Newspaper Page Text
VOL.
AUGUSTA, GEO. MONDAY, JUNFlS, 1827.
* EVERY MONDAY AND THURSDAY
2 O’CLOCK. Tm M.
>l r . Howard’s Brick Buildinjs, opposite Mr. Camming s
Luvv liiiiidiugn, M’lntosli btrcet
DIRECTIONS.
Si'.cs of L»nd and Negroes, by Administratorsrpecu-
lors, or Guardians, arc require.), by law, to be held on the
* iri)t Tuesday in the mouth, between the hours of ten in the
forenoon and three in the afternoon, at the Court-house of
•he county in which the property is
„ so s-lcs must be given in a public gazette elXT.. days
orevions totli: day of sale.
Notices of the sale of personal property niust be giicn in
like manner, FORTY days previous to the day ol sale.
Notice to the debtors and creditors of an estate, must be
published for FORTY days.
Notice that application will lie made to the Court ot Or
riinnrv for leave to
MONTHS.
! lurid, must be published for NINE
LAW HEP0ET3.
Jefferson Superior Court, |
November Teem, 1826. f
whig ham vs. Street.
'I'ha principles settled in this case arc:
Tltc granting of new Trials is a mailer of dis
cretion'in Ike Court. A new trial will not be
granted, if justice has been done, although the Ver
di-! is con'rary lo laic and evidence.
Where several small notes are given for a Negro,
and suit is brought on lh<m in a Justice's Court:
Jf [lie negro was unsound, and teas therefore no
consideration for ih<- notes, this may be. pleaded
and pro v id, although the whole, value is beyond
ihe jurisdiction of Ike Court.
flic defendant, in an action upon notes, man
plead a failure or ward of consideration, although
he has taken a hill of sale with warranty of sound
ness for the thing for which tile notes were given;
mvl it is not nr essary, in order to entitle himself
to this defence, to return the thing sold in a reason
able lime.
H here there is evidence on both sides, and justice
has been done, a new trial will not be granted.
This was a Certiorari, brought by
Whigham, alleging error in the Court be
low, and the grounds of error assigned*
were :—1st. That the verdict is contrary
to law, because the defendant gave in evi
dence a failure of the consideration upon
which die notes were made, which consi
deration was, a negro woman, sold by the
plaintiff to the defendant, for die sum of
£362, for which the defendant had given
to die plaintiff sundry small notes, upon
which these suits Were brought, and that
as by law, Justice’s Courts only have juris
diction to the amount of thirty dollars,
they could not therefore take- cognizance
of die defence of die defendant, which a-
niouhtcd to 362 dollars,—(See Prin. Dig.
~’d *•) ■ ,
2d. That the defendant having taken
from the plaintiff a bill of sale, with War
ranty of soundness, he could not legally
giro in evidence, either a total or partial
failure of the consideration ; but is bound
• at all events to pay The amount of his notes
given for the purchase, money ; and then,
if he lias been injured, briny his action on
the warranty, and! recover damages com
mensurate with the injury sustained by
the false warranty.
3d. That even admitting that the fail
ure of consideration may be given in evi
dence; it can only bo done in those cases,
where the defendant immediately on dis
covering die unsoundness of the thing sold
had returned it to the vendor, and thereby
rescinded the contract.
4th. That die verdicts below, are con
trary to evidence, and the justice and
equity of the cause.
The facts are shortly these:—There,
was a public sale at die market house, in
Louisville, of certain Negroes, belonging
to the estate of a Mr. Patterson, by his
executor; and the negro woman, the sub
ject matter of this dispute, was put up and
sold, and purchased by Thomas Street,
the defendant. After she was knocked
off to Street, he applied to the executor
for a tide, when he was for the .first time
informed that she was not the property of
the estate, but of the plaintiff, Whigham,
to whom he must apply for a title. Street
then applied to Whigham,'ffi told himfie
ieared there was some cheat or fraud in
the matter, to which Whigham, leplied—
No, the only Cause he had for. selling
her, was because ids wifedid not like her.”
Street then received the negro, and took
from Whigham a bill of sale, with warran
ty id soundness, and gave his small- notes
tor the amount of tho x purchase money.
