking tad dis-
1 now offer oj |
; of bedroom and parlor
[ grade to tbs finest;
1, chairs,
I of il iWriplirms and
at nil ptiass; rtlicttj nt sort; and T fuel
confidant that with this I eon salt tbs
annas of all. and thoss wishing to sseurs
n good bargain are oordinkv invited to
avail themselves of tbs rase Oppartnnitj
now offered by Char DutrstriKU),
No. 68 Whitehall street, Atlanta, Go.
m- Fall line of White ’Wntoofdmd
■tpOb-tf id*k, Dotmans A Dai*W.
.yi
s jestsrdsylrhd the ptassare of meet-
in| with Qat. W«W^ Lm Qnvidsoa, wrong of the surety, by which Uio surety
Ute of Charlotte, N. C., but now of Cio- claims to be .Uncharged; And upon the
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
St,jtember 19, 1871.
Oeorge A. Worthy vs. Horatio O. Tate-
Equitable defense of tenant again at
landlord.
UK Hi JUNK. C. J.
Wi ro a bill in equity was filed by
Mi... Worthy, alleging that she purchased
from H. O. Tate the premises in dispute,
and that having great confidence in him,
■he had given him the deed and tax re
ceipts thereto, et his request, whio h, ou
her request to return, ho said he hod
burnt up; and the prayer of the bill was
to cause laid deed and receipts to be re
turned, and to enjoin proceedings to
evict her as tenant of Tate, the former
owner, nnder the provisions of the Code,
■gainst tenant's holding over; and she
'—Mmt presented her inability to give
bond under the seetaao of the Code
the bona under the
requiring the tune, to arrest the proceed
ings; and the bill wan demurred to and s
motion made to dismiss if, on the ground
that she had a complete remedy at law
end for want of equity, and the motion
wss sustained:
Held, That under the facts presented
by tho bill, this wssarror. There was equity
hr the bill as against Tate, because she
pnyed Ior the delivery of the deed sod
tag reocipts and the provision for a de
fense by counter affidavit and bond un
der the 4007th section of the Code wee
not ample and complete, and the facte
disclose each a condition of alleged fraud
afidlujietice as invokes the iutenioeition
of equity.
Judgment reversed.
the insured was ileail, if the some had
luen tendered, which .oai not done in
this cose.
After o careful examinaton oj the facte
of this case and the law applicable tbe-e-
to, we are of opinion then was no error
in the court below in granting a non-suit.
It was said ou the aignueut that Ibis’ judgment will l>e a sufficient protection
J. Hollingsworth vs. J. 11. Tanner—Dis-
ehnrge of Surety.
OCHRANE, C. J.
LOCH
Where, upon a bill filed to enjoin the
execution of certain ft. fa.’s obtained
fl
against .A, as principal, and D, as surety,
upon tho ground that the owe
fs.'s Usd - mail<
A, by which be
amount equal
and which ho
owner of the
contract with
owed him an
the judgment,
ia him, to tho
cinnati, OMo, and connected with the
luraesi Btchnsisnii t Tullulge,
lets, of that <Oy. He In Stopping at the
Kimball House, and will, remain • tow
days.
Col yUavidpen commanded a North
Carotins regintent (taring tne lato war,
and distinguished himself as a soldier
and popular oommauder. ITo is widely
known-ill his native State, ns Weil as
otlicr Southern States, and belongs to one
of the l>cet families of the Old North
Vth. use with 'which he is now con
nected have made n speoiolty of distill
ing a pure and wholesome article of
whisky, on sorntifle principles, relieving
it from all deloterions substances and
leaving only t pare stimulant.
Notwithstanding tho great evils which
have resulted from drunkenness, still,
stimulants arc. necossary, and at
very uscU provided a good article nut
belted, man/ persons need whisky ih
their families, who want an unadulterated
und reliably pure article; and the diffi
culty of obtaining such, upon which jwf-
foct relianoo can be placed by evoty pur
chaser, is known to sll who ever tried to
procure the some for special purposes.
Messrs. Richardson A Tullidge have
Bought to meet this demand, by making
only such an article, by a process of fire
copper distillatiun ami purification,
which eliminates ell /"til oil and other
|Hiisonous matter, which is loft in all or
dinarily distilled liquors.
The injurious end sometimes fatal re
sults from the use of impure liquors, are
known to most persons—Wometimea very
small quantities producing headaches and
even severe sfaknees.
The senior member of the firm of R.
