Newspaper Page Text
Ifhe dmly «pn.
Wednesday MoBHisg August 16.
STATE
ROAD 1’liUXDERI.VGS.
knowing what
■were made for.
they may not.
ly understood
ijTrlt of Ilev. If. P. IIotcliki-;s, 1 nte Au
ditor of tlic Road.
Preliminary Examination before Judge
Butt*.
these heavy payments
They may be right, and
It seems to be common-
( _ that he, like Hotch-
| kiss, was poor when he first entered the
I service of the Road ; now he is a banker
i * n city, and regarded as quite
I wealtb J- Here is the list—the dates and
amounts only being given :
January No. 7 warrantpaid
the ATLANTA WEEKLY
SUN.
February
Alton nil ing Developments of Kaicality. j
Money Refunded.
Night before last Rev. N. P. Hotchkiss,
lite Auditor of the State Road, was ar
rested on a warrant issued at the instance
0 { Hr. McCalla, principal book-keeper of
tlic State Road, who has been assisting
ju the wol'k of ferreting out and exposing
the rascality which has. so long been go
ing on. Yesterday he was brought be
fore Judge Butts for a preliminary exam
ination, which was not concluded last
evening, and will he continued to-day.
This examination will probably Last for
several days, as we think it likely that he
rrill yet be arrested on several other war
rants, cliarging distinct frauds upon the
State at several times.
If we have been rightly informed the
charge is that he has audited, or procured
the auditing and payment of unjust or
fraudulent bills against the State Road,
the proceeds of which he shared or
pocketed.
As illustrative of the beauties of Radi
cal integrity, we may state that Hotch
kiss came here from Walton county, at
the beginning of Bullock’s administra
tion, when the old faithful officers were
turned out, and the hungry cormorants
with nothing but Radical proclivities,
(these proclivities are significant—as uner
ringly lending to peculation as a flesh fly
is to detect taint) to recommend them.—
Hotchkiss was a rampant Radical and got
himself snugly ensconced in a berth affor
ding fine opportunities for pickings upon
the State Road carcass, while the crowd
of Radical jackals all around him were
savagely plunging their teeth and claws
and gnawing into the vitals of the body.
He was worth but little in the way of
property—perhaps nothing, or worse
than nothing. We have been told
that he had just passed through
bankruptcy. Now he owns a number of
houses and a large amount of valuable
property in this city, from the rental of
which he is deriving a handsome income.
It is impossible for him to have made all
this out of his salary as Auditor, and sup
port his family.
During tho investigation yesterday,
which took a wide range, the merchant
alluded to by us as having been arrested
at the instance of Foster Blodgett, was in
iu the court room, and his testimony
taken. He openly and manfully ad
mitted the pait he had acted in the mat
ter—very much to his credit after what
he had done, and every one of the vast
throng present was moved with pity
rather *than indignation. It appeared
that long ago he had endeavored to re
store the money to the State which he
had wrongfully obtained, and though the
restitution had not actually been con
summated, yet it was virtually done, as
it was set aside and held ready for that
purpose by him, and kept in his hands
only by the advice of those who have
been trying to bring all things to light.
Yesterday in the conrt room he paid over
to the proper officer about 84,000—re
storing accurately every cent he had ob
tained, taking a receipt for the same.—
His testimony explains itself.
It had been arranged that about $35,-
000 of tho funds thus appropriated was
to be restored yesterday, the $4,000 above
alluded to being apart of it. The unex
pected arrest of Fry and his escape with
the bulk of this amount has prevented
the restoration of any except the $4,000.
We understand that Foster Blodgett
will have a Card in one of the city pa
pers this morning in vindication of him
self, asserting his innocence, &c. We
will not try lo pre-judge his case, or de
cide upon his guilt or innocence before
trial, but we imagine it wiU require much
stronger and more positive proof than
any man can produce, to convince our
people that he knew nothing of the pec
ulations which were going on, when he
was failing to pay over to the State Treas
ury fifty or sixty thousand dollars every
month, which he could easily have done,
and should have done.
From the evidence published in anoth
er column, the astounding fact appears
that the principal officers of the road
underBoUock andBlodgett have been kept
regularly in office on salaries ever since
the. road was placed in the hands of the
lessees. Why has Goy. BnUock done
this?
And why did he retain Foster Blodgett
and all the other officials in charge of the
State Road a single day after they failed
the first time to pay the surplus earnings
of the road into the Treasury? Did he
not know the money of the people of
Georgia was being appropriated? Was not
this misapplication of the public money
done with his sanction? Did he not
share a portion of it? All these thoughts
rise up iu the mind.
April «
May •
August *
October ■
Cl
November ‘
December *
48
71
8
72
0
29
82
1< 8
75
24
10
50
48
1
39
to receiving the $800. I
said what lie got it for.
O
O
don’t think he
I don’t know!
