Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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]