Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2. THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN, THE .DAILY SUN. Wednesday October 4 New State Kosd CattcUim. Unity in the Democratic Party. As wc have often said before, we again repeat, now is eminently “the seed time of ideas,” touching the policy which should govern the Democratic Party, in their next General Convention, both in relation to 'platform and candidates; in order to effect that lotily in Council and unity in Action, which are essential for the rescue of Public Liberty from the grasp of those now holding Power, and whose object is Ceutralized Empire. On the line of policy we have advo cated, we take the liberty of giving oar readers to-day, some extracts, from a letter just received from a Democrat, of Maine. We do not know the writer per sonally, but we know him from reputa tion, and assure our readers he is a gen tleman of position in that State, whose statements may be relied upon, and whose views and opinions are entitled to high consideration. In reply to his inquiry we sav, we believe there is a mode by which the ‘*COtisentu^honorum omn'em,” stated by him, can he obtained. Let there be a free interchange of views between the leading men of the true De mocracy, in every State of tlio Union; and let them see to it, that no delegate be sent to tho General Convention, who is not/res to tho “ Jeffersonian creed”—and who will, under no circumstances or any temptations, consent to a Departure therefrom, so far as tho Democratic or ganization is concerned. A. H. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. Me., September 28, 1871. Bon. A. H. Stephens: Dear Sir: I have just read a recent communication of yours to The Atlanta Sun, ou “The great issues involved in the contest of 1872, and the unity of the Democratic Party.” As a Northern Democrat, I thank you for that article, as well as for that most admirable and exhaustive work, your “Constitutional view of the war between the States.” Were this an ago in which the masses of tho people, or any consid- srable number of there, would stop to examine into the principles of govern ment in general, or of our government in . particular, a careful perusal of your vol umes would lcad,£hem to discard central ization, and to cling to the “Jeffersonian vreed.” “You are quite right, especially so far as Maine is concerned, in asserting that the Desolations of her late Democratic Convention so far as they indorse the “New Departure,” do not express the views of the honest masses of the De mocracy. It would bo difficult to find a Democrat in Maine, who would maintain that tho 14th and loth amendments are just and right.” «jecr.WiiM li&.l fonmatata ' mi-uri. in mis Congressional District I linvo conversed with hundreds of Demo crats since our State Convention, and I have not yet met with the first one who ap proves the “ New Departure.” It is univer sally condemned. Not one of our county conventions in this District would in dorse it. Not a single county conven tion in the State directly accepted the amendments. Three or four of them only did go so far in that direction as to indorse the State platform. So severe and general was the condemnation of the State platform among the masses of the party, after it was promulgated, even though its acquiescence in the amend ments was in a very mild form and sugar- coated with a severe “ condemnation of the means by which they wore adopted,” tho few advocates of the “NewDepart ure" did not dare to ask for an ex press and independent approval in the county conventions. What is true of Maine in this particular, I apprehend, is true of all tho Northern States, Massa chusetts excepted. Policy, and policy alone, secured for the “[New Departure” its approval in the State conventions that have been held. The lato elections in both Maine and California have demonstrated that that “ policy” was most imjjolitic. The “ New Departure” did not give us a single Re publican vote in either of those States. It chilled thousands of Democrats so they could work with no heart or zeal. My own judgment is, that the “New Departure” is now dead. I have strong hopes that we shall not even hear of it in our National Convention next year. You mnst have observed that, of late, even tho New York World has not been very enthusiastic over the amendments. I emirely ngreo with you that there must bo “union in sentiment” before there can bo “united action.” In order that there may be this “uuion in senti ment” in our National Comention next year, should there not be an exchange ef views, previous to its assembling, among leading men ?” “Now in relation to both candidate and platform, can thero not be some mode devised, by which men who think alike, can, through tlicir constituents, secure an expression of their views and wishes in our next Convention ? In a word can there not be a “consensus honorum om it i um ?' ’ Yours Truly, . Did any employee of the State Road, under Foster Blodgett, have one or two car loads of coal