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
| The same principal is applicable when one man
| employs a laborer to work on bis farm, and any man
fcuch contract of employment,* who
I knowing
said he lilnl nothin^Vo /fn 1 A ‘ Esw80n vs. F. Cherrv M o t UmTose t a si d n I enti .S e . s ’^ li ri 8 . °E Persuades the laborer to leave the i
nn/lor- /.loir. g to d 1 With the Alex- , order of dismissal. ' n i ? er ' lcea bis first employer during time for wliicb 1
<uiuer Claim. . LOCHRANE, C. j. ! be was so employed, is liable to damages.
Upon an issue joined to ascertain whether the de- I Uttoingtb* 4 * W “
Examination.—I never offered !, . . -
to Settle with Alexander if Pr> vitnld mv (® n( lant was in possession ofland, for which the note, .
mo s:o iwi .-e i P*\- | the foundation of the suit was given, at the com- !
mencexnent of the suit. The death of one of the i
parties to the note. The suvivor being the one to I
e 000, nor if he would pay me a cer
tain sum of money. I cot none Don’t , -. , „ „„„
know that Blodeett o-nf . mx - wi if T '^P^stbe deed was made, would not exclude the
know is from hefrSv. S ‘ ■ Y l!pla - mtlff asawitness from «*-
MB. MCCALLA.
on orn This account (examining sev-
I - . .. ——jing iu tho case,
and it. was error in the court to refuse his evidence,
.a f .?* this case, we are of opinion
that defenc^ant had the posesaion of the law. either bj*
• I ******SQlf or his tenants and that the jury found against
Total $184,598 4G
We will only add that this list has
never before been published, though the
opportunity to do so has been offered to
one of our city cotemporaries.
Examination of X. P. Hotchkiss.
GEOEGE BUBNETT,
Sworn.—Examined by E. P. Howell —
Examine these bills.
. Witness These bills have been paid,
signed N. P. Hotchkiss, Auditor, $5,-
11 • 1 bad a conversation with Jndge
Hotchkiss about this or a similar bill, a
bill of the same amount that we spoke
about. The biH he spoke to me about
was paid to Alexander. I stated to Judge
Hotchkiss that Mr. Alexander had stated
that he (Judge Hotchkiss) had received a
portion of the money, I think $800. I
asked him if he would not see Alexander
about it. He said he would not; he
shonld not pay any attention to it. Dur
ing the conversation he said he had got
$800, and had given half of it to McCalla,
v>400 or half of it. I never talked much
to Alexander about it. The bill was be
tween four and five thousand doHars. I
think that is all that passed between us
at that time. I do not know that he
stated what ho received the money for.—
That conversation was about two months
ago. Nothing was said about the time
at which the money was paid. It was
some time previous to the conversation.
Mr. Hotchkiss acted as Auditor of the
State Road, during 1870, and previous. I
think that is his signature on that bill.—
He was acting as Auditor at that time. I
do not know if these articles have been
received by the road. I think this is
Hotchkiss’ name (on draft).
Cross-examined by Gen. Qartred.—I
think the conversation was about two
months ago. I was employed as General
Agent of the road. My business was to
look after such matters as I was directed
to do by my superior officers. If I saw
any thing necessary to be done I was to
see to it. I received a salary. I left the
road on the first of January after the road
was leased. The conversation I have
spoken of was at the Sasseen House,
about the 15th of June. McCalla was
not present at the conversation.
Question—How came you to talk about
this matter?
Ans.—I don’t remember how I came to
go to that room. Mr. Hotchkiss and
Mr. McCalla were in the room. I had
nothing to do with the matter.
Question—How came you to go there?
Ans.—I had heard about it from Mr.
Alexander, and Mr. Blodgett, and Mr.
Fry, and, probably, other parties. I do
not remember now why I went there.—
There were only myself and Mr. Hotch
kiss together when wo came down stairs.
I did not hear McCaUa say anything
about it. I have forgotten what conver
sation took place between McCalla and
Hotchkiss at that time. I don’t remem
ber anything else said by Hotchkiss at
that time.
I do not know how many accounts Al
exander had with the road. This [exam
ining a bill] is a bill for goods sold. Al
exander had only one account, but sever
al bills. At first I rather think he denied
receiving theSSOO. I don’tremember what
he did say, whether he actually denied it
or not. I asked him if he was not going
to look into it, and suggested the propri
ety of so doing, if he was innocent. He
had very little to say about it. That
was not the Post-office matter. That oc
curred afterward, when I mentioned to
him that something had been said about
liis collecting Post-office money. That
conversation was probably a week after
ward. Judge Hotchkiss wrote me a let-
er about that matter. I do not remem
ber all that Hotchkiss said in that con
versation. He wrote me a letter about a
week afterward, stating that I was mista
ken about the matter. The letter was
not mailed to me the next day after. It
was directed to the city of Atlanta.—
Hotchkiss resided at Marietta at that
time, and resides there now. I talked
with McCaUa that day. I mentioned to
him what Hotchkiss had stated to me.—
I do not remember whether it was the
next day or the day but one after that
McCalla wrote to Hotchkiss, and Hotch
kiss wrote to me. McCalla did not
deny receiving any money. Mc
Calla said that Hotchkiss had re
ceived money, and that he gave
receipt for it. McCalla said he knew
nothing about the Alexander account,
but supposed that the money which
Hotchkiss gave him was what he had col
lected on other transactions. I took my
meals at the Sasseen House at that time ;
Hotchkiss did not; McCaUa boarded
there.
