Newspaper Page Text
'onslitutiflir.
Term* af Smfc.crlpll.a:
WFr.KLYcojnmpnmoNper mm pm
AH ■nfcaerlpflore am p«j»ble rtrleUr la adraacs
and. at the eiplrt—on of ike time for which pajmett
■ made, oakaaprerieaaljrenewed,tbe namcof the
.mtoolberatU to stricken from oar books.
IC6>U af Tea (U 00, and a am <* tie paper
mi fire ta Uh mOar-ap.
ATLANTA, GA..TUE8DAY. AUGUST 20
Bj antimritjr of Hon. Thomas Hardeman,
C'lainn n of the tale Stale Democratic Con-
t ntion, the membera of Uic new State Dem
ocratic Bxorntire CunsmUan meet today in
All .nta far organization.
We arc requested to state that the place of
meeting will be the gentleman’s reading
r ">.n on the second floor of the Kimball
House, sod the time, four o’clock in the af-
t.-raoon.
The Ifanae aaalalea the Lease.
The matter is settled and we breathe easy
bocaius we and the people were tired not
with the di-ensaion. The reanlt is what we
staled it would lie—the House sustains the
lea.', nnd !»y almost as dcciaire a vote as did
the ilrnatg. Tlie Legislature of Georgia de
vl-.n-i that no fraud was proem In Uic lease;
that the Road will pay better in the bands of
the present company than nmler political con
trol, and that tbo lease shall stand, requiring
the Iconics to sign their bond indrridaslly to
nit at rest every doubt about their indiridual
li diility uul directing a new inventory of the
State Knud property. The rote In the Senate
was 3 to 1 in favor, and in the House nearly
the sane, We congratulate the people upon
this settlement of the matter—in fact, they
would have listened to no other.
The l^gillc Asrluaa—Dr. Oieea'i
... Reply.
Dr. Thomas F. Green, the Superintendent
of tbo Lunatic Asylum, replies to the stric-
tures of Dm Bozeman and Gumming on the
management of the Asylum. He given a his
tory of the Institution. It was started in 1837.
Iverson L. Harris moved it in the Legisla
ture. In December, 1813, a wing was
ready, f 11,000 and five years having been
spent The first patient was received in
January, 1812. In 1810 Dr. Green became
Superintendent The building was in bad
tlx, and had sixty-seven patients in it Up
to 1800 Dr. Green got $309,500 appropriated,
and Readily enlarged and improved the
asylum. He has done much he claims, and
omitted mnch because means wss lacking.
IleilisUngoiabes between Bozeman and Gum
ming, the former has erred, the latter done
Injustice.
For instance there is no assistant teamster,
only live instead of six cooks, no gardncr.no
dairyman; the jury roil is $30,771) 08 instead
of $38,407; for 13 years Dr. Green supplied
hit own rath ms; thelnbleof rations is incor
rect; also untie subsistence.
Want of earn and economy in issning ra
tions is owned, Imt the blame pul on the Leg
islature of I860. Now arrangements bavc
Io n made. The wages arc not higher than
proper, considering the duties. There arc
not too many Doctors. The matron being
a physician's wife lias never worked badly.
Nice grounds, repairs, courts, garden, etc,
havu all Isain sought after as well as possible.
Gases are ivnordod that justify it Medicine
i* piup-rly used. The supply of liquor was
ccunotniS'd. The statements about cleanli
ness anti ventilation are an exaggeration.
In a word. Dr. Green cither denies wholly
thn all ict arcs or contends that they are leas
than represented and unavoidable.
This is a pretty distinct issue of fact be
tween the examining doctors and Ilia Super-
intrmlent, and we have no means of saying
which is right Dr. Green has dune much
giasl. Whether he lias omitted enough to
make a rase of eiiljeibility in oflicc is a ques
thin that it aecnutoils it is due all eoucerncd
that it should Is; ofllcially investigat'd.
This will vindicate the right
A Terrible AftHnlr.
In the hut few daya haso -enrred an event
lieu lias shsekad this rommnnity to Ita cen
tre, And that contain a lesson that we should
lie insensible to journalistic duty, and the
mission of scenting public morally to which
TnBConsTrri’TKiN is devoted, if w« did not
impress on the popular heart
A bright youth not quite outof his teens,
of excellent family and Haltering prospects,
the hopeful member of one of the worthiest
honsehohls of any community, a brave,
cheering, modest, genial, industrious
young man, a member of the chnrcb
and noted for former attention to clinrch
duties, and a rising participant in a respon
sible business Arm, allowed himself to be led
in n thoughtless, social moment with reckless
OHniwniont into evil company. The very ex-
utterance of yomhful vitality was at the bot
tom of the unthinking indiscretion, and the
influence of a brilliant, but harmful com
panionship, help d.
In a reckless moment the poor thoughtless
hoy, meditating no evil to any, was cruelly
shot to death, without provocation or warn
ing, by a brutal desperado, seemingly in the
very caprice of blood-thirsty malignity.
Not even a word had passed. An otter
stranger, ‘with awickcd oath and in the very
whim of desperate mfllanhood,) sent the un
suspecting tool of the boy to his Maker.
The yontb died without a word, with a
great gaping bole in his buaom.ont of which
the life-blood gurgled in mockery of the sud
denly dosed lips. Family and friends be
reaved without cause 1 A bright, useful,
promising young life nipped in the bad for-
Tbe assassin’s stroke was unsparing. It was
only merciful in this that it left no chance
f<w living agony to the doomed victim.
The incident was terrible, awful. So sad
den and unprovoked a visitation of quick
doom was never seen. The murderer is said
to have done this thing before.
The reach of such an event is beyond cal
culator!. The bereaved family, a shocked
community, offended Heaven, violated law—
where docs its cruelty not go?
l>ut the lesson! Itissopiain! Thcbiighl
murdered youth cannot be brought back.
Time alone can heal the agony of his friends.
The day of the bloody assassin is yet to coma
But the thousands of young—and the old,
too, for that—sec where evil companionahip,
however innocently enjoyed, will lead. Evil
most lie shunned, however seductively or un-
forbhidingly it may woo.
No purity of purpose can save us from the
contamination of evil compai ionship, and
ihoqghtlevsnem often carries the soul into
as great danger as purposed wrong.
The companions who lead this unfortunate
victim away from better influences, from
earnest, anxious efforts of a fond father to
keep him faithful to his church relations—a
father often heard to say that he would dose
the door of his store rather than his boy
should miss his church duties—away from
his own rflurts to cast off evil tendencies, the
companions, who thus led him away to his
untimely murder, must not escape the re
morse ot their unfortunate influence. Let
them take warning. ’’Lead us not into temp
tation'’ are the words of the Divine prayer.
They were baaed upon the Divine knowledge
of |ioor humanity. They fitted this
Immunity in the ancient days They none
the leas fit it now in the radiance of modern
civilization.
