Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Vol. L. MILLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1869. No. 34. JSZL- O E Sc S O jm, EDITORS and proprietors. ], r ih—) i’er annum, in Advance. U ,V■KKTIS'IXG—Persquare oftenlines, each ' er tida, S I ,,l E_ Merchants and others foratl j,ants jver $ 25,twenty-live per cent.off. LEGAL ADVERTISING. tlrlinary''s.—‘Citationetor letter* ot ad- . ii,tratiou .guardianship , Ac $3 Ot) i ,„i,-stead notice . 2 00 1 ; c:itioutorletters ot dism’n fromadm’n 5 00 1 jjicatiout’or lettersot dism’n of guard’n 3 50 ^ ! i ication tor leave to sell Land 5 00 V[, e to Debtors and Creditors 3 00 ■ les 0 ! Luid, per square, of ten hues 5 00 U' personal, per sq., ten days.... 1 50 f if.—Etch levy often lints, or less.. 2 50 sales often lines or less 5 00 i' 1 .-x Collector’s sales, persq, (2 months) 5 00 ir/a--Foreclosure of mortgage and oth- C '' r "monthly’s, per square 1 00 ,.. trilV notices, thirty days 3 00 Tributes of Respect, Resolutions by Societies i',ituaries, exceeding sit lines, to be charge 1 j transient advertising. ’ -gej lies of Land, by Administrators, Execu- , ail udians, are required by law,to be helj lhi the lirst Tuesday in the month, between the i , ]]S often in the forenoon and three in the a '• ,, j , ou , at the Court-house in the county in which y,. property is situated. V uiee of these sales must be given in a public ,'iu Jtte 40 days previous to the day of sale. Notice for the sale of personal property must be •,ve i in like manner 10 days previous to sale day . Notices tJ debtors and creditors of an estate B , s - ,iiso be published 40 days. Nitiee that application will be made to the t'jurt of Ordinary for leave to sell laud, must be Polished for two mouths. Citations for letters of Administration, Guar- j l „ s | 1 ip, &c., must be published 30 day s—for dis- „ u) pi(H from Administration, monthly six months ; !imnissiou trorn guardianship, 40 days. Kii:s for foreclosure of Mortgages must be ■) pjiished ot inlhly forfoitr mouths—for establish* papers, for the full spaccof three months— i.ir : i mohing titles from Executors or Adiuinis- trators, wiiere bond has been given by the de- ceiHa 1. the full space of three months. Charge, *1 ilJ ptr squire of ten lines for each insertion, p i Lie itioas will always be continued accord these, the legal requirements, unless oth ...vise ordered. Me dale olMicoii & Augusta R* R. Leaves Camalc, daily, at 12.30 P. M. •Milledgeville (1.30 A.M. Arrives at Milledgeville —....... 4.20 P.M. Camak 11.00 A- NI. Passengers!eaving Augusta or Atlanta on Day hsseuferTrain of Georgia Railroad will make .ue connection at Camakfor inteimediatepoints the above road, and also for Macon, Arc. Pas- ■ -jo-ers faring Milledgevilleat 5.30. A. M..reach Atlanta and Augusta same day,and will make ,'.; ose connections at either place for principal miatsin adjoining States. 1 J B E. W .COLE, GenMSnpt. Augusta,January 7,1668 4 tl 'Uirni-WESTERN it. R. (’o. . OFFICE, MACON, GA. t March24th, 186H Columbus Train—Duily. Leave Macon ia ‘m' Arrive at Columbus 1L "• "* • heave Columbus a on p m" Arrive at Macon ••• 6.20 P - EafauLa Train—Daily. Leave Macon 8.00 ^ Arrive atEufaula \ "J- Leave Eufaula Cmnecting with Albany Train at Smithvillc Ltave Sinithville I -46 P. M. Arrive at Albany P- Leave Albany J ^ A. M. Arrive at Smithville .11.00 A. M. rmnectino with Fort Gaines Train at Cuthliert. Leave Outhbert * 57 t> m Arrive at Fort Gaines b.iij I . M. Leave Fort Gaines' 7.05 A. M. Arrive at Cuthbert 9.05 A.M. O'Uiuecting with Central Railroad and Macon ,t Western Railroad Trai us at Macon, and Mont gomery & West Point Trains at Columbus. VIRGIL POWERS, Engineer «& Superintendent. Schedule of the Georgia Railroad. I IN AND AFTER SUNDAY, MARCH 29tli U MRS, the Passenger Trains on the Georgia Railroad will run as follows: DAY PASSENGER TRAIN. (Daily, Sundays excepted ) Leave Augusta at * A® A M- Atlanta at T'~, » vr Arrive at Augusta 3.30 I . M. “ at Atlanta P. M. NIGHT PASSENGER TRAIN. Leave Augusta at * <4 45 1. M. '• Atlanta at ^ ' V Arrive at Augusta > -' }l , “ Atlanta 4.00 A.M. BERZELIA PASSENGER TRAIN- Leave Augusta at 4.30 I • M. Uerxelia at 7-OCI A. M Arrive at Augusta n id’ “ at iierzelia , . x^.W. Passengers for Milledgeville,Washington and Athens,Ga.,musttakeDay