Question.—Why did you go up there ?
A ns,—I was sent there to find out. I
am not certain which of the two I talked
to—Hotchkiss or McCalla.
Question.—Whom did yon teU about
this conversation ?
Ans.—I might have mentioned, it a few
days afterward to
A. L. HARRIS.
Question.—Who else ?
Ans.—Since that time I hawe talked
about it, I think, to
COL. BLODGETT,
and I don’t remember who else. My ob
ject was to have Hotchkiss set right. I
did not advise him. I had no other mo
tive. Hotchkiss is no relation of mine.
We were together on the railroad a long
time. Our conversation at the Sasseen
House was not about' tho post office
money. I have had no talk with McCalla
lately. I don’t know how I came to be
® In connection with this matter we here I summoned as a witness. McCaUa told
.. .. me yesterday he was going to have Hotch-
annex a list of the payments made to H. kiss J arrested. I went with McCaHa when
O. Hoyt during the past year. He was : the warrant was issued. It was about
in the employ of the Road, in some ca-1 half past eight o’clock last night when
we know not what. It wiU be * be warrant was issued.
i ;—- — -- ocv | 77—.w UHU k B i.uu luaiiuejuryfomul against
era! presented him by counsell was re-1 11- - < ! T l de ?. ce fining the contrary, ami the court
ported by me in tile iM&ahnnlr nf the ! erred m dismissing ihe case on the ground of the
~ ^ ,,,v : , passbook Of the , non payment of taxes under act Of October 13th
- ■* - ■ '1870. Judgment reversed.
Worrell Wimberly for plaintiff.
Beale and Gillis, for defendant.
Stale Green, et al, vs. state of Georgia.—Assault
and Batterv.
LOCHRANE, C.J.
. r * ,a not error in the conrt below to direct the
testimony to taken down, in a case where the law
does not require it. It is not error iu the Court
below to interrupt counsel who are misstating the
evidence to the jury, by reading from his notes, what
was sworn to on the trial. It is not error in tho
Court Vt hen requested bv the jury, to read over the
evidence, as to such points of facts as the jury in-
tl ’ no F is , f^'li action violatine cf section
of th e c?do which makes it error for anv Judge
of the Superior Courts of this State, in anv case,
dont “’ipng its progress, or iu his charge, to express or
intimate his ojJiniou as to what has or has not been
i F5^ Te .?‘ .Presenting tnith of the facts sworn
i° •“ c l UI y ls different from expressing an opinion
a8 to the fact proven. Judgment affirmed.
Wooten and Hoyle, for plaintiff
W. Harris and J A. Taylor for s’tate.
Kirtlanu, Babeockauu Bronvon vs. Martha Davis.
°C^f >mCStCai3, ai>1>ea * from °*rtin*ry.
Upon an appeal from tho judgment of an Ordinary
setting aparc a homestead of realty and personalty
thoST’fi 4 \ 3 e -FF° r tha cou . rt below to restrict
the juiy to find either for or against the homestead
"'b° 5e , ca ? e .comes up by the appeal,
and the Court should administer the lav,* with regard
to its terms and provisions. °
The act of 1809 applies to personalty, and tho wife in
making application for exemption of personalty, is
bound by the fraud or concealment perpetrated by
^ l f Sb f a ?c!’(i ail T r ? ust Perform the provisions of
the act of 1S69. Judgment reversed.
Hood & Kiddoo, lor plaintiffs.
Hubert Fielder, for defendant.
James W. Boon vs. H. L. Graves,, executor—Mo
tion for continuance.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where a motion for a continuance was made on the
ground of the impression and belief of the defendant
that no case3 under the relief acts would he tried, on
° f a general announcement of the Judge to
'n aut !, the ? ase - in fbe opinion of tho Court,
Provisions of the announce
ment of tha Judge to that effect; and the case, in the
Court, did not fall within the provis-
in t. ^ ann .° + UnCem ° nt - Ho1,1 it WOS not Cr-
uance ^ Coart t0 overm le the motion for a coutin-
011 a . 111:11 ofan i^ue to ascertain whether
°r was ,8iven for the purchase money
of land, it uas found affirmatively, and a motion
ter a ? cw trial to allow tho defendant to
set ofi k 1 ®.t aris i E g from losses sustained by
the war. Held that the finding of the jury places the
case withont the act of 1870, and the entitles under
toe act of 1868 must have been in some manner oc
casioned by too plaintiff, which does not apnear in
toe motion, and we affirm the judgment overruling
the same Judgment overruled. , °
Hubert Fielder lor plaintiff.
C. B. Woottn, for defendant.
r Scaifevs. E. H. Bell-Evidence.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
\\ here a note was given for an attorney’s fee, it is
not competent by part evidence to superadd new
agreements or conditions to such written contract.
Ihei note itself was the best evidence of what toe
contract was, and while a failure of consideration in
\v Jioi e , or part,m ay bo given in evidenco, new con-
ditions or agreements cannot. Judgment affirmed.