AT. isn practical chemist, who haa
brought the aid of science and a peculiar
ooanWmetien of stills, to assist him in
producing an article of whisky whoso
purity and freedom from ddeterioiu sub
stances atom to stand nnrivolled. By the
direel application of a very high degree
of heat, and the use of analysers, tU poi
sonoos and deleterious matter is extract
ed, leaving only a pure stimulant
Prof. E. H. Wayne, of Cinoinnati, who
has a ihigh reputation as a first-class
chemist, baa analysed the whiskies die-
tffled (by Richardson A Tullidge, and
certifies that be 11 findn them pure, and
ef 'exoeUont quality, and that by careful
distillation they have lieon freed from
Fmst\Oil, so largely present in moat
whiskies, and that they are 1 free from for-
l4t A SS*ferioiu •ubkfenece.’’|
“ Their method of Fire Copper Distil-
letiou aod Erapomtfon," says Prof.
Wayne, “seems to produce whisky that
improves in quality, and ripene much
sooner then steam distilled wkiskltw.
But we merely wished to mention Col.
Davidson's arrival, and that he will re
main, at the Kimball House a few days—
further, <rtoo, fc mention thetifw method
of making whisky, which takes, all tho
Futil Oi( out of il
bearing the 1 glider of the tt. fa., by hie
answer, showed that he was the owner
thereof, and that during the war be hod
employed the principal defendant to
reach of
_ aid him
therefor St tho time in old isHuo of Con
federate ynoney, and that defendant's
family was dcAituto and needed the'
money for their support; and that there
was no collusion or fraud between him
and defendant in fi. fa., and the court re
fused tho injunction:
Held, That this court will not inter
fere with the discretion of the judge lie
low iu refii-iugau injunction under the
tuets in this case; and that tho employ
ment and payment of the principal do
feudiuit, as stated, did not discharge tho
duty from liability on tho judgmeut.
J udgmeut affirmed.
Thomas Id. Powell vs. Jusso Boring. Res
adjuilicata; Relief Aet of 1868.
LOCHRANE, 0. J.
Where a party, upou motiou to opeu a
judgmeut under tue relief aet of 1808,
which wus disaiissed by the court, fails to
bring up in the record of this court the
original record of the judgment moved
to be disssiseod:
Held, Thai inasmuch ns the party al
leging error must show affirmatively the
’existence of the error complained of,
this court will presume, in the absence
of such record and judgment, everything
in favor of the judgment anil dismiss tho
action.
Held, again : Wlieuit appears from the
statement of the facts set out iu the mo
tion that the defence to the original suit
involved tho same issues now involved
and presented in the motion, this court
will not set aside the judgmeut of dis
missal.
Held, agaiu, That till motions under
the relief acts to open judgments must l>e
oonfined to the legal equities authorized
to be pleaded by said acta, and now mat
ters of defend not embraced iu the law
are insufficient to predicate such motiou
upon. \
Judgment affirmed.
P. L. Mynatt for plaintiff; A. W.
Hammond A Bon fur defendant
0. B. Welborn va Warren Aiken—Relief
Act of 187a
Full Lias of Balbriggan Hosiery,
■t’ Lows, Douglass A IXii&as’.
•ept*Mf
Just received st GOo. W. Prise's a first
rate lot of Boots and Shoes, which will
be sold aheap for cash, st who!note, No.
37 Peachtree street sepW0-3t
Goo. W. Price is telling the bast
Cheapest Boots and Shoes in Atfaoto.—
dive bite a coll sopQb-fH
Oo and sm Ute Boot and Shoo man of
ABnoto, at No. V Peachtree street
septSOSt
Shoe
tree street
Cwl. a. W. AAsIr
Will soli reutj or cxdfaAgo 33 sstatoif
fend on the McDona*gh rood Hoc his
•drertwsraol b
PntreuS Oats.
Observe Mr. A. K. Benge's advertise
ment, this morning.
UBlt«4 HUtica Court.
. The Simms cate occupied the entire
day yesterday. The cote will likely last
•• of tkfi vnolr
LOCHRANE, 0. J.
Where it anpeare Iron
appeare from.the record that
A sued W upon a promissory note, dated
in 1868, ana that W had filed his pleu
under oath that it wm given in renewal
of n contract made before 1st of June,
1866, anil the Court called the case out
of its order on the docket, nnder a rule
that Uie Court would first dispose of bus
iuess that did not require a jury, and
against tho objection of W, heard argu
ment ou the pies, and dismissed it, on
the ground that the act of 1870 wus un
constitutional:
Held, Thst the Court erred in dis
missing the pics upou this ground. The
law of 1870 is not ar jioaf fmlo, tor such
apply only to criminal cases. The ro-
2 uiremout tluit the taxes have been paid
oes not render it unc institutional. If
■hi Ux wm due, the law impost's none.
