Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2. THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN- THE DAILY SUN Wednesday Mousing. August 2. Politics in West Virginia. The following is an address to the voters of this State, in the pending canvass, to strike the word “white / ont of their Constitution upon the matter of suffrage. It clearly indi cates what are constituting “living is sues” there: You are soon to be called to the polls, to decide a question far more important than the election of any officer, whose tenure is but for a few years, and whose acts, however repre hensible they may be, you have al ways hitherto had it in your power to revoke. The question at issue, stripped of all disguises, is, whether or not yon will keep this power in your own hands. Will you submit to any tampering with the right of suffrage on the part of your public servants, or will you decide now it shall be exercised and by whom? And if yon determine to retain this power, will you share it with the negro? Put the question in this way, and your answer is not uncer tain—from peak to peak your native •hills would echo and re-echo the thunder of your No! But the ene mies of our race and country dare not put in so plainly. They tell you that the word “white” which you are asked to strike out of your Constitu tion is already a nullity—a meaning less blot, on its pages. They tell you that the “issue is dead,” that ne gro suffrage is “a fixed fact,” hoping to conceal from, you the great import ance of your action in the matter, and and to persnade you that ft is a mere formality, while the truth is, that by voting for this measure, you assume the whole responsibility of negro suffrage, and do' actually : ‘fx” the “fact” forever within your State, irrespective of all p&st legislation, State or .Federal. No wrong is a “fixed fact” so Ion" as a free people determine to remain free. Had your ancestors, who achieved for you" the priceless heritage of free government, reasoned as do the advocates of this amendment, you would still be the oppressed subjects of kingly power. Do you love iiberty less than they ? Are you* prepared to surrender this dearly bought right of self-govern ment at the first assault of its ene mies? Will yon let them lead you, /blindfold and submissive, to your .own and your country’s ruin ? Open your eyes, we beseech you, before it bo too late! If the spirit of your fathers still survives, if the pride of race be not dead, we implore you to j>ause and reflect, before you take the fatal stop» You are now asked to ehdofsS the . “Flick Amendment,” which is the immediate offspring of that most daring and shamless violation of the Federal Constitution, the so-called “Fifteenth Amendment.” The Con gress which proposed, and the Legis lature which presumed to ratify this measure, are guilty of the most fla grant usurpation, and the people who will tamely submit to it, must al ready be npe for slavery. . A written constitution constitutes the principal difference between a free and a despotic government.' It is the supreme law of the land, binding upon people and legislators alike. Enactments not mado in conformity to it are not laws. If the people in fringe this fundamental law, they open the gates to anarchy; if they permit their legislators to infringe it, they invite and welcome tyranny. It is the wall of defense against the sel fish ambition of the few, on the one hand, and the unbridled passions of the multitude and the hour on the other. The importance then, of most jealously guarding against every branch of it cannot be exaggerated. By the Federal Constitution, the people of the several States delegated part of their inherent and sovereign rights to a government which they thereby instituted, expressively re- ' serving to themselves, in the follow ing carefully chosen words, a t.t. POWERS NOT SO DETEGATED: “All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro hibited by it to the States, are re served to THE STATES RESPECTIVELY or to the people.” The highest of all rights to a free people is that of suffrage, with all that pertains to it. It lies at the foundation of all. Re* sign it, or allow any violation of it, and the Republic falls at once. From beginning to end the Federal Consti- stution contains no word allowing Congress any power whatever to reg ulate or control the right of suffrage in the States. It is not only one, but the first and grertest of those rights, which, never having been part ed with, still remains exclusively with the people of the States. It is true the Constitution provides that amendments may be made to it, and prescribes the manner in which Congress may propose and the States ratify them." But by such amend ment as may become part of the Con stitution upon their ratification by three-fourths of the States;, are not meant such radical changes in Die form