Moses & Downing for plaintiffs.
E. Beal for defendant.
KczziahFord vs. H. & C. B. Adams, administrator,
et al.—Suit on administator's bond.
LOCHRAN12, C. J[. ^
A bond was given by an administrator, bearing
datei January 9, 1865, without the attention of toe
Ordinary, but upon the minute of the Court of Ordi-
sanje date, appeared an order reciting
the fact that too administrator had given bond,
with good security, and he approved toe same as a
good bond. Held that under the Code of this State,
this bond being by such order of the Ordinary upon
toe minutes approved as a good bond, it was error
to reject it in evidence on the ground that it was
invalid, because of toe absence of such attestation.
Judgment reversed. v
Worrell for plaintiff.
M. Gillis, E. H. Beall for defendants.
LOCHrIS? J?' SmiUi &ead "-ell-ln Equity.
Where a trial is had in equity, and the jury re
turned their verdict, and a motion made for a new
ov 6wnled, and toe judgment brought to
this Court, and the judgment affirmed by operation
°£"V m the dismissal of the case, such judgment of
affirmance is conclusive upon all the parties as to the
merits, and the ground embraced in the motion for
a new trial, anil aiumni auhsanuouUT b© reviewed nr
reheard by toe Court. reviewed or
And where a bill was brought, asserting no new
grounds of equity, it was proper to dismiss toe sai> e
for want of equity.
The failure to enter toe decree at toe term the ver
dict was rendered, is no new ground for equitable
interference to set aside toe verdict; but it was ihe
duty of toe Court to enter such decree by an order
nunepio tunc. Judgment affirmed.
DeGraffenreid & Irvin for plaintiffs.
Wooten, Walker, Harx>er for defendants.
George O. Mercer vs. A. J. Mercer—Trover.
McKAY, J.
Where, in an action of trover it was in proof that
too property for which toe plaintiff sued, and to
which the plaintiff showed title, was at the house of
the defendant, though there was no proof of any
use of toe same by her. Held that this was some
evidence of possession by the defendant, and it was
error in toe Court to withdraw toe cause from the
jury and grant a nonsuit. Judgment reversed.
Thomas J. Jones, H. Fielder, for plaintiffs.
Richard Sims fer defendant.
?L ar FF U V8 1 H ‘ G- Eagan, Sheriff—Rule vs.
Sheriff, Homestead.
McKAY, J.
The crop made upon a rented place is subject to
the hen o. toe landlord for rent; and if toe same is
set apart under toe homestead act for exemption, it
is nevertheless subject to levy and sale upon a judg
ment for the rent, the claim for rent being in the
nature of th6 purchase money, toe Court below
ought to have directed an issue to be made up and
tried as to whether that was the truth of this case.
If it was, toe Sheriff washable for toe amount of toe
crop, notwithstanding toe exemption.
Judgment reversed.
Moses & Downing for plaintiff. J. L. Wimberly.
E. H. Beall for defendant. '
R. Garrett for use of Rawson, vs. A. Cordell et ah—
Relief Act of 1870.
McKAY, J.
The Act of 1870, requiring affidavit that all legal
taxes have been paid on toe claim sued, or suit shall
be dismissed, is not in conflict with that section of
the Constitution of the State which declares that
toe Court shall render judgment without the verdict
of a jury in all civil cases,’founded on contract, where
an issuable defence is not filed on oath.
WARNER, J.
I simply enter my dissent with the clerk, on toe
ground that that act violates toe Constitution of toe
United States.
H. Fielder, for plaintiff. E. L. Douglas, for defen
dant3.
C. M. Lowe vs. W. A. Rawson—Relief Act of 1S70.
McKAY, J.
State Road as “disbursement.” It is
presumed to have been paid. Was re
ceipted. I record them monthly, as
Judge Hotchkiss supplies them. I was
general book keeper of the Road, sup
plied these things to be recorded in tbe
passbook, and go to tbe credit of the
treasurer. I first got this from Hotch
kiss for the purpose of recording in the
passbook
AS SOMETHING ALREADY PAID OUT.
Hotchkiss’name was on it when I got
it. I entered it in the book. I dont
know that he ever told me that
THE ACCOUNT WAS BOGUS.
I have spoken to him about its being
bogus, and he never denied it. I mean
b y hogus that the goods were never snp-
plied to the Road. I had a conversation
with Hotchkiss in my room in the Sas
seen House. Showed him these papers
and told what I understood from other
parties. I said I understood it was bo
gus, and that
HOTCHKISS RECEIVED PART OF THE MONEY.
He'denied it to me just then and said he
knew nothing about it. Couldn’t recol
lect anything about it, and said many
things were done that he was not to
blame for. . He seemed disposed to shove
the responsibility of irregularities on oth
er people. He denied to me that he got
the $800 in my room at that time.
Once Hotchkiss brought to my office a
pile of passes and papers, which Tie wish
ed me to record as he read them over,
without me seeing the inside of the pa
pers at all. This excited my suspicion.