Acts of tho Legislature are presumed to
be onnaktarioiial, and Coarts will not
declare them void, exoept in dear and
urgent [caeca It does not impair tlie
obligation of contracts, for tho law does
not change or modify a single word of
tho contract
Where, ou a motion to sot soldo a
judgmeut it appeared Unit the note was
given in settlement of a note, uml was
not within the provisions of the net of
1870; while we hold the Court erred in
stsikiug defendant’* plea, still, as there
was no injury ,donc the defendant, and
under the cliarge of tho Court, tho jury
would find against the defendant, we
affirm tho judgment of tho Court upon
this ground,
lodgment affirmed.
Warner, J. concurring ou tho ground
that tho act of 1870 was unconstitu-
*, Oliu Wilson A A. W. Hammond A Bon
fofplamtlir.
'fDU A Candler for defendant
James M. Austiu va Wm. Markham—
Hlotion to rciusfate a case. Illegal
mSaT’-i
AT, J.
A motiou to reinstate a case made at a
term subecqueut to that at which the
judgmeutoi dismissal was had, atouds
of the footing of a motion fur a new
trial and requires the same excuses for
delay.
A promise to pay a debt due by an ai>-
plicsut to bo declared a bankrupt id
honHJcrstion Hist tho payee will witli-
'dritfr ilia objections to tho other's dis
charge as a bankrupt, is illegal and void,
and so action can be sustoi nod upon such
promise.
Judgment reversed.
Jlorsey A Jlualmnau for nlaiutilT.
Tidwell, Fears A Arnold for defendant
Sparks * Ijye va David Bufglunu—No
tice' df <n nuVuri. ‘' --
MoKAT, J.
Bet-lion 3987 of the revised code, re
quiring the plaintiff ia certiorari to give
written noties to the opposite party in
interest, of the sanction of tho writ and
also tho timo and place of hearing, at
least ten days before the sitting of the
Court to vi iuoli the some is returnable,
applios to certwrariet from the J. P.’s
Court, and is still of force under the Con
stitution of 1868.
measure of damages was tho value of the
watch, this was error, and tho Court
prred in refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Hillyer A Bro. for plaintiffe.
Collyer A Hoyt for defendants.
Elizabeth L. Sullivan va. Tho Cotton
States Life Insurance Copjuuy—Parol
evidence to vary a written ooutrack
WARNER, J.
This was au action on a life insurance
policy, dated October 25, 1809, by which
the defendant omrinwted to insure the
plaiutiff, and her husband, ou the terms
and stipulations’ therein contained, in
the Bum of 81,600, during tho continu
ance of their natural lives. The plaintiff
alleges that her husband died ou the 7th
May, 1870. The defendant pleaded the
nou-paymout of Uie premium due on the
policy, on the 35th id April, prior to his
death, as required by the policy, which
is as follows: “That au nnuual premium
of 858.04 bo paid on or before tho 25th
of Octolier in each and every year, from
tlie date, or dnrtng tho continuance of
this jiolicy, which annual premium is to
bo jiaid in the manner following: an an-
uuul loan of 839, or a cash somi-aunual
jiayment of 814.81, to be pnid ou the
25th day of October, and April: Provi
ded, always, and this policy is issued by
this company, and accepted by the in
sured, ou the following expressed condi
tions: and first, if the premiums duo oil
this jiolicy shall not be jiaid at tho times
above mentioned, then this policy shall
terminate and lie void and of no effect”
Such is tho expressed condition of the
contract in relation to the nou-jiaymant
of premiums stipulated to be paid, in the
jiolicy. On the trial of the ease it was
not protended that the scini-auuual pre
mium which had become due outlie25tli
of April, 1870, had been paid, or offered
to bo |>aid, by tho insured, to tbu com
pany or liis agents. But tho plaintiff
offered evidence to^ prove that prior to
tho exocutio* mid ddivoiy of tlie policy,
Laird, who was acting as the agent of
tho company, to obtaiu policies of itisn-
sureiicc, told tho deceased that it would
make uo difference if tlie jiremiums were
not paid regularly to the day; so the
money wus jiaid a short timo after the
day, if |ioid si soou os convenient after
wards. On objection beiug mode, this
evidence was rejected by tho Court,
and the plaintiff exoejvted. Thero
was no error in tho Court in
ruling out this evidence. It is a
well settled principle of law that parol
declarations cannot lie received to vary
or contradict tlie terms of of a written
contract. AU that was said liotweeii the
ooairaeling parties iu relatiou to the
terms and stipulations of the contract is
presumed to have boau merged into the
written eaotnot which is the highest
and beat evidence ofthe contract between
the tfirtito, ia tlie absence of any evi-
deuce as to fraud, accident .or mis
take, at the time of its execution, de
livery and acceptance by the contracting
jiortuw, uud the sumo may bo said of the
entire evidence of Mm Bulllvon, which
was ruled out by the court
As to the evidence of the custom of
tha oompuuy to receive jiremiums after
the day of payun ut hod exjiired, from
liriiuj jM'rsons who have insured: Ad
mitting that such a custom was proven,
still tin re aas uo evidence that il was the
custom of tho company to receive a pay
ment of premiums after the day of pay
ment, when tho comjiany had notice that
a liurd case on the widow’s children of
the insured, and we feel il to be so; but
us the company insists upon its strict
legal rights under the contract, it is our
duty to administer the aw npjdicable
thereto, und we therefolu affirm the
judgment of the court below.