of government as would take re served rights from the people of the States. The powers delegated are not grants from the Federal Government to the people, but from the people of the several States to the Government; consequently all further assumption of power by the Government, in any way, is a usurpation to which the peo ple must never submit, and by which they can never be bound, except by their own consent. All powers not I rights of the people of the States, delegated to the Federal Government and of resistance to tyrants and usur- nor prohibited to the States or the pers. “Emblazoned with such pnn- people thereof, remain with the peo- ciples the true men of the State and pie of the several States, and are in- of thedand will bear it violable. Each State remains abso- again to.the.rescue>of the lute master of all its reserved powers, the hands of its internal foes Show The right of deciding who shall and these men-that such treason as thens who shall not vote il one which «o shall not go unpunished. Kqpnch- Congrc3s, however perfectly organ- ate their leadership, Let gem see ized—however complete, can claim, | that yoirn principles are not to besold ^ ti^opfe ofWsSe, either and that our late victory meant free- directly at the 1 polls or by a conven- dom over wrong and oppression, and tion invested with power to declare not their elevation to office, their will, expressly delegate such If there be a Republican who cares new power. Let them give even a nothing for the Republic, let him tacit consent to so bold and unwar- vote for the Flick amendment. If ranted an assumption of authority as there be a Democrat who is tired of this so-called Fifteenth Amendment, self-government and longs tor an and where will you place the limit to ebony master, let him vote to strike the encroachments of the central gov- out the word white. If there be a eminent? The power that gives can disfranchised citizen meon enough to take away. If the Federal Govern- covet power at the expense of his ment has a right to interfere at all in country’s freedom and anxious to this matter—if it can say who shall crawl to the polls in the protecting vote—it can also say who shall not.— shadow of the negro, let him lend his There needs but another step to influence to the support of this infa- change our institutions and give us a mous measure. But let true men king.*" The article which provides for everywhere vote it down, amendments closes with these words: * * " “Provided, that no State, without its " ,,at Grant Costs tlie People. consent, shall be deprived of its equal The following is a simple but compre- suffrage .in the senate. How then heusive statement of wliat it costs to keep could this power of proposing amend- up the White House for the year ending ments be claimed by that miserable June 30th, taking the Congressional Globe fragment of a Congress which ex- for authority. When the'professions of eluded the representatives of ten I economy that the Radicals glory in, are sovereign States, and presumed to considered the following list of items is ern them while denying them a j the nninit i a ted, however, will be abated voice in the National Legislature. in a measure, when informed that these the very grievance which-, more I items are made sufficiently large to cover than all others, was the cause of that the bills for marketing, carriages, stable revolution to which we owe our na- expenses, a tonsor and a variety of other tional existence. items which Grant's predecessors were All that has been said of the fraud- considerate enough to pay out of their ulent and unconstitutional character $-^,000 per annum. Our Ee- « , i . i I publican court is pretty expensive, but it of the 15 th Amendment m its L a mere trifle compared with the larger passage by Congress is fequally true leaks through which the public money is of its pretended ratification by the constantly escaping. Here is the resume: States. You, the people of West Vir- Salary Private Secretary, It. Douglas $2,000 ginia, have never given your assent to that act of revolution. Your Legisla ture was not authorized by you to do so. You alone have the right to say who shall vote within your State. If you should declare, as you now do in your Constitution, that none hut white male citizens shall vote within your borders, ho power on earth has the constitutional right to gainsay it. Your Legislature, can do nothing of the kind. Its so called ratification of | the “15th Amendment” is unconsti tutional and void. It and not the L... ,„ . . . rnnn word “ white is a utun^. If every Lamplighters. :. ......* 1,000 State Legislature but one, should as- |^. r . e . r . s .° n . sidewalks.... sume to ratify such a measure, all to- Manure and hauling.".