Finally he left them. This particular pa
per (the one in hand) is not one of that
particular batch. Hotchkiss and Burnett
were at the door. In the afternoon I
wrote to Hotchkiss in reference to re
ports. He answered. He never paid me
$400 out of these bills. He paid me $150
and $250 for which he holds my due bill.
I gave him credit on my regular cash ac
count for it. Had authority for so doing.
THE SALARIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT,
TREASURER AND SUPERVISOR TTAK BEEN GO
ING. ON SINCE THE LEASE.
SOME OF MY BOOKS HAVE BEEN ABSTRACTED.
The regular pass-book is abstracted. I
exercise control over it; don’t know who
took it; it disappeared this morning about
the time I was up here. When I came
out of the room I locked the case in which
it was. I left the room door open, as
there was a gentleman in. When I got back
the case was open and the book gone.—
Don’t know of my own knowledge
who got the money. I know of a settle
ment in which some was restored; it was
restored by Mr. Alexander. $3,950 was
the amount restored. A number of bills,
accompanied by a draft from Mr. Hotch
kiss for hardware from a New York firm,
was presented to witness for examination.
Bills for much the same articles, amount
ing to the same sum, were presented by
Alexander. There is a probability that
it is all the same transaction.
MR. ALEXANDER
Sworn.—The Western & Atlantic Rail
road bought goods from us through Mr.
Fry. He was anxious to get money, and
he suggested to me he could do it in a
way that was going on all the time—
A GENERAL SYSTEM OF MONEY MAKING
on the State Road. He then furnished
me these items and said—
Objected to.
Fry furnished ma a list of these goods
and I put them in my bills as purchases
by the State Road. I presented the bill
to Hotchkiss. He said he couldn’t pay
it then but gave me an acceptance of thir
ty days. When the time of payment came
the road had passed into other hands.—
Hotchkiss made no objection to me. My
opinion is that Fry got the money.—
Hotchkiss audited the account when I
presented it. Hotchkiss signed the draft.
Date of account and draft are the same.
Question—What do you know of these
other accounts ?
Answer—Am I obliged to answer that
question ? ’
Court—Not if it criminates you.
Witness—Don’t know whether it will
criminate me or not. The fact is, Mr.
Fry represented to me that it had not
been paid, and asked me to put in a bill
before the Committee, and he could col
lect it, which I did at his suggestion.—
The
$5,945 WAS PAID TWICE.
My impression is that draft was paid.—
These papers are all in the same hand
writing—all made out by the same man.
Don’t know whether Blodgett or Mnllen
signed these papers or not.
(to BE CONTINUED.)
Joseplx .Fry.
We learn that he is not a relative of
Foster Blodgett, as was stated by us yes
terday, though he was a boarder and an
inmate of his family. Oar informant was
mistaken as to the kinship. He has not
yet been heard from.
Stealing to Hide their Guilt.
Yesterday while Mr. McCalla was ab
sent from his office for a few moments
a very important hook, containing evi
deuce of the guilt of some of the State
Road plunderers, was stolen from where
he left it locked up. This is to be 1
gretted. Why was that book left within
the reach of any one ?
pacity.
seen that from January to December, be
was paid the enormous sum of $185,59S }
Redirect.—Hotclikiss
DID NOT MENTION THE $5,000.
46. Wc Lave, at present, no means of ■ do not know that he denied lor owned
A fire at Youngstown, Ohio, burned
eight small houses and three children.
The steamer Chattauqua, on Chattau-
qua Lake, exploded. Several were killed
and many wounded.
A dispatch from Pittston, Pennsylva
nia, says : Five bodies have been recov
ered. Thirteen remain in the mine. A
majority of the volunteers have been
damaged by foul air.
A convict who had served six years ~of
his sentence in the penitentiary, commit
ted suicide by jumping into a vat of boil
ing water.
It is positively asserted that the Mar
quis of Lome and the Princess Louise
will reside in Canada for a lengthened
period.
The Act of Oct. 13,1S70, requiring toe affidavit of
toe payment of taxes in all pending suits on con
tracts made before toe 1st of June, 1865, applies also
to pending offsets, toe same being crop actions,
and in such action tlie defendant is the same as
plaintiff and must file toe affidavit within toe time
required by law.
The charge of the Court in this case and the ver
dict of the jury are sustained by the evidence and
the Court did not err in refusing a new trial.
, Be £ * Taci e r plaintiff. Wimberly, Gillis &
Jno. T. Clarke for defendant.
B FS u ? t £~ Uins vs * Bri & ht Miller.—Belief act of 1870.
Plaintiff a non-resident.
MCKAY, J.
A promissory note given by a citizen of this State
to a citizen and resident of another State, who has
never raided here since toe note was given and
does not now, mid has not kept the note here, until
it is pied, is_not subject to tax in this State, and if
suit is pending on such note, proof of this fact will
excuse toe plaintiff, anon-resident, from paying tax
an^fromfihng toe affidavit , required by fho Set of
E. G- Raiford, for plaintiff,
Wimberly and M. Gillis, for defendant
TS - Brinkley Chaney—Equity. ~
Jiv Avia Va
Wh F re ^vanced money to B to enable B to
comply with her bid at sheriff’s sale, and A to secure
himself, took sheriff’s deed to the land to himself,
agreeing that on payment of the money lent to-wit:
$40 with liberal interest, he would make a title to B
and B toereafter tendered toe money borrowed with
$20 interest, and A then claimed that the land was
his own, and on bill filed by A for a specific per
formance of too agreement. The jury declared that
a’ 11 S 16 dee< l B on B’s payment to him
II el a that the verdict was illegal since $40
with legal interest was all A was entitled to.