Passengei Train iroui Augusta and Atlanta. Passeugersfor West Poiut, Montgomery, Sel ma, .Mobile and New Orleaus must leave Augusta on Night PassengerTrain at 3.45 P. M.,to make cluse couuections. „ . , _ , x I’asseuoers for Nashville,Corinth,Grand June- bou, Memphis. Louisville and St. Louis can take either train and make close connections. Through Tickets and Baggage checke^dthrough G the above places. ....... Pullman’s Palace SleepingCars on all Night Passenger Trains. . ,, S E . W. COLE, Gen lSuperint dt. Augusta,March 26,1868 i—iL Atlanta SL fllfe&L Ifolnt RAIL HOAD. Day Passenger Train—Outicard. Leave Atlanta 4.45 A. M. Arrive at West Point 9..j0 P. M. Day Passenger Train—Inward. Leave West Point I-M Arrive at Atlanta 6.20 P.M. .Sight Freight and Passenger—Outward Leave Atlanta iVan P w’ Arrive at West Point 11.4(1 P. M. ■ViyAt Freight and Passenger Train—Inward. Leave West Point-.- ^*7,^ * Arrive at Atlanta. 11.30 A. M. 4>h.an.cye. of* £PchccLulr• OFFICE SOUTH CAROLINA R. K. CO , J Augusta, Ga., March 25, 1866. ) O N AND AFTER SUNDAY, 29th March, 1808,the Mai and Passenger Trains of this 1{ oad will leave and arrive at through Central bepot,Georgia Railroad, as follows: burning Mail and Passenger 1 rain ^ 0r Fliarleston, connecting Train for Columbia, South Carolina, Charlotte Road, and W’ilming- tonand Manchester Railroad. L^aveCentral Depot at 5.50 A.M. Arrive atCentral Depot .. —. • 3.30 P. M. ■^‘ght Passenger Sf Accommodation Train I" orC'narleston, connecting with Train for Co- lumbia.and withGreenville andColumbiaRail- road: Leave Central Depot at 3.50 P. M. Airive atCentral Depotat 7.00 A. M. H. T. PEAKE, General Superintendent IDECISI03NTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, Delivered at Atlanta, Aug. 3, ’69. Furnished by N. J. Hammond, Supreme Court Reporter, Expressly for the Constitution. H. & T. M. While, plaintiffs in error, vs. New Manufacturing Company, defendants in error. Motion to dis miss bill of exceptions, from Newton counly. BROWN, C. J, 3 • Where a motion for a new trial was made in the Court below, which was granted, and that decision is brought by writ uf error to this Court, a brief of the oral, and a copy of the written evidence adduced in the Court below, must be embodied in the bill ot exceptions, or attached theiclo as an exhibit, when presented to the Judge for his certificate, and identified by his signature on the same as a true copy, and constitute a part of the same b or ihe writ of error will be dismissed. 2. In a motion for a new trial, a brief of the evidence agreed upon by the parties, and approved by the Court without such agreement, in case they fail to agree, must he filed in the clerk’s office. But such brief of evidence con stitutes no part of the record, and need not lie recorded by the clerk, and as it is embodied in the bill of exceptions, should not be embraced in the copy of ihe recerd sent up to this Court. 3. The record in a case in the Su perior Court, consists of the declara tion, process, plea, return of service by the sheriff and other official entries, verdict, judgment and all interlocutory orders passed by the Court during the pendency of the case ; and in case of a motion for a new trial, the order nisi, together with any order passed by the Court, setting it down for a hearing in vacation, or adjourning the hearing from time to time, and in case a new trial is granted, all subsequent orders passed by the Court including the final judgment. Writ of error dismissed. Clarke & Pace, Peeples & Stewart, for plaintiffs in error. Jno. J. Floyd, Hammond & Mynatt, for defendants in error. Richard T. Walton, plaintiff in error, vs. John L. Anderson, defendant in error. Equity from Wilkes. BROW N, C. J. ]. When the question was raised whether a bona fide purchaser of eigh teen bales ot cotton, from a defendant in fi. fa. in 1861, could bold it discharg ed from the lien of the judgment after two years possession, and the evidence was in conflict, the weight of it being in favor of the bona fides ot the transaction ; and the Court charged the jury that two j'ears possession ot the collon bona fide, and tor valuable consideration without notice, before the levy or service of the bill, d ischarg ed the cotton from the lien of the judg ment ; and the jury found for the de