But we forbear. There is safety only in
good. The place for young men is their
business and their homes. Evil associates
inevitably lead to ruin.
The reckless disregard of human life is
another frightful feature of this affair. The
law must be vindicated to check the spirit of
soch brutality.
Wc have a Judge here whose administra
tion of criminal law has done him honor, and
an Executive whose refusal to abet crime by
ill-timed pardon, has aided to build np once
more the Temples of Justice. It is the con
fidence thus created in the sure triumph of
outraged law over offenders that allays the
incensed feelings of an outraged community.
THE WEEKLY COISTITCTIOK
VOLUME V.l
GEORGIA, TUESDAY. AUGUST 20* 1872.
INUMBER 20
DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT OF SEOROIA.
Dduered in Atlanta, Tuaday, August 13,1872.
[axrovrxD uwrwn row m aurmnw i
nnmr ucuor, lumsx cover Exnmras 1
D. IL Thunder burke, administrator, vs. G.
C. Gorham. Demurrer to bill, from Talbot.
WARNER, C.J.
This waa a bCI filed by ‘he complainant
against the defendants, to make the property
of the estates of Wm. B. Pope and AJUn
l’ope, who died intestate, subject to the pay
ment of the complainant's debt. The defen
dants demurred to the complainant’s bill,
which waa sustains!, and the bill dismissed,
whereupon the complainant excepted. The
complainant alleges that at the sale of the
property of bis intestate, one George Gor
ham , as the temporary administrator on the
mutes of the two deceased Popes, and one
Brown, purchas' d a certain '-mount of prop
erty for the benefit of the two latter estates,
and gave liis note therefor, which was signed
by him as temporary administrator; that he
obtained a Judgment on said note against
George Gorham for $146 60 principal and
$14 78 for interest, Subsequently Willis J.
Gorham waa appointed administrator on the
estates of the two Popes, and moved to set
aside the judgment obtained against George
Gorham so far as the same attempted to bind
the property of the estates he represented,
which mm ion prevailed It is not alleged in
the bill that George Gorham is insolvent
The complainant can obtain and enforce
bis Jodgment against the individual
properly of George Gorham for the
payment of his debt, for aught that appears
on the face of the bill. The note given to
the complainant by George Gorham as tem
porary administrator bound him individually
for the payment of it, hot did not bind the
property of the estates which be represented.
If George Gorham is not insolvent, but able
to pay lire note, there is no good reason shown
by the bill why the complainant has not an
ample and adequate remedy at law to com
pel him to do ao. It George Gorham pays
the note to the complainant, and it wis given
by him for the property purchased for the
benefit of the cats tea, and the same was ap-
iropriatcd and used for the benefit thereof,
te may claim the right to be reimbursed out of
the property of the estates, on a proper case
made, but the complainant cannot look to
the estate for the payment of bis note on
George Gorham unless he is insolvent, which
is not alleged.
Let the judgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Marion Bctliunc, represented by W. A. Lit
tle, for plaintiff in error.
E IL Worrill, for defendant.
T. It. Sanders vs. Ellis Hanes. Complaint,
from Talbot.
WARNER, C. J.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant on a promissory note
for the Him of $1500, dated 10th of October,
1868, and due 1st of January DOS. The note
wasgiven in part payment of a mill. The mill
wss sold for $6000 in Confederate money—
was worth at the timeof the purchase $3000
In the present currency. Defendant had sold
iinc-lndf of the mill for Confederate money,
and at the time of the triatiwas in the pusses
siun of the undivided half of the land and
mill as trustee for bis wife. The Court asked
the defendant if he would give up the proper
ty to the plaintiff, be being willing to accept
the same and surrender np to defendant his
note. Tbr defendant declined to give up the
property to the plaintiff! The Court then
charged the jury, that the defendant was not
entitled under Uic state of facts to any relief
by way of reducing the note sued on, tbst the
only relief for him was to surrender the laud,
that lie must cither give up the- land and mill,
or pay the note” The jury found for the
I ilauiliff $1500 with interest and costs of suit.
The defendant excepted to Use charge of the
Court. This was a Confederate contract, and
the equities of the parties were to be adjusted
under ilio provisions of the Ordinance of 1865
which tlie defendant relied on in his pica to
the plaintiff’s action. In our judg.ncnl.Uic
charge of the Court to the jury was error, the
more especially os tlie defendant was in the
possession of the property in right of his
wife, and not in his ow > right. Let tlie judg
ment of the Court below be reversed.
B. Hill, M. Ucthune, E. H. Worrill, fur
plainliffin error.
W. A. Lillie, for defendant.
Elias Dauiul vs. H. H. Sullivan. Complaint,
fromYalbot.
WARNER, a J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant on a
promissory note in the connty of Talbot. The
defendant filed his plea in statement to the
jurisdiction of the Court, alleging that he waa
acilizcn and resident of the connty of Monroe
in this State. The evidence on the trial went
to show that the defendant was a married
man, that his wife and family resided in the
county of Monroe, bat that the defendant had
a plantation in the connty of Talbot, and
spent a considerable portion of his time in
the latter county. The Court charged the
jury “ that if the defendant had a family at
and before the commencement of the suit,
consisting of his wife and children, whom he
had not abandoned, and if bis wife and chil
dren were permanently resident and domi
ciled in the connty of Mo.iroe in this State,
then the defendant, by operstkin of law, was
a citizen of Monroe county, although he
might have had a place in Talbot county and
•pent most of his time at IL” To this charge
as given, and the refusal lo charge aa re
quested, the plaintiff excepted. There was
no error in the charge of the Court to the
jury on the facts as di-closed in the record,
or in refusing to charge as requested. The
domicil, or residence, of a person of fall age,
and laboring under no disability, is the place
or county where the family of such person
shall permanently reside, if in this State, and
sail should be instituted against him in that
county. Code, 1689.
Let the judgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Marion Bethnne, represented by B. B. Hin
ton, for plaintiff in error.
E H. Worrell, W. A. Little, for defendant.
James Cook vs. Martha J Cook. Libel for
Divorce, from TalbcL
WARNER, C. J.
The complainant filed a libel against the
defendant for a divorce. On the trial the
jury founds vei diet for the defendant The
complainant made a motion for a new trial,
on the ground of error in the charge of the
Court, andjbecaosejthe verdict was contrary
to law and the evidence which was overruled
by the Court, and the complainant excepted.
The evidence in the record, if the jury be
lieved the two witnesses, the complainant and
his brother, made out a pretty dear case of
adultery on the part of the defendant. The
complainant, however, was an incompetent
witness to prove the adultery of his wife as
declared by the 3799th section of tho Code.