Fleming and Rutherford for plaintifl.
Hubert Fielder for defendant,
Jones mid Jeter vs. S. and C. Blocker—Hiring toe
servant of another.
VTAKXER, J,
It said by Blackstone, that too retaining of another
person s servant during toe time he ha3 agreed to
serve ms present master, as it is an unmanly, so it
ia an illegal act, for every master has by his contract
purchased for a valuable consideration toe service
of ms employee for a limited time. The inveigliling
or . TU3 S his servant which induces a breach of this
contract, is therefore an injury to the master, and for
rror in the Conrt below, iu sus-
murrers to the plaintiffs declaration
and dismissing the same.
1L H. Powell and H. Fielder for plain tiffs.
Hood .V Kiddoo for defendants.
H. M. Jenkins vs. J. C. Grimes, eta’..—Injunction.
Warner, j.
Pending an action for a divorce by Mrs. Grimes
against her nusbaud, she fil<-d a bill against him,
praying that certain property therein mentioned,
should be placed in toe hands of a receiver, to be ap
pointed by toe Court, wbicli was done. Jenkins, is
note-creditor of the husband, filed his bill against •
Mrs Grimes, praying an injunction against the re- :
ceiver, to restrain him from disposing of tho pron-
erty, and that his note might be paid out of it. The
Court refused the injunction! a motion was then
made to make Jeukms, the note-creditor, a party to
the bill filed by Mrs. Grimes, which motion was over
ruled by toe Conrt, and Jenkins excepted.
Held that there was no error iu the Conrt, in refus
ing the injunction prayed lor, nor in refusing that
Jenkins be made a partv to the bill filed by Mrs.
Grimes.
Worrell & Wimberly for plaintiffs.
Beall A Gillis for defendants.
W. C. Sawyer vs. A. J. Pace.—Complaint on open
account.
WARNER J.
This was an action upon an open account The
parties entered into a written contract to cultivate a
plantation in Early county, tor toe year 1868, on toe
terms therein expressed. The plaintiff claims that
he did not get his share of ihe crop, after deducting
expenses, etc. After hearing the evidenco on both
sides, the jury found a verdict for too plaintiff for
t65. Defendant made a motion for a new trial on
the ground that too verdict wes contrary to tho law
and evidence and weight or the evidence. The
Court overruled too motion for a new trial, and the
defeudaut excepted.
Held that ihe jury were too proper- judges of toe
evidence and the credit of toe wituesses examined
on tho trial, and this Court will not interfere to con
trol toe discretion of toe Court below, iu refusing
tue motion, on toe statement of facts contained in
toe record.
John T. Clark for plaintiff.
Hood & Kiddoo for defendants.
W. A. Rawson vs. W. B. Thornton.—In equity
homestead.
WARNER, J.
This was a bill filed by the plaintiff against defend
ant, to receive a dormant judgment and have n t> act
of land covered by homestead, made subject thereto,
for the payment of toe purchase money toeroto. On
toe trial, motion was made to dismiss the bill on tho
ground that there was no equity in it, which would
give to a Court of equity, jurisdiction of too case.
The Court sustained toe motion and dismissed toe
bill and complainaut excepted.
Held that toe allegations iu toe bill do not make
such a case as will give to a court or equity jurisdic
tion thereof, but on toe contrary, toe remedy at law
was ample and complete, and there was uo error in
dismissing the bill at toe trial term for want ol juris
diction.
Beall & Tucker for plaintiffs.
Wimberly, Gillis & Felder for defendants.
John McK. Gunn vs. N. H. Miller—Homestead.
WARNER, J.
The main question presented by toe record, is
whether Miller was entitled to a homestead, against
the plaintiff*s judgment, which was obtained against
Eliza Hall, who was the owner of tho land at the
time of the rendition thereof. The judgment against
Eliza Hall is dated May 1, 1866, to 3d of June,
1868, Miller purchased toe land from E. K. Hall and
Eliza R. Young, tho heirs at law of Eliza Hall, the
defendant in judgment who died after tho rendition
thereof. On the 10th of April, 1869, Miller applied
for and obtained from the Ordinary of Randolph
county, a homstead on toe land in question, and the
Court below decided that Miller was entitled to toe
homestead as against too plaintiff’s judgment to
which decision toe plaintiff excepted.
Held that toe Court below erred in holding and
deciding Miller was entitled to a homestead iu toe
land, as against toe plaintiff’s judgment, and the
statement of facts contained in toe record.
Clark, Hood k Kiddoo for plaintiffs.
Ordinary for use of E. H. Worreil, vs. H. and C.
Adams.—Relief act of 1870. Affidavit that taxes
were paid.