Judgment affirmed.
Harrison Hamrick va Lurid Darnell.—
Forcible entry and detaiier.
WARNER, J.
This ease came before tile court be
low on a certiorari from a justice of the
peace’s court, alleging certain errors to
nave been committed on the trial of
u cuse of forcible entry on4 detainer, un
der tbe jirovisions of the Code. On the
hearing of tbe certiorari, both parties ex
cepted to the rulings of tke Court The
Court below decided that tbe Constitu
tion of 1868 having recognized and
adopted the code, called “Irwin's Code,”
did not destroy or abolish the right to
sue out, and the practice of, Forcible
Entry and Detainer, as heretofore prac
ticed in this Htate. Upon these points
we affirm the judgment It does not ap-
pearj in tho record how the jury were
drawn for the trial of the (sse, but it docs
apjvear that no particular juror was ob
jected to on the ground that he wm
not an upright and intelligent juror. The
Court below decided that os there wm no
evidence going to show how the jury wm
selected and summoned and empaneled,
the legal presumption wss that they were
legally summoned, selected and empan
eled. Inasmuch as tbe act of 1869 re
lates exclusively to the selection of jurors
for the Superior Court, and m the Gen
eral Assembly have not provided by law
for the selection of jurors for the trial of
oases of Forcible Entry and Detainer,
the jury may be selected under tbe law,
as provided by the code for that pnrpose,
so they are upright and intelligent per
sons—which is not inconsistent with the
Constitution of 1868, and we affirm tbe
judgment upon this point of the case.
The Court also decided that there was
not sufficient evidence, under tbe law,
to have authorized the jary to find n ver
dict for either a forcible entry or a forci
ble detainer of the land by the defend
ant, Darnell, ae against tho plaintiff,
Hamrick. Ill looking through tho evi
dence, we think iliere was snffleicnt evi
dence to authorize the jury to find a
verdict under tho law fora forcible entry,
and if tho jury had so found, tho Court
below should not have set aside tlieir
verdict, but tho jury found a verdict for
forcible detainer only, and thereby nega
tive tbe fact that the entry wus forcible
uml without authority of law, and this
Court caunut now assume that it wus so,
as there is sufficient evidence to sustain
tlie verdict, wbicli was conflicting njmn
that point and of which the jury, accord
ing to the rejieated rulings of this Court,
were the proper judges.
Does the evidence in tlie record show
tliat tho dotainer of the jiosseeiiion of the
land by the the defendant was forcible ?
Tbe only evidence ujion that jroint is,
that the agent of plaintiff notified tho
defendant to quit the land, and the de
fendant rejilied that he should not do so;
that there was no violent word or aet on
the part of the defendant, or any threat,
or offer to do either, in keejiing posses
sion of tbe land; that the defendant had
moved one of the houses on the land.—
Forcible detainer is the violently keeping
jiossession of the lands and tenements
with menaces, force and arms, and with
out authority of law. Code, 4452. The
verdict of the jury rebuts Hie allegation
that tho entry of defendant, on the land
wus forcible ondwithoutauthorityof law;
uud there is no evidence that tbe detain
er was forcible within the true intentand
meaning of the law applicable to ancli
rtiioau »r»x.x innsA flolAttHiiwv .. ,,m«4 a4 l.m.
ing to the jury that if they found for
plaintiffs, they should find their verdict
is the name of the plaintiflh, for the use
of their assignee in bankruptcy, end sug
gested to them the form of their verdict
We find no error in the ruling of the
Court on this point. The verdict and
cases. The mero defending a unit nt law
for the possession of the Innd by the de
fendant did not amount to a forcible de
tainer, as tbe Justioe charged the jary on
the trial
There was no error in tbe Court below
in sustaining the certiorari and setting
aside the verdict and we affirm the judg
ment of the Court below on that point!
but instead of awarding a final judgment
in tbe case, wo direct that a now trial be
had of the whole case before another
jo*y.