On the same day that Street received the
negro, he hired her to Edward Foley,
who immediately upon taking her home,
found he could not get her to work, and
sent Street word of the fact, but he.did
not come to see about her. Foley then
examined the negro, and found her badly
burned, upon ivjdcli lie sent word io Street
of that fact, and that he (Foley ) consider
ed her a fraud. JEdward Foley further
testified, that in January, when Street’s
notes were due, Srreetand Whigham.had
a conversation, in which Street said he had
to give the negro calomel and coperas
water to keep the swelling down, when
Whigham replied that he only gave her
sour-wood pills : and further, that whilst'
lie (Foley) kept her, her leg and thigh
were very much swollen, and she,limped
on it, which he believed was occas’oned
by the burn. Allen Waters, who was the
overseer of Street, testified that when the
negr# came home from Foley’s, (which
was in May, about 4 or 5 months after the
sale,) she was unable to work—that she
laid up about three months, and her leg
broke and run yellow water, which he
believed was occasioned by the burn ; and
that he (the witness) would not' give his
knife far her. Z. B. Haslip, testified that
the sight was so disgusting, -that he (the
■witness) turned his back upon her. Wjm.
Grimes testified that he was living with
Street-4-that the negro was unable to
work—was swollen considerably, which
when the negfo lived with Foley, she rati
away, and he caught and carried her back r
when Foley made her pulhup her clodi^s,
and show her situation, which she did, but .and tiiis brings, me to the consideration of
he believed was occasioned by the burn,
and that poor as he was, he would not
take her as a gift. The sale took place
in the month of January, 1825. John
Clements testified, that in April, after the
sale, Street offered Whigham fifty dollars
to take back the negro, which he refused
to do. Street also asked Whigham
why.he did not itiform him that the
negro was burned; to which Whigham
replied, “ it was none of his business.”—
John Patterson testified that about three
months after the sale, Street sent word by
him to VVHigham to come and get his mo
ney—he says the negr- - was burned when
a child—he never knew her deficient in
work, and believes it was no injury to her.
Wm. Little never knew that the negro
Was burned until after the sale, when his
wife informed him of the fact that she was
badly burned when a child. He never
knew it to injure her, and believes her
sound. He says Whigham told Street he
had injured the reputation of the negro,
and he would not take her back. Whig-
ham said he gave her sour-wood pills.—
James Patterson testified that he was rais
ed with the negro, and she could work as
well as the other negroes—that the burn
never injured her, and he believed lier a
sound negro. She limped some in her
walk, hut not to injure- her. Wm. Pat
terson never heard her complain of a burn.
John, Whigham testified that he knows
the negro—he lives within a mile of the
plaintiff-—he frequently saw her at work—
never knew her to be sick—did not know
that the burn injured her—he pulled fod
der with her, and she could pull as .well
as he could—He believes her to be a trus
ty negro—Sour-wood pills were given to
her. Samuel Denny testified that he fre
quently worked with the negro, and she
did good work, he never knew her sick
but once, and that was the biiious fever—
he once understood she was swollen, and
that the cause was pregnancy.
It was admitted by both parties in the
argument that the location of the burn was
on the lower part of the belly, near to
the privates and on the thigh, and that in
consequence thereof there was a contrac
tion occasioned by an adhesion of the thigh
and belly.
This cause was argued by Mr. Gamble
for the plaintiff, who cited the following
authorities. Chitty on bills 92 93 74—2
Gomvn on contracts 281 282. 2 Wheaton
185 to 190 And by’Mr. John Schley,
for the defendant, who cited the following
authorities, 2 Ter. Rep. 4. 4 Ter. Rep.
468. 2 Wms. A hr. 398.
By the Court—This case involves
Principles of great importance to the com
munity, and I have very attentively exam
ined the authorities on the subject, in or
der to make up my own mind upon the
question. This is a certiorari by which
the procedings in the causes below have
been removed to this Court for the pur
pose of correcting such errors as may have
been committed in that Court, and is in
effect a motion for a new trial in that
Court. All applications for new trials are
addressed to the sound legal discretion of
the Court ; and this discretion must be so
exercised as to advance the ends of sub
stantial justice. “ When a verdict has
been found against a party* his situation is
materially changed. The law no longer
regards him with the same equal eye, and
provided j istice has been done, seems
disnosed to abandon him to his fate.”—
And even where the jury raised a ^pre
sumption contrary to evidence, or have
found a verdict without evidence tosup-
port it, or contrary to law and evidence,
yet if the verdict is agreeable to justice
and equity, the Court will not disturb it,
Wdkinson v. Payne, 4 Ter. Rep. 468.