fendant, who was the purchaser. Held : That the charge ot the Court and the finding ot the jury, were right, under the rule laid down by this Court at this term, in the case Chapman vs. Akin. And a new trial will not be granted, because the Court may have charged loo favorably to the defendant, upon another ground taken in the case, which could not change the verdict if the defendant was a bona fide purchas er of the cotton for a reliable consider ation, which question was distinctly submitted to the jury by the charge as given by the Couit, and found by the defendant. Judgment affirmed. Toombs & Du Bose, for plaintiff in error. Judge Wm. Reese, for plaintiff'in error. W. T. Marlin, plaintiff in error, vs. John Eberhart administrator, etc., defendant in error. Ejectment, from Oglethorpe. BROWN, C. J. Where the testator directed that all his property be kept together during ihe widowhood of his wife, to be used for the support and maintenance of his wife and the education of their minor children, and that his executors give off to each of bis minor sons, as they might come of age, and to his daugh ters as they might come of age, or mar ry, about thirty-one or two hundred dollars in money, or property, as may be most convenient to the estate, and most suitable to the parly receiving property ; and in order to enable his executors the more conveniently to car ry out the foregoing objects, he there by gave them power to sell any ot his property, and to buy, or to exchange, tor other property, taking care to give a full statement and history of all such sales, purchases and exchanges, to the Court of Ordinary. Held: That it was the intention ot the testator to give the executor pow er to sell at private sale, and that such sale by him, if fairly and honestly made conveyed a good titfe to the put- chaser. Judgment reversed. Toombs, Mathews and Reid, lor plaintiff in error. A. T. Akerman, for defendant hi ei- ror. Jas. H. Jones, plaintiff in error, vs. Lellyett & Smith, defendant in er- or. Claim from Catoosa. WARNER, J. This was a claim case. It appears from the record, that the plaintiff’s ob tained a judgment against Wooten, the defendant in error, who was the owner of a lot of land in controversy at the lime of the rendition ot the judgment ; that Wooten had been adjudged a bankrupt ; that several years before W uoten became a bankrupt, lie sold the laud to Jones, the claimant, who weni into possession of it ; that the judgment was a valid lien on the land at the time Woolen became a bank rupt ; that this property was noL in cluded in Wooten’s schedule ; that this debt was not [moved in the Bankrupt Court, and that Wooten’s estate paid no dividend. Held: That upon the foregoing state ment of tacts, that the lien of the judg ment creditor upon ihe land, under the laws of this 8tate, was not defeated by the bankruptcy of Wooten, and that Jones, tho claimant, could not plead Wooten’s certificate of discharge in bankruptcy against the judgment cred itor, and, thereby, defeat his judgment lien upon the lien upon the land,which was a good and valid lien thereon ;— that by the 20th section of the Bank rupt Act, the judgment creditor having a valid lien upon the land, was not bound to prove his debt secured by the lien, to the extent of the value there of in the Bankrupt Court. Judgment affirmed. Huge & Spraberry for plaintifi'in er ror. Dodson & Payne for defednant in error. O. Rockwell, plaintiff in error, vs. D. (j. Proctor, defendant in error. Cer tiorari, from Monroe. Where a suit was instituted in a Justice’s Court by the plaintiff against the defendant as an inn-keeper, to re cover the value of a lost overcoat,worth thirty dollars, which had been receiv ed by a negro then in charge of the ho tel, and officiating therein as the ser vant of the inn-keeper during his ab sence, and deposited in the usual place of depositing the goods of the inn-keep er’s guests upon their arrival at the Ro le!. Held : That the Justice’s Court had ; jurisdiction ot the subject matter of ihe | suit, and that the defendant was lia- | ble as an inn-keeper to the plainlift’for j the value of the lost overcoat, under the stale of facts disclosed by the rec-j ord in this case. Judgment reversed. J. S. Pinckard, for plaintiff in error. A. D. Hammond, tor defendant in error. George R. Sims, et. al., vs. Martha j Sims, et. al. Bill, etc., from Ogle- j thorpe. McCAY, J. 1. An heir at law before he can claim any part of an estate as distrib uted, must account for advancements at their value, at the lime of the ad- vaneemerft. 