or produce delivered to him free of charge for freight—the same coming from Knoxville or elsewhere in Tennessee—the State Road paying con necting roads for the freight due on those lines? Did atay employee of the road receive car loads and cargoes of corn, and per haps other produce, from Nashville, and perhaps other Western cities, to sell again and speculate upon, paying no freight upon the same—thus entering into illegitimate competition with mer chants, atfd lining his pockets with the money thus fleeced from what properly belonged to the people of Georgia? Did not a number of employees of the road receive their coal and wood and lumber by the car load—receiving car load after car load among them, free of all charge for freight ? _ What editor or editors of a newspaper or newspapers in Atlanta received a car load or car loads of coal, free of freight ? Why is it that one or two editors received such favors, while some editors in the city did not, if such was the case ? i What peripotelic gentleman, way down in Florida, had . his expenses paid and received a big salary, upon the plea of drumming for passengers for the State Road, down in the land of flowers ? What Democratic member of one of the white-washing committees of the late peculating Legislature had $500 or $1,000, or other sum of money advanced to him by the State Road Treasurer, taking his note therefor? Did such a thing take place ? If so, why was it done, and lias that money ever been refunded ? What number of members of the late peculating Legislature,—either Senate or House,' or both—was or were en gaged as a Commission on the part of the State i Road to . investigate claims against the same which needed no inves ligation—receiving high compensation therefor in addition to their pay as members of the Legislature ? Will suspected parties come forward and answer?^ * I? Who of the officers of the State Road had their buildings framed, their furni ture for their private residences made and repaired at the State Road shops by State Road hands? Who had their pri vate residences and other buildings painted with State Road paint, by State Road painters, &c., &c? We might continue these questions, but have propounded enough for the present. Will the class please stand up and answer their catechism? Blo'.vjiig the Cotton Crop. Editors 'Atlanta Sunt After an ex tended trip through Southwestern Geor gia, I give you an item, that it would bo well our people should particularly no tice at this time. I have seen nothing to equal the iioorness of the cotton crop since the war. From Agusta to Colum- bss I have saw no cotton eighteen inches high, except graden lots; and, however Norths m speculators may try to estimate the present crop to our disadvantage, our people will have sense enough to hold on; they :uv in a position this year to com mand their own price for their cotton. A. C. October, 3,1871. John Pnryear vs. The State, Carrying Concealed Weapons. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where, on the trial of a party, charged with a violation of the 4454 section of the Code, the Judges charge to the jury was in effect that army repeaters having taken the place of horseman’s pistols, they were to be regarded within the ex ceptions of the Statute, while used by parties on horseback, and the jury found the defendant guilty, and he made a mo tion for a new trial, which was overruled. Held: That the charge of'the Judge was as favorable to the prisoner as the construction of the law could warrant. Horseman’s pistols, excepted in. the Code, having gone into disuse, and a pistol, known as the army repeater, or navy repeater, having taken their place, if the latter was worn by parties on horseback, in the same way as the former, were worn, we do not see bnt that a fair interpretation of the law would bring them, while so worn, within the excep tion of the law', but certainly no farther; and the evidence, showing lliat it was worn upon his person concealed, it was not error in the Court to refuse a new trial. Judgment affirmed. \Y. H. Dabney, for plaintiff ; C. D. Forsyth, for defendant. Henry Kerwish vs. James H. Steelman— Trespass vi et arinis. LOCHRANE, C. J. \ Where,- ujpon the trial of an action for trespass vi et arrnis and a plea of the gen eral issue was.filed, and after the case had been submitted to the jury, the Judge charged them that the matters of justifica tion could not be-considered under a plea of not guilty, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The bill 1 of exceptions as signs error in the Judge’s charge in the premises, .but fails to; set out the whole charge, or allege that the charge e&cepted to was all the charge given; Held: That this Court will presume and will believe that the Court charged the jury upon the law applicable to the facts, and not being excepted to, that such charge was correct-. Held, again: It was no error to charge the jury that they could not consider the facts in justification tinder a plea of the general issue. By the