\\\\” 3^000 gether could not control the one ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 1 s;SSo State refusing to ratify. Such action strips the dissenting State of one of its reserved rights and establishes a precedent by which a minority of the States is entirely at the mercy of Assistant Private Secretary, J. T. Ely 2,500 Executive Clerk, L. P. Suckley 1,800 Executive Clerk, O. C. Sniffin 1,SOO Detailed Clerk, W. H. Crook 1,G00 Detailed Clerk, W. H. Fry l.COO Military Secretary, Major and Brevet Brig. Gen. Horace Porter 2,750 Military Secretary, Major and Brevet Brig. Gen. O. E. Babcock 2,750 Adam Badeau 2,200 Military Secretary, *Brig. Gen. F. T. Dent... 3.6C0 Steward....... 2,000 Messenger..: 810 Furnace Keeper 720 Policeman... 1,320 Watcliman... 900 Doorkceper-in-chief 1,000 Assistant doorkeeper COO Secretary to sign land patents, N. G. Broods 1,500 Plants, etc., for greenhouse 5,000 Annual appropriations for fitting np and re furnishing '. 25,000 Additional do. 30,000 three-fourths, should the majority \\ he President receives desire a complete change In tlieform I Total $132,800 Add to this the 325,000 a year which ‘ we jJHHpHdjHppiH. „ P , tj. i - ire .. . i as the cost of maintaining President of government, It also nullifies that I Grant in the White House. We fail to clause in the Constitution which de- see in this either Radical economy or clares that all powers not delegated Republican simplicity.—Saratoga Times; are reserved, and opens wide the door July 27. to misconstruction andltho most dan- The Alabama and Chattanooga gerous abuse of power by the Federal | Railroad. Government. But for what purpose has all this I We lay before our readers the fol- outrage been perpetrated upon the lowing dispatches relating to the States ? What is the excuse for I above road, and the measures of the trampling the Constitution and the | Governor to take possession of it, as rights ot the States in the dnst ? I he proposes to do, under the laws.— Was it to procure some extraordinary The first dispatch is from Mr. D. N. benefit which could be obtained Stanton to Governor Lindsay, dated only at such an immense sacrifice ? the 27th of July: Or was it to relieve us from some great New Yobk, July 27. and imminent danger ? No, it was Our property has been seized in the to bind the white race and loose the I mglit byarmed paen and run off into negro, to place an ignorant and half- civilized people in the position of co another State. Will you protect the road and property of this company from -n4Vk' „ ~ „ , ., | being seized, interfered with or des- ■ ^ * . 1 14.^° U -vT7 S -vi^ mi k troyed by persons in the State of Ala- qtuetly to such an insult. Will you bama, in such manner that it can be run by voting ior the -flick amendment, I with, safety by this company 7 Answer, seal with your own hands your own D. N. Stanton, dishonor ? If by endorsing at the Pres’t A. & C. R. R. polls the Flick amendment yon strike To this dispatch the Governor made out the word “white,” you are fully the folloging reply: committed by your own voluntary ac-\ n , r . Montqomeby, Jrdy 27, tion to negro suffrage and revolution N ' St ^ on \?u e A ‘ ? ?-, Eailr ° ad • .-i., ‘7*1 »..•£. ifr and property will be protected, and in . ^ °fft {? rms * and y our niutila- or der the better to accomplish this ob- teci constitution stands a monument ject, and to protect the interests of the of your folly and degradation, no (State and other parties concerned, I have matter what may be done hereafter proceeded in the name of the State and by either Congress or Legislature to under the laws authorizing me, to take retrace their steps. Your action" ini possessionof theroad u and appurtenan- this matter is no mere form. Those avmenrs mat a tew uavs ueiore i°HT tbe ado P^o n , receiring^Ir.D?N^Stanton’s^dispatch min re pudiate the Governor had commissioned Col. \ , s - emblazoned on the banner (jindrat, his private secretary, and ° Ur C T°n? splendid! Gen. James H. Clanton, to proceed to suc k the line of the road, and to take pos- w ^ w a « banne v session of it through the sheriffs of has lost nothing m the affections of tlie ctive counties of the State, true Democrats, when it is now seen 0n yes Srd ay Gov. Lindsay received floating triumphant in victory, least airoiehes both from Gen. Clanton M CoL Gindrat, stating definitely , that the road was in their hands from Tell them that “victory is the signal Meridian Mississippi, to AttaUa near not for retreat, but for renewed on- the Ge w ' sets, each more vigorous that thelast, j between AtHlln ™iPnh until the forces of usm T ation be driven from their last refuge. Un- 5? ' ^ the der the inspiration of success true I G ^ a ^* Dow this can he men become as bold as they are true.” ] - , 0 , e ^ 1 , 0 ~ i Proceedingsunless But a Democratic (?) Legislature ir + e Y0 ^ n ^ a 1 1 ^ smrcnderea, we do has become wet-nurse to this Radical ^°- clearly perceive. - At any rate bastard! A few self-styled leaders of £ £ - a J, £ omething should be Democracy have betrayed the men ofi e d m order the whose votes raised them to power bv t}* S j secure tIie advantage of surrendering in the very hour of vie- . de and travel contemplated by her tory the principles in defense ofwhmh 1 ^ liberally aiding the construction the battle was fought. No sooner 0t thls T0 ^—^ on igomerg Adverti was our triumphant flag intrusted to Ser ' b f trailed it in the John Yan Buren was dining iu bw' mean by cal " Downing’s, saloon having just cleared Democrats would a man from some charge in the court, ??