2 In the distribution of an intestate’s estate, a memorandum, kept by a pa rent, of his advancements to hit. chil dren, indicating, a scheme of distribu tion of specific articles in kind, is only evidence of the fact of the advance ments, etc., prima, facie of their value ; and its indications of the intestate’s scheme for the distribution of his es tate will be unheeded, unless the pa per be proven as a will. 3. The value of an estate, at the time of the first distribution is the proper i criterion for arriving at the rights of the heirs al law with respect to ad vancements. Judgment affirmed. B. H. Hill, by the Reporter, for plaintiffs in error. Mathews & Reid, Toombs & Du- Bose, tor defendants in error. Miles G. Itobbins, vs. C. N. Dupree. Illegality, from Spalding. McCAY, J. 1. The verdict in this case is r.ot so contrary to the evidence, as to shock the moral sense, or show manifest cor ruption, prejudice, or mistake in the jury, nor does it violate any rule of the law. 2. In this State, though an Attorney who appears in a cause, and confesses judgment tor a suitor, is prima facie to he held as retained by the suitor, yet, if the fact be otherwise, the Court will on proof to that effect, set aside pro ceedings. Judgment affirmed. Brown, C. J., concurring. 1. Where an Attorney al law ac knowledges services of the writ, and at the trial term, confesses judgment, for the defendant, the presumption of law is, that he had authority to do so; but tliat presumption is only prima. fa cie, and may be rebutted by proof. 2. In a proceeding to set aside a judgment, on the ground that the de fendant was never sued, when it ap pears that an Attorney of the Court,ac knowledged service, and confessed judgment for him, the burden o( proof if upon the defendant, who moves to vacate the judgment ; and he must make satisfactory proof that the attor ney had no authority to represent him, or the judgment will not lie disturbed. But if the evidence is conflicting, arid the special jury have found for the movent, and the presiding judge has refused to set aside the verdict, which was afterwards set aside by this Court ; and »here has been a new trial before another jury and another Judge, and the movent lias strengthened his evi dence, on the second trial, and the ver dict is again in his favor, and the pre siding Judge on the second trial,refuses to disturb it,and the evidence is so con flicting as to raise grave cloubts which way the finding should have been, and no rule of law has been violated, this court will not further interfere. It is the proper province of the jury to de cide questions ol fact, and when the evidence is conflicting, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the find ing, this court wilt be slow to disturb it. Warner, J., dissenting. W len it appeared from the record, that a judgment had been entered against a defendant upon an acknowl edgment of service on the writ, and confession of judgment by an attorney at law; that the defendant resided in the county, within one mile and a hall from the Court house where the judg ment was rendered, and no motion having been made to set the judg ment aside until the expiration of five years after it was rendered, and the attorney who made acknowledgment of service and confessed the judgment, swears, that he should not have done so wiihoul authority, and no just de fense to the original contract being al leged as a reason for setting the judg ment aside. Heid : That, under the 448th sec tion of the. Code, the acts of the attor ney acknowledging service, and con fessing judgment, were prima facie cor rect, and binding upon the defendant as to his authority to do so indepen dently of his testimony upon that point ; and that it is against the policy of the law, as well as against public policy, to allow the defendant to come into Court and set aside the judgment upon his own evidence that he had not been legally served in the original suit, upon the slate of facts presented by the re cord, as was held by this Court, be tween the same parties in this case, in 36th Ga. Rep. 108. Speer & Beck. Boynton &Dismuke, for plaintiff'in error. Peeples & Stewart for defendant in error. Rivers Reese vs. D. H. Burts, admin istrator, etc. illegality, from Chat tahoochee. McCAY, J. 1. A temporary administrator may fife an “illegality” to an executive pro ceeding to sell the intestate’s lands,and the permanent administrator will, on motion, he allowed to become a parly to the proceeding. 