Although we think the Court erred in charg-
' j the jury in relation to the abandonment
his wile by complainant, and his bad
treatment of her (there being no evidence to
authorize the charge) still aa it was the ex
clusive province of the jury iu cases of di
vorce to judge of the credibility of the wit
nesses and to determine whether sufficient
proof had been submitted to their considera
tion to authorize a divorce between the par
ties, and they having found by their verdict
that there was not and the presiding Judge
being satisfied with the verdict, we will not
reverse the judgment of the t'ourt below in
refusing to grant a new trial for the alleged
error in the charge of the Court. In divorce
cases the jury ot the vicinage, are much bet
ter acquainted with the parties, and witnesses
than we can be, and of the propriety of de
creeing a dissolution of the marriage contract.
Let the judgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Caiy J. Thornton, G. N. Forbes, repre
sented by Z. D. Harrison, Esq., for plaintiff
in error.
No appearance for defendant.
Cox, Marshall & Co., et aL vl George W.
S-Xelaon et aL Rule vs. Sheriff, from Hous
Southwestern Railroad Company vs. E L.
Felder. Assumpsit, from Houston.
MONTGOMERY, J.
could xpiijy to the
teve%f tl
WARNER, C.J.
This was a rale against the Sheriff calling
upon him to show cause why he had not
made the money on certain executions
Placed in lib bands against the defendant.
The Sheriff showed cause in writing; which j on demand, tiieir'iiabUity as common carriers
was traversed by the plaintiffs and the facta ce rsee, (unless the custom of trade is shown
were agre. d to be submitted to the presiding - - -
Judge, without the intervention of a jury.
Where goods are shipped by railway, and
arrive at their destination within the usual
time required for transportation, and are
there deposited by tlie company in s place of
■ifety and held by them ready to bo delivered
The Judge, after hearing the case, discharged
the rote against the Sheriff, and the plaintiffs
excepted. It appears from the returns of the
Sheriff that he could not find any property of
the defendant, except which had been set
apart to him as a homestead, or waa the
crops raised on said homestead. The
Sheriff had been ordered to levy on certain
cotton in the possession of defendant. It
appears from ,the records of the Court of
Ordinary, which was offered in evidence,
that the defendant had taken a homestead in
certain described lands and personal property;
including the growing crop, and that the cot
ton on which he was directed to levy, and
which waa found in the defendant’s posses
sion, to-wit: from :iwo to four bales, was a
port of the homestead, that is to say, in the
words of the Sheriff’s return, was a part of the
crop raised on tho homestead. If it waa a part
of the crop raised on the homestead set apart to
the defendant, then it was not subject, and the
Sheriff is ret liable for failing to make a
levy thereon. If the defendant, in obtaining
his homestead on the land, went farther, and
had the growing crop on the land set apart
to him as pers nal property, that did not
Place him in any worse condition as to the
crop on the land set apart as a homestead,
he was entitled to the crop on the homestead
set apart to him, whether he had claimed it
as a homestead of personal property or not
The fact that he claimed the crop growing
on the land aa a homestead in personalty In
his schedule, did not place him in any worse
condition than if bad not claimed it as per
sonalty—he was entitled to the crops raised
on the land set apart as a homestead any
how. In our judgment there was no error
in the judgment of the Court in discharging
the rule against the Sheriff on the statement
of facts contained in the record.
Let the jodgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Duncan & Miller, for plaintiff) in error.
Warren A Grice, for defendants.
W. H. McCrony, et aL, vs. Benj, Manes.
Complaint, from Talbot.
McCAY.J.
Tho Tax Receiver’s book of the returns of
taxable property, made out and returned aa
required undci section 845 of the Revised
Code, is admissible in evidence on the trial
of an issue under the Act Of October 13th,
1870, as to the payment of taxes.
In an inquiry into the equities betwen the
parties, under the Ordinance of 1865 for the
adjustment of Confederate contracts, the use
which the defendant made of Confederate
money loaned, is not material to the issue.
J augment reversed.
E IL Worill, J. M. H&tthcns, for plaintiffs
in error.
Willis & Willis, represented by W. A. Lit
tle, for defendant.
James C. Cook vs. The North sod South
Railroad Company. Injunction, from
Muscogee.
McCAY.J.
Where a bill was filed setting np that the
complainant had conveyed liy deed to a rail
road company for laying and using its track,
100 feet’width of the land through his plan
tation, and tnuting to the assurances of the
President of the road, that proper stock gaps
should be erected, as they might be needed,
bad neglected to putin the deed any stipula
tion as to the gaps, and the bill prayed that
the company might lie enjoined from running
its cars and using the land until tho “gaps 1 ’
were erected:
Ubld, That the iqj auction was properly
refused by the Judge, even Uiuugh there
might be equity in the bilL
Judgment affirmed.
Henry L. Henning, for plaintiff In error.
Blandfunl and Crawford, for defendant.
Isam & Mayo vs. Wm. Hooks. Injunction,
from Sumter.
McCAY.J.
This Court will be slow to control the dis
cretion of thcJndgeof the Superior Court in
his grant of a temporary Injunction, especial
ly if the bill contain charges of fraud.
In this State, a levy upon land, is made by
the entry of the Sheriff upon the fi fa—there
Is no actual seizure—and thefo is no levy
until the entry is made.
Judgment affirmed.
N. A. Smith, Elam & Hawkcs, for plain
tiffs in error.
Phil Cook, Hawkins & Guerry, tor defend
ant.
Geo. W. Allen et aL vs. J. W. Lathrop &
Co. Mr. Foreclosure ot Mortgage, from
Houston.
McCAY, J.
A mortgage upon real estate given to secure
advances” to be made by the mortgagee to
the mortgagor, for the purpose of carrying
on the farm of the mortgagor for 1870, is not
valid for want of a sufficient description of
the debt intended to be secured..
2. A mortgagor is estopped from denying
bis own title to the property mortgaged, and
third partiea claiming title to the land cannot
at law make themselves parties to the pro
ceedings to foreclose for the purpose of as
serting their rights. The judgment is be
tween the parties to the mortgage and binds
them and them only.
Judgment affirmed.
Duncan <fe Miller, Poe, Hall & Poe, tor
plaintiff’s in error.
Warren and Grid for defendants.
Mayer & Lowcnstein vs. McKee Brothers
defendants, and The Chattahoochee Na
tional Bank, garnishees. Garnishment,
from Houston.
MONTGOMERY, J.
A return of a Sheriff upon a writ of at
tachment, which states that he served a
named person “personally” with a summons
of garnishment, may be amended so as to
show that he served such person as President
of a Bank. If the summons of garnishment
has been lost, and the Sheriff is dead, the
plaintiff, on motion to do so, should be per
mitted to prove by nlinnile testimony that the
summons of garnishment was directed to the
person served as President of the Bank. If
'the garnish's; denies it, he can tenderan i-sue,
which if found in favor of the plaintiff, will
entitle him to an order amending the return,
“so as to make the proceedings conform to
the facts.”
Judgment reversed.