Dmcliess of Mszariri’s case, 2 Salk. 646.
F.dmonson v. Mitchell, 2 Ter. Rep. 4.
1 Bnrr* 54-. 2 Burr. 664. And the only
exception to this general rule to be found
in the books, is in the case of a misdirec
tion of the Judge, and The verdict has been
produced by his mistake : and there is not
a case tp lie found in the books, says Lord
Kenyon, where a new trial has been re
fused, when the verdict has proceeded up
on such mistake. But where the jury
have formed their opinion upon the whole
case, and justice has been done, a new
trial will not be granted^ although the jury
have drawn a wrong Conclusion. Wilson
y, Rastall, 4 Ter. Rep. 752. Taking
these fundamental rules, as established
and acquiesced in by the most learned
English Judges, and adopted by the Courts
of ilie highest reputation in this country,
as land marks for my own government, T
shall now proceed -to investigate; the case
under consideration.;
1st I t is objected to these verdicts that
the Court below'bad no jurisdiction of the
mutter of defence, because the contract
was for a negro woman, amoiintiug to the
sum of 362 dollars, and that Therefore the
jury should-have given a verdict on each
note for die plaintiff, disregarding the de
fence. This objection. is more plausible
thia tv sound. The legislature never could
have intended such injustice and absnrdi-
ty, as that, .because the contract was split
up into small notes, the Justice’s Courts
coulcl be used as instruments of injustice
to enforce the payment of them, whilst
the defendant-should be prevented from
showing, that in fact he iraver received
any consideration for them 1 apprehend,
therefore, that if a total or partial failure
of consideration or fraud, caiL-be given in
evidence by the defendant in any Court,
it naav be also done in a Justice’s Court:
failure of consideration, and -will be held
to an action on the warranty. To estab
lish this doctrine however,noauthority has
been produced, and I am disposed to be
lieve that none can be found, or it would
have been cited by the learned coiy»$el
who made the objection. I have no
diligently searched the books in vain
such a principle. What is the object in
taking a Warranty of soundness? it is not
to make the vendor liable for defects
known to him at the time of the
sale, because he is liable for such,
without a special warranty, if he has
fraudulently concealed them from the
vendee* Stewart v. Wilkins, Doug. 18.
20- 1 John Rep. 96, 274. Bree vs. Hol-
beck, Doug. 654. Parkinson v. Lee, 2
East 314.' Williamson v. Allison 2 East
448. Holden v. Dakin 4 Johu Rep. 421.
But it is to guard againstall defects, known
or unknown to the vendor, and to prevent
the necessity of proving a scienter iri the
vendor, which riiigbt often be very diffi
cult or impossible. A person therefore
having such warranty may, if. he has paid
the consideration money, recover it back
in an actiou of assumpsit, if the warranty
be untrue, or there be fraud; and if he
have no warrant}’, and the property be
unsound, he may upon proof of scienter in
the vendor, recover in this action.' Stew
art vs. Wilkins, Doug. 20. But if the
vendee has not paid the consideration
money, and has only given his promissory
notes for it, the contract is still open to
be enforced in a court of law ; and it is
competent for the defendant to plead
and give in evidence either a total
or a partial failure of the conside-
ra'ion, because a promisory note or
other instrument not under seal is only
a parol contract, the consideration of which
may be enquired into; Ballard v. Walk
er, 3 John Cases 64.—Rau. et al. exors,
v. Hughes, 7 Ter. Rep. 346 in note-^
Sears vs. Brink, 3 John Rep. 214. The
people v. Howell. 4 John Rep. 296.—
Pearson v. Pearson 7 John Rep. 26—1
Fonb Eq. 335 in note—1 Saund.211 in
note 2—Barnett vs. Biscoe 4 John Rep.
235.—Jeffries v. Austin, Strange 537.—
Solomon v. Turner, 1 Slarkie Rep. 51.
Jackson v. Warwick, 7 Ter. Rep. 121.