Code, section 3406, and the rulings of this Court, in the 9th Ga. R. and the 12th, Ga. R., such facts in justification must have been specially pleaded. ’ ' • • • * Judgment affirmed. J. Milledge, Jr., Marshall J. Clarke, for plaintiff'. Farrow & Thomas contra. Death of Rev. John M. Bonnell, 1). D. On Saturday night last, at half past 11 o’clock, Dr. Bonnell, of Macon, long the College, died very suddenly at the Col-” lege, of paralysis of the heart. It is seldom we are called upon to re cord the death of one whose loss will be more deeply and widely felt. He has been identified with the educational in terests of Georgia for the last thirty years. For fourteen years past lie has occupied one of the most honorable po sitions that can be ^conferred upon man —that of presiding with great ability and full satisfaction over the “Mother of Fe male Colleges.” A long line of accomplished and grief- stricken daughters now weep over the new-made grave of their beloved precep tor. He had a thorough understanding of female character, and knew how to combine the delicacy and tenderness of a woman with the firmness and discipline of a faithful preceptor—thus at once se curing affection and obedience. lie entered the Georgia Conference in 1847, in the' same class with Rev. Armi- nius Wright,“Pastor of'the First Metho dist Church in this city, and was a zeal ous, devoted minister. The Methodists of Georgia and the South will feel profound sorrow at the death of this eminent servant of the Church. He came to Georgia in early manhood, and in 1847 was married to the daughter of Col. Wm. Morton, of Athens, Ga., who survives him. >-♦-< Released on Bail. The friends of the parties who were lately arrested in Gwinnett county, brought to this city, and lodged in jail, in a somewhat mysterious manner—a notice of which has heretofore appeared in onr columns—came to this city day be fore yesterday, gave bond for the prison ers, who were thereupon released. Among those thus [summarily arrested aro some of the best men in the country, who never did any one. any harm, against whom no charge of a violation of law or morals was ever made. The affair has created much indignation among the peo ple of Gwinnett, who look upon the whole precedure as a highhanded out rage. "V\ e have, so for, been unable to sift the matter to the bottom and learn the whole truth sufficiently to form an opin ion of the case, or to say who is or is not to blame. We merely mention the mat ter as it has been represented to us. We hope before long to have all the facts and lay them before the readers of The Sun. ^ c ' to ker4.—'Tha Italin govern- man tnai ment ha; determined that no professor I army I ot In v, mtyo f Rome slndi he allowed I aS.” inue to exercise his function with- ° . —mg the oath of allegir The oath has been tendered Butler says: “If I am not sustained in more cabins by the prayers of the colored man than any other commander in the will never appear in public If Gen. Butler will stand by this, it is worth while to have a Consrress out ta,ing the oath of allegiance to Italy! I Commissic n issued to ascertain Lm7muffi . on this basis. I he is sustained by prayer. J. M. B. Carlton vs. Annie E. Carlton— Temporary alimony. McKAY, J. Where, in a libel for divorce, the Judge, having examined into the cause and circumstances of the separation and the ability and the unwillingness of the husband to pay, grants temporary alimo ny, this Court will not control his dis cretiorf. * In determining the amount of alimony the Court will look into the property con trolled by the husband, and his ability to earn wages, and determine what is a rea sonable sum. An attachment for contempt foi* refus ing to. obey an order of the Judge, re quiring the defendant to pay temporary stitution; and where” aJfidge lias fully examined the ability of a party to pay, and has reason to expect his disobedience to the order, he may direct that if he does not pay it, an attachment for con tempt shall issue. Judgment affirmed. Gartrell & Stephens and Thrasher & Thrasher for plaintiff. MynaTf & Dell contra. N. W. Paine, administrator, vs. James Ormond <$r Wm. McNaugbt and John Lee. Ejectment. McKAY, J. Where an action of ejectmentloT a lot of land, by its number in.the original State servey.had been pending for several years before, the new rule of Court re quiring tenants in possession to admit themselves in possession, and if they did not, they, would not be permitted to de fend, and the plaintiffs insisted on the rule, and two of the defendants disclaimed title to the west half of the lot, and ad mitted themselves in possession of the other half,- Held: That it was no error in the court to refuse to continue the cause, on a mo tion of plaintiffs, for the reason that the other defendant was dead, and they de sired time to make his representatives parties. It was too late to make the motion, unless the knowledge of the death had just come to .the plaintiffs.