2. An execution, to enforce a judg ment must follow t lie judgment, and if there be a material variance, the exe cution will be quashed. 3. \\ hen a decree directs that cer tain described lands shall be sold to satisfy a lien for the purchase money, with a proviso that this shall- not inter fere with tlie widow’s dower, and that the parcels set off to her shall be free from the force of the lien.” Held : That a lair construction of the judgment is, that the lien is to be enforced against all the lands describ ed, but not to proceed against the dow er lands until the death of the widow. 4. Held further : That on proof of the death, the Court will direct execu tion to issue against all the lands, but that it is illegal for the clerk, without an order of the Court, to issue an exe- ecution directing the sale of the whole, without qualification, even if tlie fact be that the widow is dead. 5. The vendor’s lien for the pur chase money, when it exists, stands under the Code on the same footing as a mortgage, in the distribution of ati es tate, and it does not lose ils priority even if not reduced to judgment until after the death. . Ju Igment affirmed. E. G. Raiford for plaintiff in error. D. H. Burts for defendant in error. John H. Lovelace, vs. Chas. H. Smith, et. al. Debt, from Harris. WARNER. J. When a suit was instituted on a guardians bond against the principal and surity, to recover the amount ofa judgment alleged to have been ren dered against the guardians, and when the judgment was offered in evidence, 14 appeared to have been rendered a- gainst the defendant therein in his in dividual capacity, and not as guardi an—the plaintiff then moved the Court to amend the judgment upon the ground that it was rendered upon a note sign ed by the defendant in his individual capacity, but in the body thereof,prom ised to pay the plaintiff' the amount specified in the note “as guardian” without staling lor whom he was guar dian—the Court refused the motion to amend the judgment, and nonsuited the plaintiff's case upon the evidence offered to charge the guardian and his surety in a suit upon his guardians’s bonds, for the amount of the judgment claimed by the plaintiff’. Held : That the guardian could not by an^ contract bind the estate of his ward, so as to render his surety liable therefor, other than such as are spec ially allowed by law as provided by the Code, and that there was no error in the refusal of the Court to allow the judgment to be amended, and in granting the nonsuit, upon the state ment of facts contained in the record, see Section 1S2S—1821 ot the Code. Judgment affirmed. L. L. Stanford, for plaintiff’ in er ror. Jas. M. Mobley, by L. E. Bleckley, for defendant in error. Jno. C. F. McCook vs. Paulina Cou sins. Motion for new tidal, from Chattahoochee. WARNER, J. When C, and E, a freedman, enter ed into an agreement to rein land and make a crop for that year, and in pur suance of such agreement,E, the freed man, rented land from M, and culti vated the same, and made a crop thereon ; and from the evidence in the record the jury had a right to presume that M had knowledge of the agree ment between C and E, as to the man ner in which they were working and making a crop together. Field : That M could not retain out of the proceeds of the crop C’s share thereof for provisions furnished to E, without the consent of C, the more es pecially when it appears that M had made a special contract with E, the freedman, to furnish him with provis ions for that year, and had taken oth er security therefor. Held also : That, in view of the facts of this case, as presented by the record, the Court below did not err in refusing to charge the jury as request ed, por in the charge as given to the ju ry on the trial of the case. Judgment affirmed. P. A. Burts for plaintiff in error. E. G. Raiford for defendant in er ror. B. Hawkins, vs. Thurston & Andrews. Trespass, from Muscogee. WARNER, J. When the Court below granted a new trial in a case, upon the ground that two of Lhe jurors who tried the same, were members of the Grand Ju ry and had found a true bill against the defendant, which fact was not known to defendant until after the trial. Field : That th s Court will not con trol the discretion of the Court below in granting a new trial upon the state ment of facts contained in this record. Judgment affirmed. Ramsey & Ramsey, P. Brannon, for plaintiff in error. Ingram and Crawford, by the Re porter, for defendant in error. Leopold Slernheiiner, pl’ff in error, vs. Isaac Coleman, deft in error. Ac tion on Account, from Muscogee. BROWN, C. J. 1. It is the right of the Court in the exercise of a sound discretion, during the trial of a cause to propound to coun sel on either side, any question he may think proper or pertinent to the ease. 2. When a party has given up the management of his case to his counsel, and is on the stand testifying as a wit ness, and a question is propounded by llie opposing counsel to which his own counsel objects as illegal; but lie ex presses his willingness to answer; it is not error in the Court, if the question propounded be illegal, to sustain the objection and refuse to allow the an swer to fie given in evidence to the j u ry. 3. Where one ot the items in plain tiff’s account is for money paid by plaintiff to a Railroad Company for the use of defendant; and plaintiff leudeTs a receipt from the Agent of the Com pany, signed as Agent; showing the payment, which is objected to, because it is not in proof that the person sign ing the receipt is in fact Agent; or that it is in his handwriting, and the Court overrules the objection, and allows the teceipt to be read in evidence; and the defendant in his testimony afterwards admits, that plaintiff did pay for him to the Railroad Company, the precise amount mentioned in the receipt; the admission of.tbe receipt in evidence is no ground for a new trial. 4. When two items in the account are lor money paid by plaintiff for the use of defendant at his request, and plaintiff offers in evidence the receipts of the persons to whom the money was paid ; which are ruled ouUbecaiise they are not stamped ; and the defendant admits in his testimony that plaintiff paid for him to each of said persons the amount specified in the receipt; but swears that he paid back to plain tiff the money which he paid to one of them; which the plaintiff’ in his testi mony denies ; and the receipts are per mitted by the Judge to be carried by the jury to their room, with the other papers in the case ; to which defend ant’s counsel afterwards states in his place, he objected ; and one of the ju rors afterwards swears that he heard defendant’s counsel say something about the papers going to the jury, but cannot slate what he said, and does not state that the jury either read or con sidered the receipts; aud neither the Judge nor opposing counsel have any recollection that such objection was made. Held: That the fact, that the jury carried out the receipts ander these circumstances is no sufficient cause for a new trial. Judgment affirmed Moses & Garrard, for pl’fl' in error. H. L. Benning, for def’l in error. Martha Webb and Wesley Webb, pi’tffs in error, vs. Lafayette Harp, def’l in error. Motion to dissolve injunction, from Chattahoochee. BROWN, C. J. Where a plaintiff'in li. fa. had a lot of cotton, mules, etc., levied upor . and pending the levy, it was agreed be tween him and the defendant, that he should release the property from the levy and return it to tlie defendant, and should enter the execution fully satisfied, in consideration that defend ant would convey to him a tract of land, with certain personal property, in payment of the fi- fa.; and in com pliance with said agreement, plaintiff’ released and restored the property lev ied upon, which was sufficient to have satisfied the fi. fa. to the defendant, and the. defendant delivered to the plaintiff possession of the land and per sonal property, and turned over to him the title papers, and was to make him a deed as soon as they could get it drawn, and defendant died soon ntter, without making the deed ; and his wid ow. who was admitted to be insols'ent, after the end of tiie year, finding