Henry L. Bcnning, Grigsby E Thomas,
Jr., for plaintiff) in i rror.
IL J. Moses, Ingram & Crawford, for de
fendants.
E H. Worrill, administrator, et aL. vs. Jack-
t > be otherwise as to delivery) and that of
warehousemen commences.
No notice to the consignee,where the goods
arrive on time, is necessary to reduce the lia
bility of the company from that of common
camera to that of warehousemen.
If the goods arrive oat of time, and after
they have been demanded by the consignee,
it might require notice of their arrival to the
consignee, and a reasonable time after, to re
lieve the company from the extraordinary lia
bility imposed by law upon a common car
rier.
Judgment reversed.
W. tt. Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant
E F. Spann vs The State. Mandamus to
Judge of the Superior Court, from Web
ster.
McCAY.J.
Under sections 3663, and 3670, of the Re
vised Code, b new trial in s criminal case,
may, under extraordinary cases lie moved for
before a judge in vacation. Sard sections are
as follows;
Section 3668, “Allapplications fora new
trial, except in extraordinary cases, must be
made during the term at which the trial waa
had, but may be heard, determined and re
turned in vacation.”
Section 3670.“In case of a motion for a new
trial made after the adjonrnmt ntof the Court,
some good reason must be shown why the
motion was not made daring the term which
shall be judged of by the Court.
When a motion is made for a new trial,
which is overruled by the Judge, and a bill
of exceptions is filed to his judgment in the
case, and the same is duly signed by the
Judge and filed in the office, aa the law re
quires, it is the duty of the Judge, in a crim
inal cate, if the crime for which the convic
tion is had, is punishable with death, to
grant a supersedeas of the judgment until
the bearing before this Court
The granting of a supersedeas in such a
case is matter of course, and constitutes a
part of the proceeding to bring the case be
fore this Court, and the granting of the same
will, in a proper case, be enforced by man
damus.
In a mandamus to the Judge of the Supe
rior Court, to compel him to sign or com
plete a bill of exceptions, this Court will look
into the record, and if the case be one in
which justice requires the mandunus to be
made absolute, will so order.
Hawkins & Gueny, Phil. Cook, W. A.
Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
C. F. Crisp, Solicitor General, N. J. Ham
mond, Attorney General, represented by L.
E Bleckley, for the State.
Montgomery. J., concurred, but. furnished
no written opinion.
WARNER, 0. J, dissenting.
At a special term of the Superior Court;
held in Webster, Spann was tried, and found
guilty of the crime of murder, and was sen
tenced to be executed within the time pre
scribed by law. There was no motion made
for a new trial in the case during the term of
the Court at which the the trial was had.
After the adjournment of tho Court, and s
few days before the defendant was to be exe
cuted under the judgment and sentence of the
Court, his counsel applied to the Jndge of
the Superior Court in vacation for a new
trial, under the 3670th section of tho Code.
On hearing the application for a new trial,
the Judge refused to grant it, whereupon the
counsel for the defendant tendered a bill of
exceptions Which was certified and signed
by the Judge, hat the Jndge refused to order
a supersedeas of the execution of the judg
ment of the Court. An application is now
male to this Court for a mandamus, to com
pel the Judge lo grant an order—superseding
the exet ution of the judgment of the Court—
and the question is, whether a Jndge of the
Superior Court, under the Constitution and
laws of this State, has the power and author
ity to hear and entertain an original
motion for a new trial in vacation?
By tho Constitution the Superior Courts of
this State have the power and authority to
grant new trials on legal grounds. The
!660th section of the Code declares that new
trials can be granted by the Superior Courts ,
only. Tbs 8661st section declares that the tidealhe Act of 1BC3,
Montgomery and West Point Railroad Com
pany vs. John W. Duer, Ordinary. De
murrer, from Muscogee.
WARNER, C. J.
This was an action brought by the plain
tiff against the defendant to recover the
sum of $1,633 57 for taxes illegally
collected. The defendant demurred to
the plaintiff’s declaration, which de
murrer was sustained, and the plaintiff ex
cepted. It is not alleged in the declaration
in what manner the taxes received were ille
gally collected; that the taxes were illegally
collected and received by the defendant, u
the conclusion of the pleader; the facts
going lo show that the taxes 1*1 been ille
gally collected and received by the defend
ant, should have been alleged, so that the
Court might jndge, whether under the law
applicable thereto, the taxes had been illegal
ly collected and received. If the facta had
been alleged, the Court could have deter
mined whether the collection of the taxes
was legal or iUfgaL It is not sufficient for
the plaintiff lo allege that the collection of
the taxes was illegal, without alleging the
facta which made it illegal.
Let the judgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Biandford Sr Thornton, for plaintiff in
error.
Henry L. Bcnning, for defendant
the land to his son by deud, reserving
estate to himself, and delivered the deed to
his son, the legacy is adeemed If, on the
estate ‘of the testator in March, 1861,
dhh on takes immediate possession of the
land, claiming it nnder the deed, and in
January, 1865, prove the will and qualify as
executor, bet docs not return the land as
part of his father’s estate, he is not estopped
by the probate and bis qualification as exec
utor, without more, from setting up his title
under the deed adverse to the wilL
Judgment reversed.
E Hill, E E Hinton, E IL Worrill, for
plaintiffs in error.
M. H. Biandford, for defendant
j. B. McCrary and Isaac McCrary vs. Alfred
Alfred Austell, et a). Demurrer to bill,
from Talbot
MONTGOMERY, J.
When a mortgage of realty in Georxia is
executed in New York before a Commission
er of Deeds only, without any other witness,
a Court of Chancery has juri-diction to re
form and foreclose the mortgage.
Judgment affirmed.
B'andfnrd & Crawford, Willis & Willis,
represented by W. A. Little, for plaintiffs in
error.
E li. Worrill, E Hill, for defendants.
W. I. Weeks, Executor, etc., vs. Jackson
McGill, Admiirtsirator tie Anus non of
dies, and administratiaa de bonis non is granted
upon the estate of his testator, who lived and
died in a different county to a citizen of
the county of the testator’s residence, the
sni' against the executor does not abate, and
a scire facial issued to made the administra
tor de bonie non a party to the suit, should not
have been dismissed nnder the facts stated.
Judgment reversed.
several Superior Courts of this State shall
have power to grant new trials iu any cause
depending in any of the said Superior Courts
in such manner and nnder such rales and
regulations ss they may establish, according
to law, and the usages and customs of courts.