— The case should continue as to the east half, and the rights of the deceased de fendant would not he affected by the verdict. „ Where, on the trial of an action of ejectment, a certain deed from the State’s grantee had been lost or destroyed, and interrogatories were offered of a witness who'swore that he had seen the deed, it was passed to him on his purchase of the land between 1826 and 1830, from the brother-in-law of the assumed maker; that he did not remember the subscribing witnesses; that he thought he had sent the deed to DeKalb county for ] cord, though he could rot 'say that it was recorded; and there was proof that the grant from the State had been m the possession of the supposed maker of the deed, shortly after the granting of the land and afterwards; that the grantee had said lt was burnt with the house he flved in; xhat the supposed maker of the lost deed had given the land in for taxes, hut at about the time of the alleged date of the lost deed, the supposed maker of Lie lost deed had ceased to give the land in _ for taxes, though he continued to give in his other lands, and it was also in proof that both the maker and grantee were dead, and t tliat the court house of DeKalb county had been destroyed bv fire, with all the records: Held, thattliese circumstances were pro per to go to the jury as evidence worthy of consideration, to show the genuineness of the deed and justify the charge of the Court, treating them as evidence, upon that point. Under the act of the Legislature, when adverse possession of lands has commenc ed to ran against a person before his death, they do not cease to run against him at his death in favor of his estate, unless the administration is taken out within five years. Section 2690 of the Code requiring the Court, upon an issue of the forgery of a deed, to have the issue tried separately, applies only to registered deeds, and floes not cover a case, wheiff. the*e is no registry, and the party gfesenfing the deed takes it upon himseff to prove the execution thereof. Judgment affirmed. T. W. J. Hill, R H. Clark, Collyer & Hoyt and J. D. Pope, for plaintiff; J. M. Calhoun &,Son, contra. • ■’ Carhart & Bro. vs. M. E. Paramore—Re lief Act of 1870. McKAY, J. .... The judgment of the Court in this case is reversed on the ground that it appears that the plaintiff in the suit had resided out of this State at the making of the contract, and continuously ever since, and no legal taxes being due, the affidavit was unnecessry; that all legal taxes had been paid. Judgment reversed. Alexander & Wright for plaintiff; Un derwood & Royal and Smith & Branham, contra. A. C. Wyly & Co. vs. Burnett & Rixey— Confederate Currency. Warner, J. jgnmKMIWMMi Thiswas an action brought against the de fendants,as commission merchants, to re cover the value of several hundred pounds of Scotch. Macaboy snuff, consigned to defendants for sale during the years 1863 and 1864, and which was sold by them for Confederate money. It appears that the defendants did not keep the money received by them for the snuff separate and apart from their own money, but used it themselves; however, they always had and kept on hand enough to pay all out standing demands against the firm; and when-the war closed they had Confeder ate-money more than enough to pay the plaintiffs’demand, which died on their hands; that the plaintiffs never de manded the money of. them until after the war. The court charged the jury that if defendants sold part of the snuff for Confederate treasury notes, and used them for their own purposes, or mixed them with their own, or with notes of a lilt© character that-were received from sales of the property of their consignees, and used the notes thus mixed'for their own purposes, that they then became liable to pay the plaintiffs the value of the notes thus used, at the.time they were used. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum of $211.68. The defendants made a motion for a new trial,..on the ground that the court erred in its cbarge.to the jury, , and on other grounds, which were overruled by the court, and defendants excepted. The only ground of error insisted on in the argument here was the alleged error iu the charge of the court before recited.— In view of the evidence, there was no error in the charge of the court to the jury as to the liability of the defendants for the value of the Confederate money for which they sold the plaintiffs’ snuff and used for their own purposes. If the defendants had deposited the Confederate money for which they sold the snuff in hank to plaintiffs’ credit, or had kept it separately from their own. money for them,- and had given the plaintiffs rea sonable notice thereof, then if the plain tiffs had failed to call for it, and the money became worthless, it would have been the plaintiffs’ loss;,but as the defendants used the money as their own, without giving the plaintiffs any notice that they had the moneyfarising from the sale of their snuff, they were liable for its value at the time it was so used by them. Judgment affirmed. ' Marcellus O. Markham