But when I say that a partifl failure of
consideration may be pleaded, and given
in evidence by the defendant, I would not
be understood to say, that where the spe
cific article, for example, a negro, is the
consideration for the promise upon which
the action is brought, and that negro has
some defect which lessens his value, tho’
not so as to amount to the total failure of
the consideration, such partial failure can
be given in evidence ; because this would
be a matter of unliquidated damages, and
in such case the defendant must pay the
whole amount of his notes, and bring bis
action for damages against the Yeudor.—
Chitty on Bills, 92. Morgan v. Richard
son, 1 Camp. Rep. 40 in note. Brown v.
Davis, 7 East. 48 in note. Moggrige v.
Jones, 14 East, 586. Flemming vs. Simp
son, l Camp. Rep. 40 in note. Tye vs.
Gwynn, 2 Camp. Rep. 346. But where
the partial failure of the consideration is a
separate and distinct matter, or part of the
whole consideration, which separate part
has totally failed : as for example, if the
entire consideration for the note or pro
mise be two pipes of wine, or two negroes,
and one turns out to be of no value, and
an action is brought for the whole a-
mount: in such case, there would be a
total failure of a part of the consideration
capable of proof and liquidation, and there
would be no necessity for a cross-action
to ascertain the damages, the amount be
ing already ascertained by the price a-
greed upon between the parties ; and
therefore the amount of the price of such
pipe of wine or negro, may be given in
evidence asa partial failure of the whole
consideration mentioned in such note or
agreement. Chitty on Bills, 91. Tye v.
Gwynn, 2 Camp. Rep. 346. Robinson v.
Bland, 2 Burr/I0S2. Barbour v. Back
house, Peake’s Cases 91.
The doctrine, however, in regard to
giving in evidence a partial failure of con
sideration has been carried much further
than above stated, as will be seen by the
following cases. Ledger v. Ewer, Peake’s
Cases, 216, which was an action ou a bill,
will, on examination be found to be cases
where theMefendant had a warranty of
Igubdness, and To this point see also the
Sase qf Lewis y. Cosgrave 2 Taunt. 2.
Ther&can be no doubt, then, that in the
case before the Court, the defendant
had a right to give m evidence to the ju
ry below, tne failure of tlie consideration
for which the notes were given, and this
brings me to the consideration of the third
objection. •
3d. The third ground taken bv the
counsel for the plaintiff is, that in order to
entitle the defendant to tiiis defence, lie
should have returned the negro, to. the
plaintiff immediately on discovering the
fraud; and a case in 2 Esp. Rep. 82. cited
in 2 Commyn op. contracts 281, is. relied
on in support of this position: and at first
view this case would seem to sustain the
ground taken, but I apprehend that ujjon
a critical examination it will be found to
be a case of only a partial failure of the
consideration agreed to be given for a
horse which was warranted to be sound,
but which had defective eyes. The de
fendant kept him seven weeks without in
forming the plaintiff of the fact, and in the
meantime doctored him for what lie sup
posed to be a disease in the feet. The
horse was worth something, and therefore
the consideration had not. wholly, failed &
there whs no charge or evidence of fraud,
against the Vendor. In -this case Lord
Eldon charged the jury, an particu
lar stress on. the fact of the Bo^se having
been blistered and doctorejj^^Kluld them.
“ if they believed that u^on .t^jtig apy!
future purchaser of thj^faqf^tbev ttiougfit
it would diminish the Value of the horse,
they should find for the plaintiff”—which
they did. This, however, is (he only case
which goes that length, and many are to
be found the other way. It is true that a
similar doctrine was held by Mr. Justice
Heath, in the casa of Lewis vs. Cosgrave,
in 2 Taunt. 2; but on a motion for a new I
trial, the Court made tjie lute absolute,
and a new trial was granted on the ground
of fraud in the Vendor. There are many
cases in the books which turn upon the
form of action ; in some of which it is ne
cessary to prove a return of <he property,
and thereby a rescission of the contract;
and in others, this is not necessary—for
instance, where there is no express war
ranty, and the plaintiff brings an action
for money had and received; there, a re
turn of the thi ig sold must be proved : but
where the plaintiff has a warranty, and
brings assumpsit upon such warranty, no
return of the property, or notice of un
soundness is necessary. See on this sub
ject the following cases:—Fielder v. Star-
ken, 1 Hen. Biac. Rep. 17. Towers v.