The 3665th section provides that a new trial
may be granted for newly discovered evi
dence after the rendition of the verdict, if it
shall be brought to the notice of the Court
within the time now allowed by law for en
tering a motion for a new trial. The 8663111
section of the Code declares that, “all appli
cations for a new trial, except in extraordi
nary cases, most be made during the term at
which the trial was had, but may be heard,
determined and returned in vacation.” The
power and authority to grant new trials, is by
the Constitution and laws of this State, con
ferred on the Superior Courts. What is a
Court, as defined by the common law? A
Court is a place wherein justice is judicially
administered, and we all know what
is necessary to constitute a Churl
The term “Court,” as used in the Constitu
tion and laws of the State, must be under
stood in its legal sense, as defined by the com
mon law. The distinction between the pow
er and authority of the Superior Court as
such, and the power and authority of a
Judge of the Superior Court, is dearly
marked and defined In the 236th, 387th and
239th sections of the Code. The latter sec
tion declares that said Judges of the Superior
Courts cannot exercise any power out of
term time, except the authority is expressly
granted; but they may by order granted m
term, render a judgment in vocation. Now,
if a Judge of the Superior Court, has any
power or authority delegated to him by the
Constitution and laws ot this State, to hear
an original motion for anew trial outof term
time in vacation, and determine the same, it
has escaped my observation after the most
diligent examination. It is daimed that a
Judge of the Superior Court has this power
under the 3670th section of the Code, which
declares, that in case of a motion for a new
trial made after the adjournment of the
Court some good reason mast lie shown why
the mution was not made during the
term, which shall be judged of by
the Court. In all such cases twenty
days’ notice shall be given to the
opposite party. In view of the fact that
the power and authority to grant a motion
for a new trial is vested m the Superior Court,
and not in the Judges of that Court iu vaca-
son Gill, administrator. Complaint, from tion, what is the fair and legitimate construc-
Marion. tion to be given to that section of the Code ?
MONTGOMERY, J. The general rule is as prescribed by the
Where a testator, in 1851, made his will,by 3608th section that all applications for new
which he left certain land to his son, whom trial must be made at the term of the Court
he appointed executor, and in 1856 conveyed at which the trial was had, but in extraordi-
- * • air
defendant JB
five for a reprieve of the exe utoin
of his sentence until aflsr the next term of
the Superior Court; *o t§at his motion Jot a,
new trial could be beafijhmd decided,-and the-,
legal presumption Is. Ytat' the Executive
wonja grant Ms petition, but if in Hie npin- m , t
GEORGIA. LEGISLATURE
SENATE
Tuesday, August 13,1873.
ite called to order by President Tram-
ion of the Executive, there -Wa3 no goml
reason wliy the jmigrueji of the Court should
not be executed, then tt application would
bo refused, there woutt not necessarily he
arty failure of justice ;,qut there is another
view of this question *» be considered. If
the Judge of the SuperKk Court in vacation
hear an original motion' for a new trial in
such cases, the cxccutioff of .the public laws
of the State would be (^structcd, if not en
tirely prostrated. The Wrninal, a few days
before the execution of his sentence, would
apply to the Judge lav vacation for a new
trial, and if refused, file
obtain a supersedeas, a
this Court, and if the „
affirmed, he would again
ment for some exlroordtj, ,
that way defeat the execution of the criminal
■aka of the State, for what' is there that a
man will not give, or do, ** save his own life ?
The law is right as it nowstands, and ought
not to be otherwise, fa my judgment.
See Johnson vs. Bemia, 4th Geo. llcp., 167.
Inasmuch as the'Judge of the Superior Court
hid no power or authority under the Consti
tution and laws of this Stale to grant and de
cide an original motion for a new trial in va
cation: the whole proceedings before him in
relation to that matter trsa'anll and void,-
and the mandamus prayedfor should be re
fused. Bet if the Judge did have the power
»nd authority to entertafa, and - decide the
motion for a new trial in vacation, as the ma
jority of the Court bold that he did, then,
when he signed the bill of ^exceptions tender
ed, he ongbt to have granted the supersedeas
as required by the 42j3d's«ction of the Code.
W. C. Adams vs. A. W. _
E M. Andies, indorser.
Marion.
McKAY, J. j
Section 3881 of the Cod*, allowing actions
which have been bronght within six months
after the dismissal of a farmer action, to
stand on the same footing as to limitation
with the original action. W in conflict with,
and is therefore repealed by, the Actof March
IS, 1869, which enacts as fallows:
"All actions on promissory notes, bills of
exchange, or other simple cantracis in writing-,
* * * * * which accrued on a contract
made prior to the 1st of Jane, 1865, shall be
brought by the 1st of January next, or tlie
right of the party plaintiff and alt rights of
action for its enforcement shall be forever
barred.” •
Judgment affirmed. i -m
E W. Miller, E H. Wsrrill, tor plaintiff
in error.
E B. Hinton & Son for defendant.
earnest and logical effort.
Benai
MONTGOMERY, J. com
As an original qiicstioi
opinion as delivered f-y J
differed, I should feci com,
by the unanimousopiniotL—w^P .... _
pronounced in Harrison vfc Walker, (i Kel-
ley, 33,) between wliieh-casg and the present
o not perceive tho'distiretiou.
WARNER, C. J. dissenting.
When the Act of 1869ewas passed, the
plaintiff’s action on tlie now sued on
was pending against the defendant, but for
some cause was subsequent^ dismissed, and
tile present action was ccomionccd within
six months from the dismissal of the form-r
action. As the law then stood, the plaintiff
had the clear legal right to .re commuuco In
action within six months from the time of
tlie dismissal thereof. Does the Act of 1869
Ideprive him of that right? The 4tj section
of the Act of 1869 declare* that nil actions
on promissory notes made prior to the 1st of
Jgne, 1865, not now barred";hall be.brought
by the 1st of January, 1879, or the rigid of
tho party plaintiff, and all right of actiofi for
its enforcement shall be forever barred. .The
Act of 1869 is an Act in reliti- >n to the slst .te
of limitations. It is n cardinal rale in the
construction of statutes relating to the same
subject matter, so to construe them, if
possible, that the whole u-ay stand ut res
\magit valeat quam pereat islhe maxim of the
law. It is also an established rule of con
struction that statutes in pari materia must
be construed in referencS-fi each other.
Applying these living principles of the com
mon law to tho constructiin of the Act of
1869, and the Act of J847; substantially
embodied in the 3881st section of the Code,
|*r<y'T by R’-v. Kin.iiuU IlnnR, of the
House. * .
BUEINESS 1IKPOIIK TUK UENEKAI. ASSKUUI.Y.
Hon. C. d Kibbce, chairman of the Special
Committee, reported that there were before
the Senate seventy-five Senate bills for third
reading, six House bills for second reading,
and 130 for third reading; before the House
58$ .House bills for third reading; three Sen-
aid bins for first reading; 90 for second, and
73 for third reading.
The committee recommend the adoption of
a resolution io prolong the session tmtil the
24th instant, iu order to dispose of the busi
ness btf >rc the body.
Hon. J. C. Nicholls moved ns a substitute
to adjourn on next Thursday at 13, P. M.
Hon. T. J Simnrons moved to amend the
resolution by the committee by providing
that members receive no per diem daring
said prolongation, winch was accepted by
Senator Kihbee.