vs. C. W. ilun- nicutt. In Equity. WARNER, J. Court, wfren approved and signed by the lie was a good bookkeeper, but has presiding judge as chancellor, and entered on the nunotes of theCourt. Under our system of equity practice, when any ques tion of fact is involved the same shall be decided by a special jury. Code 4147. In this case the question of fact involved was whether the conduct of the defend ant at the sale of the lot was such a fraud upon the complainant as would, accord ing to the principles of justice and equity, estop the defendant from enforcing his mortgage lieu against the property, and whether, under the evidence in the case, He should be perpetually enjoined from doing so. That was a question for the jury to decide, and if the jury had found a special verdict that the defend ant should be perpetually enjoin ed from enforcing his mortgage lien against the lot purchased by the com plainant, the legal presumption then would be that the condilct of the de fendant at the sale was a fraud on tlic complainant, otherwise they would not have found a verdict in favor of a per petual injunction. But the jury have not by their verdict found and decreed that the defendant should be perpetually en joined from enforcing bis mortgage lien against the property which was their duty to have clone, if they believed from the evidence that the conduct of the defend ant at the time-of the sale was a fraud upon the complainant. All that the jury have found by their verdict is that the defendant was present at the sale and that he was then and there present ancl assenting to said -sale. Whether these facts were or were not sufficient in the opinion of the jury to establish a fraud on the part of the' defendant, the verdict is- silent. The‘legal presumption is that inasmuch as they did not find and decree a perpetual - injunction by their verdict that they were not satisfied in relation to .that material fact in the case, and until the-jury had so found by their verdict it was error in. the .Court to have entered a decree for a perpetual injunction upon that verdict.- The material issue in the case was fraud or no fraud on the part of the dedefendant, and the jury have not, by their verdict, found for or against that issue, and they not having done so, the Court could not assume that they had, and enter a decree pf estoppel thereon, for nothing can be presumed to have been found by the jury .other than those which appear in their special verdict. If there was fraud proved sufficient under the law; to estop him, then tho jury should have decreed a perpetual injunction; and if not, then they should have found-a verdict for the defendant. As there is to be a new trial in the case, wo express no opinion in regard to the merits. Judgment reversed and new trial or dered. Pope & Brown, for plaintiff.; Collyer & Hoyt and P. L. J. Mynatt, contra Delilah M. Tenable vs. James W. Craig, Sale of Property by Husband when Separated front Wife. McKAY, J. . Where, a libel for divorce was filed in 1863, in Jackson county, and with it a schedule.of the property owned by the husband, at the time of the separation,, in which-was included a city lot, in the city of-Atlanta; and the husband, in 1866, before the final verdict, sold the lot to a purchaser, .who had no actual notice of the libel, and the jury granted a divorce on the final trial, and decreed the real estate mentioned in the schedule, should go to the wife, during her lifetime. Hefcfi^iuat under section .1120.of the Code, the sale by the husband, after the filing of the'libel, the 1 said payment not being in payment of pre-existing debts, been informed he is not. One reason f ! his discharge was that ho wanted to - move the books to another place, yf^ ness and A. L. Harris had spoken tc getlier of McCalla’s unfitness for the 0 f fice before he was removed. Judge Hammock testified that McCh! Ia objected to their taking possession c -' his books, only on account of some private letters which were among thenT otherwise he invited a strict investiw’ tion. Here the testimony closed. The de fence offered no witness or evidence whatever. Col. Farrow made a few re marks. Oapt. John Milledge made an argument of some length, and the case was closed by Major Hargrove for the de fence in a speech of one hour, in which he handled the robbers of the public with gloves off. As soon as the argu ments closed, Judge Butt resumed the case, remarking that thero was no ev‘ deuce to justify holding Major McCalla to bail, and that liis reasons for this need not be given, the ease being too plain. ANOTHER HORRIBLE TRAG* EJDY IN TENNESSEE. Jit. John A. Simpson Cat to Plccna Doswl and his Son. Wm. D. Simpler Mortally Wounded. p 0,! ' llns was a bill filed for an injunction did not vest title in the purchaser. The " 1 41 ' '' " purchaser bought subject.to said Verdict, and his want of actual notice'does not proteefchim. ; V. Agreements pending a libel for divorce, in. relation to alimony, are presumed to be merged in the final verdict, and a purchaser from the husband, pending the divorce suit, is bound by the verdict, as,is the' husband, unless the purchaser can show.fraud in the judgment; and to do this, he must attach..the judgment in the Court where it was rendered. - A schedule, filed in a pending divorce suit, had the item, “one city lot iu At lanta, worth $5,000.” c Held: That .as such a schedule, pur ports to be of the property of the hus band, the description is sufficient to put all the parties upon notice, if there be in fact but one such lot. .