° ne el f to say. I when the complainant in the ease, If tiieir idea of Democracy be consis- angry at the lawyer who had beaten usurpation, they had much better go Prince John, over openly and at once to the enemy’s “ camp, for there and there alone, are SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. August 1st, 1871. Lochrane, C. J.. absent. Emanuel Murray vs. The State—Indict ment for Arson—No. 3, South Westenr Circuit McKAY, J. ■Where, on a trial for arson for theburn- ing of a gin house, there was proof that the prisoner had confessed his guilt, say ing that he had put fire to it at 1 o’clock at night, and there were no •corrobora ting circumstances to prove his gnilt ex cept that it was proven that the gin was burnt at about that hour, and that the defendant lived near. Held, That, under section 3739 of the Code, which provides that a confession alone, uncorroborated by other evidence, will not justify a conviction. This evi dence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of gnilty. Judgment reversed. Vason & Davis, G. W. Worwick, for plaintiffs in error; P. B. Hollies, Solicitor General, pro. tem., for State. Daniel Miller vs. Peter L. Albritton—Il legality—No. 13, South Western Cir- cnit. McKAY, J. Where judgment was had in the Supe rior Court, in September, 1868, on a promisory note, appearing to be for value received, and the affidavit of illegality was filed in 1870, setting up that the con sideration of the note was the hire of slaves. Held, That this ought to have been pleaded on the trial, and the illegality was properly overruled. Judgment confirmed. J. L. Wimberly, S. H. Hawkins, for plaintiffs; C. B. Wooten, for defendant. Randall Duckworth vs. Joseph Duck worth—Certiorari—No. 6, South Wes tern Circuit. McKAY, J. Where, on the trial of a possessory warrant, the property was awarded by the Magistrate to the plaintiff, on his giving the bond required by law; and some time after the judgment the Magistrate made a written order, reciting that the plaintiff had failed to give the bond, and that the defendant had given the bond, and that the property should he restored to him, which was accordingly done. Held, That it was not competent for the Magistrate, on his being informed that the plaintiff had not had an oppor tunity to give the bond, to direct the Sheriff to retake the property and turn it over to the plaintiff, on his giving the bond required, especially as this direction was by parol and without notice to the defendant. Judgment reversed. Hawkins & Guerry, for plaintiff. J. A. Ansley, for defendant. John Ontiaw, vs. N. G. Christy.—Certio rari, No. 8, S. W. Circuit. McKAY, J. Sections 3,981 and 3,982, of the Code, requiring petition for certiorari to be verified by oath, and that a bond shall be given for future cost and the eventual condemnation money, are not superseded by the Constitution of 1868, requiring certioraries to issue only on the sanction of the Judge. Judgment affirmed. Warwck, West, Yason & Davis for plaintiffr*C. B. Wooten, for defendant. John Doe, ex dem., F. K. Wright vs. Richard Roe, casual ejector, and N. A. Smith, tenant in possession.—Eject ment. No. 21,. S. W. Circuit. McKAY, J. Where A. made a deed to B. fora par cel of land, which was recorded in the proper office, but not within 12 months; and after the recording, A. made a sub sequent deed to C., C. having no actual notice of the first deed, and C. went into possession of the land and continued in possession more than seven years. Held, that the record of the deed to B. is no such notice as makes the deed to C, fraudulent, so as to defeat the deed to C, Judgment affirmed. C. T. Goode, for plaintiff; W. A. Haw kins, for defendant. these things to be found. The ban ner of Democracy is still unstained by them. It still bears upon its folds the glorious mottoes of free govern ment, of white government, °of the Could there be any man," said he, “so wicked, so mean, vile, who could possibly commit a crime so foul that yon wouldn’t de fend him for it?” “I don’t know,” said the prince, sucking another oys ter right from the shell; “what have yon been doing? Wm. Sirrine, adm’r, &c., vs. S. W. R. R. Co.