Judgment affirmed and a new trial or
dered.
S. T. W. Minor vs. H. V. Clark ot oL—
Specific jierfonnance.
WARNER, J.
This was a bill for specific jierformanee
of a contract iu relation to hunt lbs
defendant alleges that the whole of the
land wm the property of L. B. Clark at
the time of his death, who died, leavidg
a will, by which he appointed his wife
and one Dailey executrix and executor
thereof; that in tho year 1865 the ex
ecutors and legatees under said will, en
tered into an agreement to divide tlie
testator's estate, without any reference to
his will; that F. Clark, one of the legatees,
transferred his interest, as such legatee,
to ouo Austin; that when the divi
sion of tho estate nnder the agreement
took jilaoe, Austiu rooeived as his third
shnre of it, a lot of land, No. 184, upon
his paying to tho other jmrtiee the sum
of $l,5t)0 iu Confederate money. That
afterwards, on the 28th March, 1864,
Austin executes his obligation to com
plainants for the sum of $5,000 in Con
federate money, or 8100 in gold, whioh
was to be discharged by making him or
liis heirs a titlo to lot No. 184, drawn by
Austin, as a jiart of tho estate of the de
ceased testator. It also apjjoars from tho
complainant’s bill, that this tract of land
was sold by the executors, by virtue of
au order of tho Court of Ordinary, at
public outcry, on the first Tuesday iu
January, I860, for tho sum of $1,150,
and purchased by Hiram Clark, one of
the legatees, who has since sold it to oth
er parties, who had notice of oomploin-
ant's claim. There il no allegation in the
bfil, tbut at the timo of the alleged di
vision of testator's* estate, there were
any debts due by testator, or that oil the
legatees were of full age; bat, on the
contrary, it appears an tho faoe of the
bill, that one of them was a minor. Tke
prayer of the bill is that the defendanta
may be decreed to execute a title to com
plainant for lot No. 184, he offering to
pay the value of the $1,600 due by Aus
tin in Confederate money, in February,
1865, at the time of the division of tho
estate. To thia bill defendants de
murred for want of equity. Tup Court
sustained the demurrer and dismissed it,
whereujiou the complainant exoepted.
Held, That then' wm no error in sus
taining the demurrer for want of Equity,
and dismisaing the same.
J udgmeut affirmed.
Nancy Waddafl va. Austin and Holliday.
— Action ou a contract for the jiur-
chase of a kiln of brick.
WARNER, J.
On the trial, the main question wss,
whether Uie bricks were sold at $6 jwr
thousand, at kiln aooount, oral that price
per thousand, as the same were delivered
todefendant On this point the evidence
wMooutnidictory. The jury found a ver
dict for plaintiffs. It also appears that
fter tho commencement of the suit the
S laintifls had been declared baukrupta.
motion w«a made tor a new trial no
the ground that Che Court erred in say
to the defendant, anil it was no matter of
concern to her who got the money, if she
ow'id it. Besides, it does not affirma
tively appear that her legal righto were
in any manner injured by tbia ruling of
the Court as to the form of the verdict.