WARNER, J.
This was an action brought by tho plaintiff upon
administrator’s bond, dated 8to Jauuary 1865, to
recover too amount of a debt reduced to judgment
against toe intestate Samuel Adams, alleging that toe
administrators of Adams had wasted the estate. The
original debton whichtoejudgoment was contracted
was dated in 1858, and was renewed several times.
The amount due on it at time it was reduced to Judg
ment in 1867 was about $2600. The plaintiff filed
his affidavit under toe - provisions of the act of 1870,
in which he stated that he lxad paid all legal taxes
chargeable by law on the debt up to too year 1835,
which year no tax was assessed thereon. That in
1866 and 1867 he gave in said debt at what he believ
ed to bo its market value, to-wit: $1000 and paid the
tax thereon. That since 1867 he did not give in and
pay tax on the debt, because it was uo longer a
solven debt and ceased to have any market value
whatever.
On motion of defendant's counsel tho Court dis
missed the plaintiff’s action on the ground that toe
affidavit of toe plaintiff wqs not a compliance with
toe act of 1870, whereupon the plaintiff excepted.
If I believed the act of 13th October 1870 to
be a valid constitutional act I would hold
that the taxes on all debts contracted prior
to Juno i, lees, on .contracts in renewal
thereof should bo regularly given iu aad paid on im
such debts, whether solvent or not, as a condition
precedent to entitle toe plaintiff to recover on toe
same in the courts. That such was toe clear and mani
fest intention of too Legislature, there can be no
doubt. It is entitled “An Act to extend toe lien ol
set off and recoupment, as against debts contracted
before toe 1st day of June, 1865, and to deny to such
debts toe aid of the courts until toe taxes thereon
have been paid.’’ The third section of the act de
clares that “In suits upon such contracts,.in every
case toe burden of proof showing that toe taxes have
been duly paid, shall be upon too party plaintiff,,
without plea by toe defendant.” The fourth section
declares that “In every trial upon a suit founded up
on any such debt or contract as described in this act
—Provded, That said debt has been regularly given
in for taxes and toe taxes paid, shall be a condition
precedent to recovery on toe same, and in every such
case, if the jribunal trying is not clearly satisfied,
that said taxes have been duly given in and paid, it
shall so find and said suit shall be dismissed.”
In view of toe condition of toe people of toe State
and the status of this particular class of debts at toe
time of toe passage of this act, it cannot be reasona
bly supposed that any member of the Legislature
was so stupid as to have intended that it should be
an act to increase toe revenue of the State. The ob
ject and intention of toe act, as is patent upon its
face, was to hinder, obstruct and prevent toe collec
tion of all debts contracted prior to toe 1st of June,
1865, and those in renewal thereof, and for toe ac
complishment of thatpurpose the aid of toe courts
of toe State is denied to toe holders and owners of
such debts, unless they shall make an affidavit that
said debts have been regularly given in for taxes and
toe taxes paid. That too 4th section of the act de
clares shall be a condition precedent to a recovery
on toe same. That makes no exception as to the
solvency or insolvency of the debts, but embraces all
suits founded upon any debt made or contracted be
fore the 1st of June, 1865, or in renewal thereof.
The plaintiff in this case, like other honest tax
payers in toe State, did not regularly each year give
in and pay tax on this debt, because he did not hon
estly believe it was'a solvent debt, when he gave in
his taxable property. Yet the act requires
him to make an affidavit that this debt
has been regularly given in for taxes, and the taxes
paid on it, as a condition precedent to his. right to
maintain a suit on it in the courts of toe State. Be
cause as an honest conscientious tax payer, he could
not swear it was a solvent debt when he gave in his
taxes for 1867,1868, and 1869, he has not regularly
given it in for taxes and regularly paid the taxes on
it, and inasmuch as he cannot make the affidavit,
toathehasdoneso, toe act outlaws him from toe
courts of toe State, as was most clearly the inten
tion of toe Legislature to do, in regard to that class
of debts specified in toe act.
If this, in my judgment, was a valid constitutional
act, I would confirm the judgment of toe Court be
low, but as I believe it to be unconstitutional and
void, I concur in toe judgment of this Court; revers
ing toe judgment of ihe Court below.
LOCHRANE, C. J., and McKAY, J., concurred on
the ground that the act was constitutional and toe
plaintiff had complied with its requirements, as to
the payment of taxes and filing toe affidavit pre
ecribed.
SUN-STROKES.
tyi?'' The Chicago 'Tribune makes a cor
rection. It says, “/or ‘setter pup’read
‘letter press. ’ ”
“ The Lost Curse ” is the title of 4
E. A. Pollard’s new book. If it is no
better than his former books he will find
a great many curses that are not “lost,”
A credulous writer says “poverty
is a blessing in disguisp.” If it is a
blessing at all, it is so well disguised that
its best friend could never reeo<niize it.
’Boston wants better pivements.”
Tho impression has long been, abroad
that her ways are not as good as they
should be:
The New York Sun says: “Liars
should have good memories.” In that
case the editor of the S>tn ought to re
member everything he ever heard, saw or
read.