—Suit on bond, made in 1857. Practice. No. 17, S. W. Circuit. McKAY, J. Where a suit was brought on the bond of a railroad official, dated in 1857; and it was alleged in the declaration that the bond had been broken by failure of the official to account for moneys received before and up to the time of his death, which took place in in 1868; and on the calling of the case, the defendant moved to dismiss the case, because an affidavit was not filed as to the payment of taxes. Held, it dees not appear that the debt 3ued on was contracted or implied before 1st June, 1865. Second—Where a case has gone to the jury anil the evidence being fully heard, and a demurrer is then made to the declaration on the ground that the cause of action is therein defectively set forth. Held, That the demurrer comes too late. Under such circumstances the de murrer must be for a cause which would be good in arrest of Judgment. Jndgment affirmed. Hawkins & Burke. C. T. Goode, for pl’ff; N. A. Smith, for deft. James W. WilkinBon,Ordinary of Leeco. vs. Clement A..Cheatham—Mandamus —No. 4, S. W. Circuit. " ' WARNER, J. This was an application fora mandamus to compel the Ordinary of Lee county to levy a tax upon the people of that county, to compensate the holder of two certificates for damage to town lots in the town of Webster, in consequence of the removal of the county site from the town of Webster to Starkville, in that county The court below awarded the mandamus requiring the levying of the tax, to which the Ordinary excepted. In 1856, the General Assembly passed an act to provide for the removal of the county site from Webster to Starkville and also to provide, in said act, for the appointment of three commissioners, to assets the damages sustained by the own ers of town lots in Webster, and, as soon as convenient thereafter, to give such owners certificates of such assessment of damages for loss sustained in consequence of such removal of the county site ; and that said certificate, having an endorse ment of the amount due, by a majority of the Justice’s of the Inferior Court, shall be paid by the treasurer of the connty, ont of the removal fund of said county, created by the act ; and author izing the Inferior Court of Lee county to levy a tax not exceeding fifty per cent, per annum on the State tax, to constitute a removal fund for the payment of said certificate. On the 31st Dec’r, 1869, Cheatham ob tained a mandamus nisi from the judge of the Superior Court, requiring the Or dinary of Lee county to show cause why he should not proceed to levy and have collected a tax sufficient to pay two cer tificates held by the petitioner, amount ing to $526, besides interest due there on. The mandamus nisi was filed in the Clerk’s office 14th Feb’y, 1870. On the trial of the case in the Court below, the petitioner exhibited in evidence two cer tificates specifying on the faces thereof the amounts due for the damages sus tained by the parties named therein in consequence of the removal from the town of Webster, under the act of the General Assembly, which were signed by the commissioners, and on the back of each certificate the names of three Jus tices of the Inferior Court were endorsed in their official capacity. One of the certificates was issued to the petitioner for damages done to his property; the other was issued to Waters for damages done to his property, which latter certif icate had been assigned and transferred by Waters to the petitioner. Upon the hearing of the case in the Court below, the mandamus nisi was made absolute, and the Ordinary was or dered to levy and collect a tax sufficient to satisfy the petitioner’s demand.— Whereupon the counsel for the Ordinary excepted on various grounds as set forth in the record. Held, That the act of the General As sembly authorizing the tax to be levied and collected, was a constitutional and valid act. Held, also, That mandamus was the proper remedy for the enforcement of the right accruing to the petitioner un der the statute of the State, which was not barred by the Statute, of Limitations until after the expiration of twenty years from the time of the assessment of dam ages by the commissioners under the act. Held, further, That the official signa tures of a majority of the Justices of the Inferior Court on the back of the Com missioner’s certificates, without more, was sufficient endorsement by them of the amount due as specified therein, accord ing to the true intent and meaning of the act. Held, also, That the assignment and transfer by Waters to petitioner vested his right and title thereto in his assignee, and he was entitled to be paid the amount due thereon, as well as the interest due on both certificates. Judgment affirmed. Lyon, de Graffenreid & Irwin; George W. Warwick, for plaintiff. O. B. Wooten for defendant. William H. Morgan, guardian, &c., vs. James P. West and Phillips West, prin cipals, and A. H. West, security—Suit on Administrator’s Bond. No. 15, Southwestern Circuit. WARNER, J. This