Senator Kibbce call attention to tho great
matters which had engaged the attention of
the General Assembly—the bonds, lease, etc.,
and to adjourn leaving 700 bills not acted on
wquld impose on the Slate a loss of from
$40,000 to $50,000. There are yet many im
portant bills to be acted on. It would be
ecinomy to get - through with necessary
legislation before adjourning.
George Hiliycr stated that-he had
y voted for .evening sessions, and
Ijonrning before tbo regular hour.
tbongbt it true economy to get through
„h business before adjourning.
The yeas and nays were called on the
motion to adopt the ubstitutc offered by Sen
ator Nicholls, and are as follows;
Yeas—Anderson, Brock, Candler, Column,
Conley, Crayton, Devanx, Estes, Hinton,
Hoyl, Jervis, Kirkland, McWhorter, Nicholls,
Poddy, Wallace—16.
Nays—Black, Bralbn, Bums, Campbell,
Clark, Cone, Erwin, Gnffln, Heard, Hicks,
Hijlyer, Jones, Kibbee, Lester, Matthews,
Park, Roese, Richardson, Simmons, Smith,
Steadman, Styles—23.
the substitute was lest
motion, the whole snljcct was tabled
fot the present.
on. W. M. Reese moved to reconsider the
on of yesterday in passing tho bill to pro
tect the interests of the State in the Atlantic
and Quit Railroad.
Senator Reese supported liisinnUon in an
jnator Lester repliid in an able and im-
pr^ssive speech, rt-plete with argument and
eloquence! • 1 ■'
Senator Simmons supported the motion to
reconsider, urging strong constitutional ob
jections, in a speech marked by that good
eo umon sense and practicality that charac-
i^fau!r^»faS?%Vored redrisMerarioa la
a strong speech.
Senator Nicholls’bpposed reconsideration,
cohtcuding that tlie Atlantic and Gulf Rail-
road was no private corporation, and the
constitutional objection did not apply. He
moveiLto lay the motion to reconsider on tho
table. Lost by yeas 15, nays 20.
The motion to reconsider prevailed by
ycas30,'nays IS.
The unfinished business of yesterday being
the bill to amchd'the Code relative to the
Lunatic Asylum, .was taken up. Senator
Sinhh having the floor at tile adjournment
yesterday, resumed his argument iu support
of reform.
Senator Hinton supported tho substitute
offered by tho committee.
lion. T. J. Simmons called tlie previous
question, which coll was sustained.
T he substitute was adopted in lieu of the
original hiil, .and then passed.
ilou. CT 0. Kihbee offered a resolution to
amend the 5th Rule by providing that no
member be allowed to speak longer than 15
minutes on any one subject unless by a vote
of two-thirds of the Senate.
Hon. J, T. Burns moved to strike out 15
and insert 10 minutes. Lost.
Hon. C. W. styles moved Di lay the resolu
tion oil the table. Lost by yeas 13; nays 17.
lion. C. J. Wellborn moved to strike out
two-thirds and insert majority. Look
The resolution was adopted.
Hon. C. C. Kihbee offered a resolution pro
viding for the appointment of a committee
of two to select such bills of public interest
and bills of local Importance for action, which
taken up. The Finance Committee proposed
to amend by providing that they shall not
cost over $5 per copy.
Senator Bruton proposed to amend by in
serting that they shall be bound in paper and
shall not cost over $3 per copy. Lost
Senator Conley mnvl tn strike out 175
copies each and insert A«>> copies, which pre
vailed. The resolution was adopted by yea
34, nays G.
Senate adjourned until 9 a. m. to morrow
HOUSE
House met, Speaker Camming in the chair.
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Strickland.
The following bill was read the third time:
To Incorporate the Macon, Warwick ant 5
Vienna Railroad Company. Passed by sub-
stitutc.
BUI read the first time:
Hr. Mattox—To amend an act incorpo
rating the Georgia Seaboard and North West
ern Railroad Company.
Senate bill read third time.
To amend section 1163 of the Code in
reference to volunteer companies. Passed.
On motion of Mr. Pierce, the House decided
to hold a night session from 8) to 10 o’clock
p. it., tor the purpose of reading bills lht
third time.
Mr. .Head was granted leave of absence
Bill read the third time
To provide for the payment of the debt
due teachers and school officers who did ser
vice under the Public School Law of 1871.
The bill was referred to the Finance Com
mittee, which recommended that it should
** Mr. Rawls opposed tho bill.
Mr. Gray maintained that b was a merito
rious bdl, and should receivo the support ol
every member of the House.
Mr. Simmons, of Gwinnett, thought that
good faith oh the part of the General As
sembly demanded that these teachers should
be compensated, but he was opposed to the
Public School System now in vogue;
Mr. Scott thought the Public School Sys
tem impracticable, but since the Legislature
had seen proper to establish it, ana under
their own action they were in honor bound
to discharge tlie debt.
Mr. W. D Anderson said he was opposed
to it.
Mr. Dell was opposed to remunerating
these icacheis by direct taxation on the peo
ple. In many counties the system had not
been established, and tho taxation being gen
eral, would be oppressive In certain counties.
On motion of Mr. Pierce, the bill was laid
on the table for the purpose of taking up the
special order of the day.
tub lease question.
Mr. Hoge said, for a proper discussion of
the question, he would not go out of the law
or : the testimony. The committee was ap
pointed to inquire into the fairness or unfair
ness of the lease contract, and the commit
tee reported in direct compliance with this
act; that the lease was unfairly obtained,
and now it waa the duty of the House, in
respect to the oarereittre, to dfaoaid all for-
id of 1869, roiz'- >r toko a wav th- under the rulcsgp'e over till to-morrow. lb® amount of the bid. That was not a
party, phtmtiff to recommence Ms VSJ^Weied fi resoiutibnTlMf 'qrtstwjnmd If the Company obtained the
din six months, commenced within ihe Bond Commitic be required to deposit the control fairly, it was contrary to their ex
cuses a motion for a new trial may be
te after the adjournment of the Court at
which the trial was had, on giving twenty
days notice to the opposite party, where
made to the Judge in vacation, who has no
power or authority to hear the motion, or to
the next teim of the tiuperior Court which
has power and authority to hear it? The
answer is to be found m the section itself,
where it declares that the motion for the new
trial shall be judged of by the Court os con
tra-distinguished from the Judge of the Su
perior Court in vacation. The natural and
reasonable interpretation of this section
would seem to be, iharthe application for tbe
new trial, should he made to the Court, that
is to judge of iL Can it reasonably be sni
posed that the application for a new trial i
extraordinary cares wss to be made to a
Judge in vacation who had no power
or authority to grant it nnder the Consti
tution and laws of the State? Such a
conclusion would seem lo be unreasonable,
the more especially when the merits of the
application are to be judged of by tbe Court
which has the poweraniTanthority to grants
' '* i, the Superior
motion for a new trial. Besides, f
Courts only have power and authority to
grant new trials in causes depending in said
Courts, according to law, and the usages and
customs of Courts. The usage and customs
of all Courts, both in England and this coun
try, is to make a motion fur a new trial in the
Court where the record and proceedings of
Jsmra Perryman. James Lcnnard and -he original trial are, and not to the judge in
\Vm. L. Carter, Executors of Jesse Carter, vocation who has not the records of the
vs. ihe same. John H. Walton va the Court before him. and this applies as well to
same. Scire facias to makes parties, from motions for a new trial in extraordinary cases,
TiuiioL as to all others. It would be a legal anomaly,
MONTGOMERY, J. to make a motion for a new trial ont of the
Where an executor is sned as such in the Conn, in which the record of the first trial
count; “of his residence, and pending the suit was kept, r ucli a proceeding would not be
according to the nsage and customs of Courts.