Barrett, 1 Ter. Rep. 136. Weston v.
Downes, Doug. 23* Power v. Wells,
Cowp* 818. Wherever* therefore, there
is a warranty of the thing sold, no return,
or notice of unsoundness is necessary,
and the plaintiff riiay recover upon the
warranty without either. And if the pur
chaser may recover on his warranty with
out a return of the property, or notice,
there can be no good reason, why when
he has not paid the consideration money,
he may not resist such payment, on the
ground of a false warranty and fraud, ou
the part of the Vendor, when an action is
brought agahist him to recover the price
of the thing sold ; and when the whole
matter can be settled, and justice done
in one action, it is absurd to say,, that
the purchaser shall be bound to pay the
money, and then turn round, and in anoth
er action recover it back* But, even ad
mitting the grotmd taken, to.be supported
in law, yet the facts of this case will not
support the objection; for, it appears by
the evidence, that the defendant about
three months after the sale, offered the ne
gro back to the plaintiff, and also offered
him fifty dollars to take her, which he re
fused to do; and further that the defend
ant diff not know of the defect in the rie-
gro, until some considerable time after the
purchasers he had not the possession of
her, having on the day of the purchase
lured her to Mr. Foley* This ground of
objection therefore is not supportedeilher
by the law or evidence and cannot prevail
—i^od this brings me to the last ground.
4th. The fourth and last gfound is that
the verdict is contrary to evidence, and
fondant) replied, “ it was none
ness.” These facts, taken together, show
strong circumstances cf fraud, \vhich are
sufficientlo avoid the contract. It is true
that the witnesses on the par( of the plain
tiff, proved negatively that the negro was
sound before the sale; but by the evidence
of Foley, it iscleayly arid positively prov-
<?<L that she tfcas unsound; shortly after
the sale, and that, it .proceeded from the
burn, the.existence of which burn before
tlie sale, was proved by the witnesses for
tlie plaintiff/.; ;Thc jury, therefore; might
very reasonably infer that such unsound-
ness existed at the time of the sale, and
that, therefore, there was fraud, on the
pqrt of the plaintiff, and that the defend
ant had received no consideration for the
poles, the subject of the suits. They have,
therefore, done right in’finding a verdict
for the defendant, and I am riot disposed,
to distiirffit.
None of the objections now taken to't'hc
legality of th’e defence, seem to have been
taken upon the trial in the court below,
and therefore even if in point of law,
they could have been supported, yet the
court Committed no error in admitting the
evidence, as it was not objected to..
For these reasons I believe rio error
has been committed in the court below—
that the verdict of the jury is according to
law, equity, arid justice, and Therefore the
samg is confirmed and a new trial refused.
Rule discharged,
, Gamble, for Plaintiff.
John Schley, tor Defendant.
Grood JLucJi at tiBeers’.
No. 8576. Combination 6 19 40
IN THE ,
WASHZffGTOV CITY
LOTTERY,
4. £il> SAriVU
was procuied at BEERS' OFFICE, bv an in
dividual of this City, and the CASH was prompt
ly paid for U on presentation-
The Following arc the drawn numbers:
GO, 28; 45,57,31,6,16,40,19.
Holders of Prizes will call and receive the
Cash, or renew in the Savannrfli Monument Lot
tery, the drawing of ubich will be received here
ou Friday 22d inst.
Tune 14 jo t f
LOTTERIES.
SUGAR, COFFEE,
AND
BAGGING.
Pieces first quality Hctrp Bagging,
-1(L Hlids! St. Croix Sugar, •
50/Bags Green Goffe,
30 do Rio do
50 Bids. Old Ohio Whiskey,
10 Hhds. Philadelphia do
30 Bbrs. Baltimore Gin*
20 do Northern Ruin,
20 do . Newark. Ciejer, ^ 1 ,
20 do Albany Summer Ale,
10 Pieces Salt Sacking,
50 Boxes Soap,
20 do Sperm Candle's,
- 20 do Northern do
50 do 1st quality. Havana Segars,
20 do Raisins, «.
5 Casks London Porter,
5 Barrels Smoked Beef,
Cognac Brandy, Holland Gin, Jamaica Ruin,
Madeira, Teneriffe, and Malaga Wines,
Iron, Salt, Shot, Lead, fcc.