was an action instituted on an ad ministrator’s bond against the principals and their securities, in the name of the Ordinary, for the use of the plaintiffs. The defendants demurred to the declara tion and the Court sustained the demur rer on the ground that a suit on the bond could not be maintained, thereon, until a suit had first been brought against the administrators, judgment obtained against them and a return of nulla bona. The plaintiffs made a motion to amend their declaration, which was overruled by the Court, to which the plaintiffs excep ted. Held, That under the 246Sth Section of the Code, a suit may be brought on the administrator’s bond without fir 31 ob taining a judgment against the adminis trators for a devastavit committed by by them and a return of nulla bona. Held, also, That the plaintiffs could have amended their declaration so as to require the defendants to account for the estate of Walker which came into their hands as his administrators, and for so much of the estate of the Jackson chil dren, which came into their hands as the administrators of Walker’s estate, if any; but only to that extent. Held, also, That the defendants were not liable on their bond for the waste by Walker, as the guardian of the Jackson children, in his lifetime, unless their property was wasted by him, or some part thereof came into the hands of the ad ministrators as a part of Walker’s estate. The administrators of Walker and their security are liable on their bond, to ac count to plaintiffs for the amount of their estate which came into their hands as part of Walker’s estate, if any, and no more. The liability of defendants on their bond as the administrators of Walk er and the liability of Walker as the guar dian of the Jackson children, are two dis tinct causes of action which conld not be joined in a suit on the administrators’ bond for an account as the estate of Walker which came into their hands as administrators on his estate. The ad ministrators of Walker are liable for any debt due by the intestate at the time of his death to the extent of the assets of his estate which came into their hands as his administrators iu a suit on their bond for the waste thereof by them as such admin istrators. Judgment reversed. Hawkins & Burke, A. A. Smith for plaintiffs. C. T. Goode and Phil Cook for defen dants. land, as an intruder, ike defendant a counter affidavit, and on the trial of case in the Superior Court, proved that Ambrose Barfield nurol the land in 1859, and took a i title thereto, and built a house on ii When Ambrose Barfield went to in 1863, he gave John Barfield’s wife ^ mission to occupy the house as she pleased; but she dia not oceunt ? and it remained unoccupied about a v ^ when Rushing Barfield’s wife wenti? 1 possession of it by permission of John Barfield. The defendant R: without a home, Mrs. Rushing BarfiJ from sympathy, allowed her to°coineint the house and occupy it with her unw when Mrs. T ' > - - ■ occupy some time in 1865, wl Barfield moved out and left theTeS ant remaining in it. eD ^' The defendant introduced no eviiW The jury found a verdict for the SB iff, and the court below granted an trial, to which the plaintiff excepted ^ Held, That the court below erred i granting a new trial in this case, on IV ground that there is no evidence in tl “ record, and that the defendant claim&i any legal right to the possession of tb land. e Judgment reversed. Hopkins & Guerry for plaintiff* x> Guerry for defendant. ’ * D ' Seymour, Johnson & Co., vs. M. Cobb; practice, No. 18, S w Circuit. '■ WARNER, J. Suit was. instituted by plaintiff against the defendants on an account, alkginc that defendants were partners, and in the progress of the trial evidence was admitted ' for and against tlie existence of the part nership, without objection, and on the arguing of the case before the jury, the point was made that no plea had been filed denying the partnership; whereupon the court allowed the defendants, at that stage of the case, to file his plea, under oath, denying the partnership. The l counsel of plaintiff claimed continuance ^ of the case, on the ground of surprise which was overruled by the court. The plaintiffs then offered to introduce wit nesses, then in court, to deny the truth of defendant’s plea, and to prove the ex istence of the partnership, as alleged in the declaration, which the court refused to allow them to do, whereupon the plaintiffs excepted, and also excepted to the admission in evidence of a written agreement to submit certain matters in controversy between the parties to arbi tration. ; Held, That the plaintiffs had a legal right to have requested the court to charge the jury, that if the defend ants were sued as partners, the partner ship need not be proved unless denied by the defendant on oath; when any such plea, denying the paatnerskip on • oath had been