A judge m vacation, has no more power or
authority to bear an original motion for a
new IriiJ in extraordinary cases, than in an;
other. It was suggested on the argnmeu
that if the judge could not exercise the power
claimed in vocation, there would be a failure
of justice in extraordinary cases tike the one
now before us, that the defendant would be
E. H. Worrill, Ml Bethnne, G. N. Forbes, execute 1 before the next term of the Superior
for plaintiff in error. Court. The reply is, that if there is any ment
Biandford ft Crawford, for defendants. i» the application for s new trial, the
right of a.
action within six months, commenced within
time, which has been dismissed ? What was
the subject matter of the 4th section of tbe
Act of 1869 ? The subject matter was to re
quire all actions on notes marie prior to the
1st of June, 1865, to bo brought by tin* 1st of
January, 1870, or the right of the
party plaintiff, and his right of ac
tion, should bo forever barred. The
subject matter of the Act was to shorten
the period of the statute of limitations, in
relation to the particular class of contracts.
But there is notbiug in that Act which de
prives the’plaintiff, who commenced his ac
tion within the time prescribed by iL and
whose action should be dl-misscd from the
privilege of recommencing it over, as provi
ded in tbe 3881st section of 'ho Code. There
are no negative words in the Act of 1869,
which takes away that right There is noth
in? in the Act of 1869, in conflict with that
right and, therefore, the repealing clansc
of that Act does not effect it The Act of
1869, can have its full force and operation
as the other acts of limitation on tlie statute
book, and plaintiff's have the same right to
recommence their actions oncu , un h r that
statute of limitations when dismissco, if com
menced in time, as under any oilier aiatutei.f
limitations, they ail limit Hi- lime "llhiii
which suits shsll be commenced, b< t havu tie
privilege if the action is commenced in time
and is dismissed, to recommence it oner,with
in six months. This general law of the Code
is as applicable to actions commenced undu
the statute of limitations of 1869, as any other
statute of limitations. It is sa : d that because
the 8th section of the Act of 1869, declares
tbst all contracts made since tlie 1st of June,
1865, shsll be controlled and governed by the
limitation laws as set forth in the Code, that
therefore the right to recomm- nee when the
action has been dismissed within six months,
is taken away. If it is, it is by implication
only, and the Courts do not favor the repeal
of statutes by implication—construing the
stantes of limitation together, including the
Act of 1869, there is nothing in it which
repeals, or is in conflict with that
section of the Code, which authorizes ap'.ain-
tiff who has commenced his suit within the
time prescribed, and his action has been dis
missed, from recommencing tbo same within
six months. All the Acts can stand and have
the effect intended. The Act of 1847 embodied
in the Code, was not intended to excuse parlies
from string within the time prescribed by law,
but when they bad done so, and the action
had been non-suited, discontinued, or dismiss
ed, it conferred the privilege of commencing
another suith within six months thereafter,
and that privilege, is as applicable to tbe
statute of limitations of 1869, as to any other
statute of limitations, and there are no words
in that statute which negative, or are ia con
flict with that right and not being in con-
fiict with it the repealing clause cannot have
the effect to take it away from tbe plaintiff
in this case. I am therefore of the opinion,
that the judgment of the Court below, should
be reversed.
A Card From Thomas If. Loyd.
Editors Constitution: It is well known
here that L E Loyd, who is my brother, at
tended the recent Democratic State Conven
tion as Alternate-Delegate from this county,
and after participating In its deliberations, he
corns out in a letter published in the Atlan
ta Sun, and declares himself for Grant.—
Well, 1 entertain no feelings of animosity
against my brother, L E. Loyd, for turning
Radical; he has the right to vote for who
he pleases, but I feel deeply mortified at the
course he has taken, politically. He has in
flicted a political wound upon his brothers
and friends here, that we all deeply rcgreL
But we hope a generous public will view it
in a generous light—knowing that man is a
fallible being and prone to do wrong. It
looks hard that a man should suffer shame
and disgrace, politically, on account of his
brother. The point I wish to make, is this:
About the time L E Loyd’s letter came out
in the Atlanta Bun, my name was sent in n
petition, by some of my lriends here, almost
without my knowledge or consent, to lht
Government authorities in Atlanta, for the
appointment of Notary Public in my Dis
trict and I hare understood that the ques
tion was asked, was I brother to I E Loyd;
and after learning that 1 was, they g ive the
appointment to another, tt ell, I am glad
that they did not give me the appointment,
for 1 did not want the office; and those who
know me best, can testif, that I am not an
office-seeker. If I was, my aspirations would
be for a higher office. I am a native Georgian.
I love the land that gave me birth. 1 feel
proud to-day, that my native State ha
thrown off the Radical yoke, and I hope
that she will roll np such a majority, at tbe
polls in November, for Horace Greeley, that
the Grant administration party will be killed
too dead to akin. TnortAS N. Loro.
evidence taken by them in tbe office of the
Secretary of State for the ubc of members
and the people. Upon the state
ment of Hon. T. J. Simmons that the
evidence was in tlie Treasurer's office and
would be placed in the Secretary of State’s
■flee. Mr. Conley withdrew it
Hon. George Hiliycr moved to suspend the
rules and take up the House bill to authorize
the legal authorities of Atiauta and West
Point to take stock ia Railroads. Taken up
and read the third lima
Hon. George Hiliycr off:red a substitute
which was received in lieu of tbe original
and passed. Tbo substitute authorizes tbe
city of Atlanta to take stock iu the Georgia
Western Railroad.
Tho special order of the day being the con
sideration of the resolutions concerning
bonds was taken up.
To declare null ,and void the indorsement
S r the State of the bonds of the Bainbridge,
nthbert and Columbus Railrosd and pro
hibit tbe Governor or any officer from pay
ing principal nr interest ,
Hon. G. W. Styles made an elaborate
speech in opposition, and offered an amend
ment excepting such bonds issued by the
State as may be declared valid by the Su
preme Court, and authorizing bondholders
to sue on them in the courts. He had not
concluded at the hour of adjournment
On motion of Senator Hiliycr the Senate
adjourned until 31 o’clock, P. M.