the premises vacant, took possession, claim ing the land for her husband’s estate, and commenced proceedings in the Superior Court to have her dowet al lowed out of the same, there being no legal representative of her husband’s estate; and plaintiff fifed bis bii al ledging these facts, and praying that she be restrained from trespassing upon the land, and also from prosecuting her action for dower, until a legal repre sentative of the estate is appointed. Held: That it was not error in the Judge, who granted the injunction, to overrule a motion to dissolve it, and to hold it up, until the alleging of the bill, placing his decision on the ground of restraining the trespass above. Judgment affirmed. Blanfonl & Miller, by Mr. Russel, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Raiford & D. H. Burts for de fendant in error. Andrew Jordan, plaintiff’in error, vs. The State oi’ Georgia, defendant in error. Burglary from Muscogee. BROWN, C. J. 1. The penalty for the crime ol bur glary was changed by the Legislature between the commission of the crime by the defendant in this case acid the tune of his trial. Held: Under section 4570 of the Re vised Code, that lbe defendant was properly prosecuted and punished un der the laws of force at the time the crime was committed. 2. The evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. Judgment affirmed. Ramsey & Ramsey, Williams & Thornton, for defendant in error. Carey J. Thornton, Solicitor Gen eral for the Slate. Joseph Douglas, plaintiff" in error, vs. M. S. Thompson; defendant in error. Equity, from Bibb. BROWN, C. J. When the Equity ol the bill is fully sworn off’by the answer and the bill fe retained for a hearing, and no irrepar able mischief can result; this Court will not control the discretion of the Court below, in dissolving the injunc tion. Judgment affirmed. Washington I’oc, for plaintifi'in error. O. A* Lochrane, by Judge Clarke, for defendant in error. Heiu v C. Pope, plaintiff in error, vs. W. TJ. Garrard. Complaint, from Muscogee. BROWN, C. J. 1. By section 2267 of the revised Code it is declared : “The destruction of a tenement by lire, or the loss of possession by any casualty, not caused by the landlord, nr from defect of his title, shall riot abate the rent contracted to he paid.” Held: Under this section of the Code and under the former rulings ot this Court, if the premises rented are de stroyed by fire, during lbe term the tenant, under an ordinary rent con tract, is liable for the payment ol rent for the full period for which lie rented. 2. Where a room in a building was rented for a drug store, for one year, and three notes were given at six, nine and twelve months for the rent, and the building was burned down a little, before the end of six months, the ten ant is liable for the payment of the two last notes as well as the first. 3. The counters and drawers in a drug store, placed there by the land lord, and rented in their place with the store, are fixtures, which tenant has no right to remove, and it the building is burnt, and they are saved by the ten ant, they are the property of the land lord, and he has the legal right to dis pose of them as he thinks proper. The tenant has no right to remove them - to another store rented from a third per son. 4. The fact that the landlord has the building insured, does not change the rights or liability of the tenant. Judgment affirmed. McCAY, J., dissenting. Jas. M. Russell, tor plaintiff in error. Moses & Garrard, tor defendant in error. E- Whelchel vs. O. B. Thompson. Partition, from Hall. McCAY, J. J. The pendency ofa former suit for the same cause of action, is a proper matter to be pleaded in abatement, and if the parties go to trial on the merits, the defendant cannot set this up in law. 2. If, in an application for a partition of lands, the defense be that there has been a partition, by commissioners who made no return, but that the parties had acquiesced, and had subsequently, under said partition, each occupied tor several years his portion as set off, to the exclusion ot the others, and made valuable improvements, so that it would be a fraud upon either to repu diate the division. It is error in the Court to charge the jury that this ad verse and independent possession by each of his part must, in order to con stitute a defense to an application fora new partition, have continued seven years. Judgment reversed. W. Boyd and C. R. Simiuoas, by Geo. Hillyer, for plaintiff’in error. E. M. Johnson for defendant in error. Note.