[■ Judgment reversed. * Warner, Jl, concurring; Lochrane, C. J., dissenting. Hillyer & Bro., for plaintiff; Robert Bough, B. H. Thrasher, and Collyer & Hoyt, contra. . ; . to restrain the • defendant from sellin^ certain, described city lot in Atlanta, 'by virtue of a mortgage fi. fa. in favor of the mortgagee against one Holmes Sells. It appears from the records that Sells exe cuted a mortgage to the defendant for the lot in controversy on the 19th .day of July, 1866, which was duly recorded on the 20th day of July, 1866, that after wards an agreement was entered into be tween the defendant and the mortgager; that the lot should be sold by Sells and the proceeds of the sale be applied to the payment of defendant’s mortgage debt; that on or about the 21st day of March, 1867, the lot was sold by Sells at public auction by his agent, Adair, and pur chased by complainant Hunnicntt for the sum of $1,457, Sells making him a deed to the lot as such purchaser. The complainant alleges that he had no actual notice of defendant’s mortgage; that the defendant was present at the sale of the lot when it was announced by the auc tioneer; that the title to the lot was good and the purchaser thereto would obtain a clear title, &c.; that when complainant had bid for the lot nearly its full value, the defendant said to him that it was good property and worth more than was being bid for it. The complainant con tinued to bid for the lot until it was knocked off to him as the purchaser thereof. The defendant gave no notice of Lis mortgage lien, nor said anything about his having a lien on the lot It was insisted on the trial that the presence of the defendant at the sale of the lot, his silence in regard to his mortgage lien on the property and his encouraging the de fendant to bid for it, by saying to him it was good property and was worth more than was being bid fur it, when taken in connection with the fact that the proper ty was being sold by tho consent of the defendant as mortgagee and the pro ceeds of the sale were to be ap plied iu payment of his mortgage deed, was such a fraud upon the complainant as the purchaser as will now estop the defendant from set tling up and enforcing his mortgage lien against the complainant. On the trial the jury returned the following special ver dict: “We, -the jury, find that. Marcellu' O. Markham was present at the sale made by Geo. W. Adair, auctioneer, of the property of Holmes Sells, on the 13tli September, 1866, at which G. W. Hun- nicuft became the purchaser of the lot described in exhibit C, attached to the within and foregoing bill, and that said M. O. Markham was then and there .present and assenting to said sale.” On this special verdict, the pre siding judge entered a decree that the defendant be estopped from enforcin THE ItIeCAL.IiA.,TRIAL, Second Day's Proceedings—TJic Prisoner Discharged. At 81 o’clock yesterday morning the trial of C. P. McCalla was resumed before Justice Batt. GoL Farrow proposed to introduce witnesses to prove that defendant had received monies of the W. and Atlantic Railroad unlawfully} &c. Major Hargrove for the defence, and in order to save time, was willing to ad mit tlio reception of any money which the prosecution proposed to prove—or any thing else. Among other admissions by the de fence was one, that a check in favor of O. O. Johnson & Co., was drawn on McCalla’s funds in bank, and that said C. O. Johnson & Go., were merchants doing business in the city, and that the defendant was one of that firm. G. F. Shillings testified that of his own knowledge he knew nothing cf Mc Calla’s receiving the $175; that he heard McCalla say that Burnett got his portion ox the $525, and Chamberlin got his, and he (McCalla) received $175 for his servi ces. Foster Blodgett said lie appointed Mc- Tlie Knoxville Press and Ilerahl gives the following account of a terrible homi cide, which occurred in Hawkins countv fifty-six miles from Knoxville: *' The circumstances, as we learn them, are as follows: Some time in August last, William D. Simpson loaned a coat to-the younger Patton, (the Pattons were tenants of Mr. Simpson, and lived on his farm,) to wear to church,- and instead. of returning it, Patton wore it to Lee county, Virginia, from whence he returned this week.