For sale on reasonable terms, by
GEORGE R. JESSUP,
330 Broad-street.
Jitrre 14 jo 6t
NEW-YORK
Consolidated Lottery.
CLASS NO. 2
Drawn on TUESDAY, 12th June.—The Draw
ing will be received on Saturday 23d inst.
Highest Prize $15,000.
Tickets $5— Halves §2 50—Quarters $1 25.
Uhion Canal Lottery.
CLASS 29th. J
To be Drawn on the lfitli inst.—The Drawing
wifi be received here on tire 26th.
Highest Prize $16,000.
tickets $5—Halves $2 50—Quarters 1 25.
YIRGINIA LOTTE RY.
FOR-THB BESEFIT OF THE
Dismal Stcamp Canal Company.
CLASS 7th.
To be Drawn on the 20th Instant.—The Drawing
• wiH.be received here oikihe 28th inst.
tickets $5—Halves 2 50—Quarters SI 25.
Adventurers can have their choice the above
Rich Schemes—all of which will be determined
m a few days.
APPLY AT
BEERS’
Fortunate Lottery Office,
£41 Broad-street, Augusta.
June 14 12 tf
SALT.
Landing from Steam-Boat Compan’ys
Boat, No. 4,
8500 BUSHELS SALT, for sale by
geo. r. Jessup,
330, Broad-Street.
June 14 12 3t
and Lord Kenyon directed the jury that | the justice and equity of the cause
the second objection.
2nd. Ir is objected iri the second place,
that ihe defendant having taken a bill of
sale, with warranty of soundness, is estop
ped from pleading dr giving in evidence a
they should take into consideration the
damage really sustained by the plaintiff,
by the non-performance of the contract,
and were not bound to find the whole a-
mount of the bill* Sec also the case of
Kingvs. Boston, 7East.481 in note, which
was an action to recover the value of a
horse sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.
The plaintiff had warranted the fatorse to
be sound, but it appearedin evidence that
he was not sound; the price was twelve
guineas, of which the defendant had paid
three. It-was proved that the horse was
worth only ils 6d, and the defendant
afterwards sold'him for £l 10s. Lord
•Kenyon held that the plainliff could only
recover the value of the horse, and more
having been already paid him by the de
fendant, he nonsuited the plaintiff. There
are many other cases of the same kind in
the books. And in cases of actions for
work and labour and materials found &c.
either upon a quantum meruit, or on a
count fpr a specific sum agreed upon be
tween the parties,-if the work is not pro
perly done, the defendant may plead and
prove the. fact/arid will only be ffable for
the real value of’ the work," &xf. Bastori
v. Butler 7 East 479.'" Farnsworth vs,
Garrard 1 Gamp. Rep'. 38. And in all
these- cases of failure of consideration,,
the fact of- the defendant having a warran
ty does not preclude him front making the
defence, and turn aim round to a cross ac
tion: for many of the cases above cited,
lu the investigation of this branch of the
case, it is not competent for the Court to
go into a critical examination of the facts
—to weigh the evidence, t>r determine tlie
eredit ol the witnesses. It is enough for
the court, if it can find iu the evidence,
facts sufficient to support the verdict, al
though ihese.veiy facts may he contradic
ted by some other part of the evidence,
and although partof the evidence inay be
directly contrary to the verdict, because
FOR SALE*
A T half cost, if applied for sood, A SECOND
HAND GAG-, of superior workmanship.
Jtfhay be seen-at Lamar’s Ware-Housc.near the
Bridge.- - .
June 14 12 2t
' j. " l - .
NEXT LOT7SRY.
Greene 'and Fulaski dfouumcnt
Draws on WEDNESDAY NEXT, 20th inst.—
The first Drawing will be received by the Savan
nah Mail, on the 22d inst.
ONLY 3,000 TICKETS.
SCI! EMC.
Prize of $5000
„ 1000
1
1
o
5
10
20
1000
500
200
100
50
5
TO RENT,
T HAT valuable Establishment, known as {he
Mansion House, in the City of Augusta,
situated.on Green-street, and at present occupied
by Mr. M’keen. The accommodations are ex
tensive and good. . The situation is* considered
one of the most eligible f6r a Public Honse in
the city. Possession given on the lst of October
next. For 'terms apply at the Branch Bank,
Augusta.