— Brown C. J., did not preside in this case. Seein; Ihe Elephant. A couple fc of lads in Portage City climbed a tree outside the tent to get a “dead head” view ot Forepangli’s circus. What came of it, the Register tells us as fellows : “As soon as the elephant was through with, in the ring, the managers broughi himfeutand hitched him to the identical tree, from the limbs of which the lads were viewing the circus. To “a boy up in a tree,” this thing looked a little out of order, but they kept as quiet as death, fearing that they would eilhei lose the closing views of the perform ance, or be the subjects of the displeas ure of the circus man, if he should discover them “dead heading” it to his show. In due time the performance closed, the crowd dispersed, and hor ror upon horrors, the keeper of the animals now added to the perils of their situation by hitching two smaller elephants and a camel to the same tree. Our lads now discovered that they were in for a night of it, as all hands had left excepting only tbemselve and the animals on guard below. All hope of escape was now cut offi About this lime Romeo concluded to investi gate matters above him, and with his trunk commenced trimming out ihe branches. Our boys commenced climbing also, until they had got above his reach ; and now' the camel took up the investigation, and poking his ugly mug up among the limbs, he drove the boys to the very uppermost branches of the tree w here they were discovered at daybreak, by their anxious parents, who hadtieen searching for them in vain all night, teetering and tossed about like blackbirds on the lop ofa rice-stalk in a w’indy day. The boys saw more of these animals than all the rest of the hoys in town, “for nothing” too ; and if they don’t remember the time for the balance of their natural days when th^y “sat up” with Romeo, then we miss our guess. The phrase, “seeing the elephant,” was to them a practical application, which they will always remember.” Babv’s Linen.—An intelligent young mother inquired some days since how she could best preserve her child’s lin en clean and sweet when changed fre quently during the day. I directed her never to dry it by the fire, but in the sun and open air if the weather permitted. You thus not only avoid saturating the air of your room w-iih the volatile and poisonous gases driven out of the linen, but the sun’s ravs have powers of cleansing and disinfecting, which artificial heal has not, and will purify and preserve the linen. She followed my directions, but, as is too oftcu the practice, dried and aired it in the nursery window. Her fastidious husband remonstrated in vain against this unseemly exposure. Believing that if she saw her practices as others saw it, she would desist, he so directed their afternoon walks as to bring ihe nursery window into full view from a central part of the town. Stopping ab ruptly, he pointed to the offending linen flapping conspicuously in the breeze, and asked sarcastically : “My dear, what is that flapping from our win dow?,’ “Why,” she proudly repbed, “that is the flag of our union !” Con quered by this pungent retort, he salut ed the Hag, with a swing of his hat, arid pressing his wife’s arm closer within his own sang, as they walked homeward— “And lonp may it wave.” 1 An Eminent Physician in Hearth A Hume An Irishwoman who had kept a lit tle grocery shop, was brought to her death bed and was on theofpoint breath ing her last, when 3he called her husb and toher bedside. “Jamie,” she family said, “there’s Missus Muloney—she owes me six shillings.” “Ocb !” ex claimed her husband, “Biddy, darling, ye are sinsible to the last !” “Yes, dear, and there,s Missus VfcGraw—I owe her halt a sovereign.” “Och ! be jabbers, and ye’re as foolish as iver. A Irishman, recommending a cow, said she would give good milk year alter year, without having [calves, be cause it ran in the breed, as she came from a cow that never had a calf. Tbe fluid extract of lobelia, when ap plied to musquito bites,entirely and almost, instantly puts an end to their itebiog It can ba obtained of any druggist.