It appears that evidence was admitted
ou the trial without objection; that the
defendant had sold the bricks at a
higher price than she paid for them. —
After the charge to the jury, the defen
dant's counsel orally requested the Court
to charge them; that a Halejof the bricks
at a higher price than the defendant pnid
tor them coaid not influence them iu
finding a verdict, which request the Court
refused. It is not by any means curtain
that it would have been proper for the
Court to have expressed an opinion in
regard to tlie evidence admitted before
the j’ury without objection; that it could
not influence their verdict. If tho de
fendant had desired to have got rid of
that evidenco before tbe jury, the projrer
manner to do so would have been to move
the Court to rule it out when it was given
in, and not to liuve admitted it without
objection, and then request the Court to
charge the jury that they could not con
sider thst evidence. For if the charge
had been given m requested, and the
jury had found a verdict for the defen
dant, the plaintiff might have complaiu-
od that tlie Coart had invaded the pro
visions of the jnry by instructing them
not to consider evidence which was be
fore them without objection. The Court
was bound to oonaider the rights of
the plaintiffs os well as those of
the defendant, in charging the jury
in relation to evidences before them.—
But the charge of tbe Court, as given to
the jury, excluded from their considera
tion any oth.r price for tho bricks thun
the contract prioe. Tbe Court charged
the jury “If it should apjieor to you
from the testimony that the plaintiff sold
and agreed to deliver to defendant a kiln
of brick, to be taken at kiln account,
and at a specific price a thousand, then
plaintiffs would be entitled to reoover, if
the brick were delivered, whatever the
bricks amounted to at kiln count, at the
oontract price. If the testimony should
satisfy yon that the plaintiffs sold and
agreed to deliver to defendant brick at au
agreed price Jier thousand, and that on
that contract they delivered brick, then
you will find for jiluiutiffs tbo value of
the brick so delivered at tliat contract
jirice.” Wo find no error iu this record
which will authorize this Court to inter
fere witli the discretion of tho Court be
low, in overruling the motion for u new
trial in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Gartrell and Juekqou, for plaintiffs;
Tidwell, Fears and Arnold, for defend
ants.
CAVI1VG I V OP A BTOMC WALL.
A Negro Bat Dtmollshrd.
Near the Railroad crossing, on Peters
Street, lias been erected a stone wall by
tlie city, some twclvo or fifteen feet high,
for the purpose of raising the street at
that point, and jirotecting the adjauent
projierty. Between this wall and the
railroad embankment is formed a ravine
which is filled with small shanties. For
several days it lias been noticed that this
wall was leaning from the dirt, and had
bnlged some two or three feet from its
original jKisition. Duriug the heavy rain
of Monday night, it fell with a terrible
crash, completely burying under it one
of tbe shanties. There were eeveral ne
groes iu the house nt the time, and a man
and u child were eonsi derubly burned.
Ijocnl 011(1 Ituslnesn Notices.
■A. W. B. Moses, at the Kimball
Honse, always bus The Bln for sale.
IQu Messrs. Fcrrington & Quigley, at
the Post Office Stand, successors toGrion
Dozier, keep The Srv for sale.
I&. 1,000 Old Papers for sale in quan
tities to suit purchasers, at the
tf Son Office.
B@i. Peck, deSaullea tc Co. have re
ceived their entire stock of fall goods.
They have made more a sjiecialty of dress
goods than ever before. 4t.
Mr* Peck, deSaulles & Co. have re
ceived a new assortment of Valeneienne
lace edges and insertions of all widtlis.
4ti
Popular iamilp 6t«ing Alatljttuc
*25.00 Save* 1
*25.00 Save4!
TUB UcCALLA ivvevtigatiov.
Vise rroserutfton PiMlpeae* ami Virtu
ally Abandons Ihe Case.
The Court met yesterday morning to
proceed with the investigation of the
olmrges made against Maj. C. P. Mc-
Colla. Hon. B. H. Hill appeared ns
counsel with CoL Farrow in the prose
cution, but the case was not proceeded
with. M-. Hill rose and proposed a post
ponement of tho examination to some
indefinite time—giving Maj. McCalla
full opportunity to rnako out an exhibit
of bis account—remarking that he might
be iunoceut, and he hud no wish to pros
cento one who was not guilty: where,
upon Msj. Hargrove, for tho defense
arose and said that the proposition was
acceptable, coming as it did, from the
prosecution, and further remarked that
he and his client were ready at any mo
ment to give an account of all the money
tliat had ever come into Maj. McCalla’s
hands Being thus agreed to, tho ioves
tigation was jiostponed indefinitely.
We think it likely tliat this is the hist
of any prosecution of McCalla, and that
this suspension of proceedings is a vir
tual" abandonment of the ease, and we
shall never more hear tell of it
This abandonment of tbe prosecution
has turned all tbe tide of pnblic opinion,
which seemed to have set in against him,
vary strongly in his favor. The publio
are seeing tho correctness of tho jioiuts
raised by us in our Monday’s issue:
That he wonld not liavo procured tlie
arrests of those against whom he has
preferred such serious charges, if he him
self were guilty:
That it was not only not liix duty to
mnkennyentriesiu the Treasurer's books,
bnt his imperative duty not to make such
entries.
And that tho fact of no entries what
ever having been made on tho books
the very highest evidence of liis having
intended to do right.
These points seen to be visibly im
pressed on the publio mind, and every
body, nearly, expresses tho fullest confi
dence in his integrity. This is tho drift
ot public opinion now.