June 7 10 tf
FOR SALE,
A Valuable Ten Acre Lot, with the improve
ments thereon, situated iu the village of
Summerville, between the residence of Mr. An-
• , -. . ^ .*-.,. i gus Martin and Mr. Beniamin Sims. The conti-
the jury have a right to- use their d.-scre- of th rs property to a spring of excellent
tion in believing any, part of the testimony -----
of the witnesses. Fielder v. Starkin, 1
Hen. Blac. Rep. 20. And where there
is evidence on both sides, and justice has
beeirdorie* the court will not grant a new
trial, and more particularly in questions of
fraud. Ward v. Canter, 3 John Rep. 271.
In tlie evidence now under considera
tion, f think there is-enaugh'to justify the
verdict for the defendant; lor it appears by
the evidence of two of the witnesses that
the negro was of no value, one declaring
he would not/gjve his knife for her, and
the other that-ffe-would not take her as a
gift. The plaintiff' acknowledged that he
had to give her sour-wood pills to keep
down the swelling, arid the fact of his ha
ving been in the habit of givingjier such
pills was also testified to by life own wit
nesses; and'again/wheii the plaintiff w&s
asked hy the defendant, “ why he diffnot
infer a him (the defendant) (hat (be ne
gro 1 been badly burned,” he (the de-
water, added to the many conveniences on the
lot, renders it a desirable situation for a family
disposed to-purchase. For terms apply at the
Branch Bank, Augusta.
June 7 10 6t
1039 Prices. /
1961 Blanks.
Tickets $6—Halves $3—Quarters $1 50
FOR SALE AT
BEERS’
For tun Ate Lottery Office,
No. 241 Broad-street.
June 14 ]2 2t .
CORN.
2000 Bushels of Prime Beach Island
CORN, in store, for sale in lots to suit purchas
ers.—Apply to
HALL L HARDIN.
June 7 io tf
At No. 305, Broad Street.
J UST received, and for safe by F. S. WAR-
NER, for Cash, or a long credit for appro
ved paper, a General Assortment of Fresh Im
ported. British, French and American DRY
GOODS—Among Which are
Callicoes Handkerchiefs
MusKns • Shawls
Dimities Leghorn Hats
Cambrics do B.iivar;
Linens and Crapes and Crape Lisse
Linen Cambrics' Fancy Handkerchiefs
Vesjtings Colored Gause
Bombazines Grass Cloths
\V ollinetts *„ Black, blue, & fancy el’d
Drillings Cloths Cassinicrcs
Grand D. iJls Rl'k k col’d Velvets
Plaids ? Buttons, Sewings
Checks and StripeA Figdkplain Levantines
Hosiery do Gros dc Naples,
Muslin Robes &c. S:c.
April 26 ’90 eoistf
Notice is hereby given,
1^*07 that application will be made
to the Bank of the State of Georgia, for the pay
ment of the righthand’halF of a note for §100
Letter E. No. 369, dated December 1825, and
made payable to S. Hde, atthe Branch Bank at
Augusta—which Imlf note was endorsed L Good-^
win fc. Co.' and has been'lost or stolen from (he' -
mail between Marion, in Georgia, and Chat les
ion, South Carolina!
L; GOODWIN k Co. '
-June7 ,/ 10 9ridv’
A-
©Pv. George A. B®ck-
lix, offers life services to life
inhabitants of Augusta and its vicinity, in the
professions of. Medicine' and Surgery,
His office is in the adjoining building to Mr
Lafitfs boarding house, on Mackintosh-Street.
June 11 ■ . lKf
FOR SALE
AT THE OFFICE OF THE
GEORGIA COURIER-
Recog nizancee,
Insolvent debtors notices
do Bonds,
Writs of Garnishment,
Magistrates Summons.
do Executions
Land Deeds,
Sheriffs Titles,
Subpoenas,
Declarations,
Claim Bonds,
-Militia Summons’
, Militia Executions,
NolaryV Notices, &c. foe. foo*
Jone 4
, RFCEIYEii
'Lbs. good Skirting Leather,
1000 “ “ Black Harness do.
For'Site on reasonable terms by/
B. W. FORCE.
271, Broad-Sired
June. 11 j]