— Yesterday forenoon Simpson charged young Patton with having stolen °his coat, and received some abusive lan guage in return, when a fight en sued, in ' which young Patton was worsted. Patton ran to his father’s house, and he and his father returned, armed with bowie knives, and attacked Mr. John A. Simpson and his son. Mr. Jolm A. Simpson was cut'ia the t)6Wels, and only lived a sufficient length of time to walk about twenty yards, when he fell in the corner of a fence and expired.— Mv. William D. Simpson received a cut in the groin, and lay upon the ground uutil carried to the house by the farm hands. ' After accomplishing their fiendish pur pose, thePattons returned to their homes, where the old man mounted a horse, wliiie the son walked, and started to wards the mountains. ThoPattonshave borne a bad reputation for some years. The old man is between sixty and seventy years pf age, and partially para lysed. His son. is about eighteen years old, and well grown for his age. Mr. John A. Simpson was about fifty, and his son William about eighteen years of age. As soon as possible a party was or ganized and started in ‘pursuit of tho murderers, and, as they took but one horse, and that a very o"d one, it is quite possible that they will be captured. — ivir. ooim-^A., Simpson is one of the oldest and ’most influential citizens of the county, well known as a merchant and business mau throughout the South, NEW YORK. What tlie Gothamites arc Do* his mortgage lien upon the lot purchased ! Calla General Bookkeeper in 1870; kisser by complainant, and perpetually enjoin- vices commence on the first day of August. ing him from doing so. The defendant made a motion to set aside the verdict and decree, and for a new trial, which His wages were at the rate of $2,000 per annum till the first of December, when was overruled by the Court, and the de-1 the same was increased to $2,500 per an- fendant excepted, It is true that the jury in equity causes may find a special vea-dict, decreeing the performance of a specific duty by the de fendant, and unless that decree is found by the jury upon the facts ascertained bv them, it is made the judgment of the The Bookkeeper has no authority to pay himself; but his account must pass throsigh the regular channel. Ha-known McCalla for fifteen or twenty years. Thought at the ;ime he appointed him Correspondence of the Atlanta Sun'.. New York, September 30, 1S71: Editors. Sun: Tho great excitement here at present, that absorbs everything else,_ is the alleged framies by tjie city officials, but as we see all through the medium of the New York press, I will not attempt to give my impressions. Of course, those papers that get the city ad vertising, sustain the administration, and those which are slighted, abuse it. As the slang phrase goes, “You know how it is yourself ” so'how can an outsider ar rive at the truth ? One thing is quite certain, and that is, that the city never had a more efficient Mayor, nor one who seemed so much alive to"ker interests, and to beautifying and improv ing her condition. New streets are being opened; all the old squares aro being torn up and modernized, while “Central Park” is even more beautiful than the far-famed “Bois de Boulogne.” There was quite a demonstration a few days since by the eight-hour working men, mostly composed of foreigners, ancl calling themselves - “the Internationals.” The spirit which actuates them is the same which prompted the Commu nists of Paris to such horrible deeds, and every conservative man, whether he be Republican or Democrat, must regard such demonstrations with fear and trem bling for the future. The theaters are all in full blast, but it is not yet the season for the “stars.” The fashionables are rapidly returning to the city, and all the world is on tip toe in anticipation of the expected arri val of the Grand Duke Alexis. A grand ball is to he given him, and the “ dear creatures” are all in a flutter as to wheth er they will be invited, and as to what they shall wear, if so fortunate. Amongst tho literary ladies from the South, I have had the pleasure of meet ing Mis3 Brock, the Virginia poetess; Mrs. Battey, the saucy, piquante repor ter, and Mrs. Tucker, who 13 well and favorably known in Georgia. In every avenue of business, and in every profession here, one finds South erners, and I am happy to report that they are all doing well. A day, or two since I paid a visit to the “Foundling Asylum of the Sisters of Charity,” and I have rarely seen a more interesting sight. It was established about two years since, and in that short period nearly three thousand little ones have beau cared for. Of course there is much said about it, pro and con; some contending that it prevents crime, while others insist that it increases it. Tv ell, each one to his taste, it is impos sible to please all. This is a great big, busy, rushing world of itself, and the few Ku-Klux outrages in the South, which have been magnified through Rad ical feurs, sink into insignificance, when compared to the crimes that here stalk at midnight and do. not cower be neath even the noonday sun. Fearing I have already tresspassed too Fug upon your patience, ancl promising to vrite again soon. Yours, &c., W. XNDtSTlWCT PRINT