Fulton Lodge, No, 216, F. A. M., will
meet on Thursday night at tho Masonio
Hall. Brethren generally are invited to
attend.
M(“‘ Peok, deHaullos A Co. have a fins
stock of Valeneienne, Point Applique and
real point lace collars, at moderate jirices.
4t
MV Peck, deSaulles & Co. call par
ticular attention to their stock of black
silks, as being tbe cheapest and beet as
serted ever brongbt to Atlanta by them.
4t
D69u Peek, deHanlbs A Co. have a very
largo stock of linen collars and cuffs, lin-
eu suts, uudcrslccvcH, chemisettes, etc.
all of tlie latest style and neatest design.
4t.
IMju Peek, dcHaulies A Co. have ladies
cloth of several colors and qualities, as
ns well as cashmeres—suitable for ladies'
jackets. sepl8 -It.
II. Witt A Co., on Line street,
opposite Thus. M. Clark A Co., uro re
ceiving consignments daily, of appleH,
cabbages, chickens, butter, and country
produce generally. Tlioy do strictly a
commission bu&iucs*.
H. II. Witt & Co. arc proprietors of
tlie Air-Line Express. Office at their store
on Lino street.
sepl2-6t
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.
Regular Order of Business.—Cases yet
to be Decided.
10. Tallapoosa 5
IS. Atlanta 33
12. Romo 12
13. Cherokee 18
14. Northern 5
15. Augusta 10
16. Middle 1
17. Ocmolgee 5
18. Eastern 6
19. Brunswick 5
September 6—tf
Tftc MatImU.
Yesterday busino&s was quite brisk,
and the trading oUm worotrades. TUor«
is no material change to quote in our ro
l>orts. Tho stocks are splendid nnd in
creasing every day.
Cotton is worth 18]. Very little com
ing in.
Elder J. 8. Lamar, of Augusta, trill
preach in the Christian Church, on Hun
ter street, to-night. He arrived in tlie
oity last evening, and is stopping with
Col. Jam vs Atkins, in Went End.
Coppege, who shot at officer O'Shields,
Monday night, haa been bound over by
Judge Butt.
0«r St. Ual* Letter.
We specially invite the attention of
our readers to the very able letter of our
Saint Louis corrosjwndcut He |>rosents
a very lurid and forcible view of tbe real
tendencies sail designs of tlis New Dc-
jiartnre leaders.
We congratulate our readers ujxm the
si tensive end able corps of oorres-
jsjuJents which The Scn has secured.
Nougat do Marseilles, at Block's
Candy Factory, jy29-tf
igk. Nougat do Marseilles, at Block’s
Candy Factory. jy29-tf
I®- Wesley Chai el at Auction.—We
learn that the old Wesley Chapel build
ing will be sold at auction by Messrs.
Bell & Hammock ou Saturday next, the
16tli instant, nt 10 o’clock, on tbe prem
ises. sepll-tf
B@U Offices to Rent.—One room on
2d floor; also a portion of the office, in
cluding ono window on the first floor—in
The Sun Building, on Broad street.
Apply to J. Henly Smith,
tf. Sun Office.
PRICES AND TEEMS OF .
WILHON SHUTTLE
Sewing Maohines.
UaORRFKKn MKTT CASH. $10 YS MO. $5 FI MO.
Mo. 5, ruin Table $ 46 $ 55 $00.
Mo. 0, half-ease, pin hr 50 oo os.
Mo. 7. do . fan'jr 50 06 70.
Mo. 7, Folding cover TO 80
Ma. 8. Full Cabinet, 100 m
Mo. 8, Folding Cover, 130
WARRANTED FIVE YEARS BY
WILSON SEWING MACHINE CO
to be found In anjr Underfeed £
ae durable, made of aa good material m any aaexum
in tho world, and that it will do aa eUgant work.
W. H. GRIFFIN. Gen. Agent,
92 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Ua.
II O W'E’S
Lock - Stitch Sewing
MAOHINES
A re world renowned for durability
and simplicity of machinery, the perfection ot
tho tensions, and tbe unparalleled wide range of
work they arc capable of performing without change
or re-adjustment.
At tbe Groat
Exposition Universalle
waa clearly ahown by the unprecedented aale of the
Howe Sewing Machine
during the peat yaar, being far in exoeea of thoec of
any other one patent
More than ONE THOUSAND <* theae ex
cellent machines are in daily uae In Georgia, and of
thia very large number a single case of dtaaatiafac-
tiou caauot be found. They make the
‘Howe, or Lock-Stitch’
“ Alexander H. Stephens on ter
Study of the Law."—A 16 page pam
phlet—one of the profoundcat of Mr.