filed, held that when the court allowed that plea to be filed by the defendant, it materially altered and changed the legal status' of the case be fore the court and jury, so far as the defendant’s liabiliiy as a partner was con cerned, and if the plaintifis were not in the discretion of the court, entitled to a continuance, on the ground of surprise, they certainly were entitled to intro duce evidence then in court, to contro vert the defendant’s pleas, which evi dence was not necessary to be introduced to entitle the plaintiffs to recover, against the alleged partnership, until the plea was allowed to be filed by the court. Held Further, ’That the written agree ment to submit certain matter then in controversy between the parties, without more, was irrelevant and improperly ad mitted as evidence to the jury. Judgment reversed. N. A. Smith for plaintiff; G. T. Goode for defendant. P. N. Oliver vs. Shipley,. Roam & Co.— Practice, No. 10, S. W. Circuit. WARNER, J. The plaintiffs’ attorney asked leave of the Court to take a judgment in an action brought on an open account against the defendant, saying there was no plea filed. The Court replied that he could take his judgment at his own risk; that if there was a plea filed, judgment would be set aside. Whereupon a judgment was assigned by the presiding Judge, the defendant being in Court, inside of the bar, when the plaintiffs’ counsel was pre paring to take the judgment, and part of the time in consultation with him; and the next day the defendant, by his coun sel, made a motion to set the judgment aside on the ground that he had filed a plea of payment in the action, after the Who Can Answer 1 CiiAWFOKDVTLnE, Ga., July 31,1871. Eds. Sun: Will you, or some of your numerous readers, explain the following phenomena to me ? There is a gin fac- \ tory in this place, and upon a quiet day or at night when all sounds of business are at an end, a faint but distinct pop ping or cracking can be heard continual ly in all portions of the shop, or wherever i a new gin is sitting. This sound does not come from an old gin. Upon turn ing the breast, or cillinder, of one of these new gins which as been set aside for several days or weeks, this cracking becomes a loud popping sound. “The qestion before the house” is “What is the cause of this sound ?” My own opinion is that it is caused by currents of elec tricity; but if so, why not the same in the old as well as the new gin ? Perhaps J some of ye college boys can explain the t difficulty satisfactorily. Yours, &c., ■ Mekicum. We have a satisfactory solution of the above mystery which we purpose giving in due time. We prefer, however, hear ing first from some of our scientific gentle men upon the subject. We have heard no theory advanced upon the subject,, The one we have is peculiarly our own, j and we hold it to be a good one, still, if jl it be that we are iu error, we will be ^ pleased to be set right. Let us hear from some of our scholars relative to this mystery. *-•-« 1 A Fast Type-Setter. A well-authenticated instance of --- type-setting was recently related to us by Mr. John F. Babcock, of tlie-New Bruns-• wick (N. J.) Fredonian. Whilst speak ing of the late international match, Babcock stated that Mr. Robert Bonner, of the New York Ledger, had perform^ the greatest feat in that lino he evei heard of ; that in the old American publican office, in New* York city, in tc ®. year 1845 or 1846, he set 32,997 ems solid Minion reprint, 25 ems wide, in ** consecutive hours, commencing o’clock noon of one day, • and working through until 12 o’clock noon of the tor lowing day; that Mr. Bonner had taken, for*a wager, to set 33,000 ems E judgment had been signed, but did not , _ ... . _ H shite when or how the payment had been khe time named, and came within made. The Court refused the motion to ! ems of winning it, which so satisfied set aside the judgment, and the defend- opponents in the wager that it was cbee* - ant excepted. _ fully surrendered to him. Mr. Baoco> Held, That, under the statement of himself was one cf the judges in this tru- and tkerefpre speaks from his own P tV ial knowledge. We think 1,375 ma under the statement of facts disclosed by the record, there was no error in the conrt below in refusing the motion to set aside the judgment. Judgment affirmed. Hawkins & Burke and N. A. Smith for plaintiff; C. T. Goode for defendants. Martha F. Turner vs. Penelope Barfield— Intruders Act. No. 7, S. W. Circuit. WARNER, J. When a warrant was sued out by plaiu- tifi to remove the defendant from her an hour, for twenty-four hours in succ sion, on solid matter, is pretty fast wor what say the rushers?—Printers Wf 6 Ucr. The Middle Georgian says, tbc % cott<£ crop has been injured twenty-five P*j cent, within the last week, by ik'° u S ., Corn is be>ng burnt up as rapidly as \ have ever known any crop to be i°J lir