BSU Mrs. Saul Justice tried to hang
herself at Columbus, Ohio, last Friday,
but her neighbors rushed iu and pre
vented her. That is tho way with peo
ple. They are never willing to allow
Justice to take her course.
At the National Camp Meeting at
Urbana, Ohio, “a young man asked the
prayers of the congregation to enable him
to stop the use of tobacco.” That young
man follows the way of the world and
wants to be compelled from sin by some
dispensation of Providence, but is not
willing to make any sacrifice- for tho sake
of a release from his burden.
An exchange says : '“Miss Alcott
is preparing a second part to- ‘Little
Men,’ so that we shall hear no- more of
Jo and her boys. ” To which, the Mobile
Registerresponds : “As‘Little-Men’was -
the sequel of ‘ Little Women,’ the third
will most likely be ‘ Little Old Men and
Women,’” As Miss Alcott has recently
married, it is quite reasonable- to- conjec
ture that her next will not be “ Little of
Men and Women,” but little babies.
Greeley will not die happy unless
some efficient means of punishing Ku-
Klux are devised. The best tiling that
could be done to-moke the olcLman com
fortable, and at the same time inflict a
horrible punishment upon every nmn
found in the Ku-Klux garb, would be to
induce Congress to enact a law compel
ling every man, known to be a Ku-Klux,
or against whom rests a reasonable suspi
cion, to read “What I know about Farm
ing.” That would cure the most aggra
vated type of that “disorder.”’
“ A fine set of thieves these fel-.
lows are,” says the New York TForirf,
“ who are forever plunging the-country
into hot water with their tales of Ku-
Klux outrages. In the old slave- States
occur 94 out of the 291 revenue- defalca
tions confessed by Secretary Boutwell,
and of the twenty odd millions-admitted
by kim. «mi ctQlan^gfi.789JZ21-95 ai’e to be
put down to the score of these same per
secuted partriots. A fine picture it makes
of Southern outrages, these dry figures,
telling how government functionaries
steal with both hands, bawling mean
while at the top of their lungs “ Ku-
Klux ! ” ’
Washington, August 14.—The Secreta
ry of the Treasury decided to-day that,
under the late decision of Commissioner
Pieasanton, in relation to interest on the
coupons of corporations, the question of
collecting the tax upon dividends and
undivided profits of corporations was not
touched upon; therefore a tax upon div
idends and undivided profits for the last
five months of 1870will be at once assessed
and collected.
Phila., Aug. 15.—A defalcation of
$300,000 is charged against the agent of
the Pennsylvania War Claim. It is
claimed by the friends of the accused that
he has been three times at the Pennsyl
vania capitol to settle accounts, but failed
to find the proper officers at home. It’ is
alleged the defaulter is at Harrisburg now
to settle, but the Auditor and Treasurer
are both absent.
The Jommeymen Tailors’ International
Trade Union commenced its session this
morning. It is composed of delegates
from subordinate Unions in the United
States and Canada. The object of the
organization is protection in prices ~
_ _ Cus
tiiat injury too law has ~given fiim~a~remedy‘t>y'a toca tailors only are connected with the
special action on toe case. Tfiree Blackstone 142. ‘ Union.
The New York Tribune in a recent
issue says::
Gen. Sherman, replying to an applica
tion for more troops for the protection of
Montana, takes occasion to say that the
available force of the United States army
is not sufficient for the demands of the
frontier. -And by implication, he censures
the Government for sending troops South
for political purposes, whereat the settlers
grumble. Consideringthat the workmen
on the-Northern and Southern Pacific
Railroad lines will need protection and
defense, it must be acknowledged that the
effective force under the command cf
Gen. Sherman is; small. But it is akflt
clear that, in some parts of the South,'
white men and black men do need to bo
protected against white men.
This, means that thejtroops will be
needed in the States to. assist the Radical
party to cany the approaching elections
for Grant and his dependents. When
two companies of troops and some Gat
ling gjins are ordered for the protection of
a Radical convention, it can be readily
seen what use the Government has for
troops in the South, and how necessary
it is that the Indians may have full per
mission to carve and scalp the frontier
men at wilL Those people who are re
ducing and populating the Western wilds
are, at present, without political influ
ence, and the Government cannot afford
them protection. The troops are needed
to do battle against hosts of irnagin fiy
Ku-Klux and make Radical votes in lie
South and elsewhere.
Koumiss is the name of an article of
food recently introduced into England
from Germany. It is of Tartar origin,
and in its original form is made by fer
menting mare’s milk and agitating it dur
ing the process. Cow’s milk is used as a
substitute. The result of the treatment
is a mixture of alcohol, carbonic acid and
finely divided caseine and butter, with
the residue of the sugar and salts of the
milk, in taste resembling a mixture of
champagne and cream and supposed, as
the Tartars are very athletic, to be con
ducive to health and a preventative of
phthisis.
It is reported that in boring for salt at
Speronberg, near Berlin, Prussia, they
have penetrated to the enormous depth
of 3,500 feet—the greatest depth _ ever
reached either by mining or boring—
500 feet of this being in a solid bed of
salt, which has not yet been pierced
through.