Stephens’ many productions. Single
copy 16 cents ; GO cojiies $5.
Address J. Henly Smith,
Manager Sun Office,
Hept4-t( Atlanta, Ga.
To Oar City Safcartlb.r..
Wo have boon revising onr city list.
Perhaps some errors havo occurred in it
If any ono entitled to Thr Sun fails to
receivo it, we will tako it as a favor to be
informed. tf
Secretary's Officb, Atlanta Aoai-
CULTUBAL AND INDUSTRIAL Ahs’n,
Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 16, 1871.
Kditnrn Sun: Tbs elan so in tlie pub
lished regulations in our jiremiuni list
relativo to entries reads, “ For articles
completing for jireminnis each $2 00.”
The pnblie will jiiesse notice that the
following is the proper construction of
the abovo clause:
In either department $2 00 pays for as
many entries as the exhibitor may wish
to make. But $2 00 entitles the exhibi
tor to comjMte for jweminms in one class
only.
To illustrate: Any one j laying to ex.
hibit in the department of live stook
wonld pay $2 00 additional to eater an
article for a premium in the department
of Manufactured artirleo. Very rcapeot-
fully Sam’l A. Echols, Secretary.
A Fmi-OAcc K.tabli.kcS at Itorvrau.
Atlanta Post-Office, 1
Atlanta, Oa., 9 Sept,, 1871. f
EdiUirt Sun .- Please announce that
the Jiapera necessary to establish ■ post-
office at Norcrofia lwvo lieon perfected,
and that a daily mail for that place will
dose at this office at 2 o’dock r. a.
U James L. Dinning, P. Jf.
Unclaimed Freight.
chines thst make this beautiful stitch to perfection.
Tho office has been recently established at the
corner of Broad and Alabama streets. If you are
prejudiced In tevor of any particular machine, at
least examine the Howe before you purchase. Re
member that Mr. Howe was the original inventor of
the Sewing Machine, and gave twenty years of his
life to perfecting this machine.
Ever)- Howe Machine Is
Warranted for 3 Tears
c by tho Company, and is kept always in
ty of plain and ornamental sewing.
An efficient lady operator will bo in constant at
tendance at the office. «.
The sale of Howe Machines in 1A7». was larger th«u
tliat of any other Machino, as follows;
Genuine Elias Howe f.VlM
Genuine Binger If.Hfti
Genuine Wheeler A WUson 68,‘JUb
The Howe Machine Oo
<Jt>v. Urgad .V Alabama Mts.
NKX.T DCM in BUN cynic
AGENTN WANTED
IN EVERY TOWN AND COUNTY TUBOUGUOUT
Notice to Contractors.
T hr followuw cw.ci.ua win i*«*ut
Auction, It mot caLcd fur within thirty days, by
Consignees :
J ****“«*: Diamond. A., 4 boxes tobac-
j; IN»tUa A Bro , 6 boxes c.« r; U. A. Alston, 1 box;
• 1 box; T. Allen. 1 has beans; John L.
Conley. 2 boxes; James Freeman, 1 bedstead; R. L.
hu iT7* 1 Henry A Co.. 2 bbis. liquor
and 1 box; J. Joues. 1 package 1 cddlng;F. M. Rich.
fcfcynnd A * torse, r. Thomas, 1 box; Wm
WocA Yractes- l Mi.
tb. A. WARMER, Agent.
— at 12 o'clock,
M., for building a ^
POLICE 8TATION HOUSE AND
CITY OliTOEK,
Arcordiiu lo pltnii ud nwcfBc.ll.rti. Libcw-orol lire
o«c« o< Parkin. A .Mien, liming) Home. Tire nr'l'l
to receive or reject any and all bids reserved by tli-
C‘ty. C. I*. CAB81N,
Chairman Building romniittee.
SOpt5-121 At office of Parkins * Allen.
NOTICE.
navaNIIaii, UA.. AB|
rpmg Company having exUudsd
f, river, is now prepared to reoei
of freight on its car* direct from the whaif for t
portation to the interior.
PeraooM desiring to avail themselves of th s direct
mode of sblpatent, should Uavs expressed on their
bills of lading tl>at their consignment* shall be 1* 1: ‘
ded at the CENTRAL RAILROAD WHARF
By the Ut of November it is expected that a la*ge
•■bed will be completed for tbe protection of salt, gu-
sno, and other heavy articles of freight, which par-
Ran may doairu to have stored for future shipment,
J.V. WARING.
[7 2m Forwarding Agent