Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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