SENATE—AFTERNOON SESSION.
Tuesday, August 13,1873.
Benate met at 3) o’clock, P. M.
Senator Styles proceeded with his argu
ment against the res' lotion declairing cer
tain railroad bonds nnll and void. His
speech was an exhaustive one, and occupied
some two and a half hours in ita delivery.
Senator Nicholls said tbe amendment was
unconstitutional. As the day had been con
sumed, he called tho previous question.
Senator Bruton hoped the previous ques
tion would not be called. The bill proposed
to repudiate the State indorsement on the
bonds of the Bainbridge, Cuthbert and Co
lumbus Railroad, when such indorsement did
not exist
The call for the previous question was sus
tained.
The amendment offered by Senator Styles
was lost by yeas 10, nays 28.
Upon the passage of the bill declaring null
and void tbe indorsement of tbe State on tbe
bonds of the Bainbridge, Cuthlrert & Colum
bus Railroad, the vote stood:
Yeas—Bl«ck, Burns, Cameron, Candler,
Cone, Estes, Erwin, Heard, Hiliycr, Hinton,
Hoyl, Jervis, Jones, Kirkland, Kibbee, Lester,
Mathews, McWhorter,Nicholls, Park.Peddy,
Reese, Richardson, Siminons Steadman,
Wellborn—26.
Nays—Bruton, Campbell, Clark, Column
- t. ' n."tin
dorse the security bond of tho Western and
Atlantic Railroad company. The act was full
and explicit and grauted tho right to all cor
porations to sign tho bond, and therefore the
authority to endorse being undisputed tho
bond was valid and secure.
Rad it civnc to such a pass that because Mr.
Brown and Mr. Hill had been politicians;
had laa-n itt high plana, that they were to ba
ostracised, and prohibited from trading and
engaging in legitimate trafle? Georgia had
some bonor to sustain, and therefore, the As
sembly ongbt not to annul a contract on a
hare suspicion. It had no echo in the hearts
of the people. At the conclusion of his ar-
gu neat, Mr. Goode was applauded.
Leaves of absence were granted to Messrs.
Durham, Guyton, Johnson of Clay.
On motion of Mr. Snead the House took a
recess until 3 P. JL, with Mr. Pierce on tho
floor.
HOUSE-AFTERNOON SESSION.
House met at 3) P. H. Speaker Cummin?
in the chair. b
Mr. Hall, of Upson, offered « resolution to
adjourn the House on thp 24tlr instant
Mr. Hunter moved to amend bv resolving
to adjourn on Ti ursday night at‘13 o’clock.
The resolution was withdrawn.
T1IE LEASE.
Mr. Pierce stated that tho many abusive
reports regarding the members of the Ma
jority Committee, that the committee
waa packed, and . corruptive influences,
were exerted to induce them to make
their report were utterly without foun
dation, and as falso as the basest spirit:
that breathed the fuuics of Hades. The slan
der in the Augusta Constitutionalist on Mr.
Toombs and the committee was a slander upon
better men than tlio ono that made it Mr.
Hill claimed that the committee bad acted
unjustly in failing to invito him before them.
Whereas the facts were that the committee
had publisl ed > notice of their meeting, invit
ing any and all before them. Gov. Brown
not being able to attend regularly the setting
of the committee, he was allowed to attend
the reading of tbe mluntcs every morning.
Mr; Nuunally himself, bad gone to both Mr.
Hill and Mr. Brown, told them of the testi
mony of Capt White, and that they Could
appear before tho committee next day, they
did not appear. Gov. Brown came the next
day, but did not intimate any desire to rebut
the testimony of Capt. White; Afterwards
both Mr. Hill and Mr. Brown appeared and
requested to be allowed to rebut the testimony
of Capt. White, and though tho testimony
was closed, the committee to give no excuse
for slander, they granted tbo request
Mr. Hill, in concluding bis newspaper ar
ticles, advised tbe gentlemen of the commit
tee. He was not surprised at such advice
when ho remembered that years ago ho -had
heard Mr. Hill say he refused,to allow tho
namo of Governor Brown to-profane his lips,
and he was now his partner snd friend. Ho
was not surprised when ho remembered at
the same time, that ho advised wivesto desert
their husbands should they seek an alliance
wifc BaHnck, yet after that Use same piau
HiH had Mppod at * Bullock Uanqnet.
The gentleman from Sumter (Mr. Geodr)
he Was surprised bad declared that if there
was fraud, the people of Oeorgia demanded
nevertheless that it should be undisturbed.
He was startled at such a proposition, when
ho remembered that tiro gentleman bad voted
In favor of declarin:
•fan Meats, soch as questions ot policy, the
amount of rental etc., and to iflannw the
question before the House, snd it alone. The
substitute offered by Mr. Hall, of Upson, or
Mr. McMillan, it was necessary to submit
them to the committee. The gentleman from
Floyd (Mr. Scott) stated that Cor. Cobb had
favored the policy of the lcasu, but the ques- in favor of declaring null and void $3,000,-
non came back—“Is the leato fair or unfair.” 000 of Georgia bonds to protect tho pcoplo
Tho candor of Governor Brown wm so re- from fraud? but now the people of Georgia
markable it was actually suspicious. Hotells were willing to share the benefits of fraud.
There were two companies both willing
and able to bid, which united, and thereby
stifled competition, and this combination con
stituted a fraud which vitiated the lease.
Have the lessees signed their names to the
bond ? Only the President of the corpora
tion had signed i>, and in case tho bond was
forfeited only Uie property, tho Road itself,
was liable, and that Road was tho property
of the State itself.
If it was true that tho stockholders had
ratified the indorsement of tho Presidents of
their Roads, he thought they were bound by
it, and liable under the bond as securities.
every one of liis competitors the amount of
his bid, and that he would not bid a cent
more. He made no secret of it Had any
one ever beard of such publicity, when an
Didn't ho know and every one else know,
that if any ono else put in a bid it
would be a higher one. What did ho rely
on? Surely not on tho amount of his bid
Ho believed it was the practice of gamblers
never to show their band unless they knew
there wa3 nothing in the pack that could
meet it Gov. Brown knew liis hand. Knew
there was nothing to meet and hence he was
ao ready to show his hand. Did they want
Delano and Cameron in order to make the
highest bid? No, the testimony itself says
that these men were obtained for the pur
poses of political influences. Tho testimony
regarding the Macon wing showed that they
expected to use Buch influences as an honest
Governor would scorn to consider. The
fountain .was impnro, and it was impossible
that tho stream flowing thprefrom could be
otherwise than muddy.
The Macon Company never once discussed
Conley, Crayton, Devanx, Griffin, Styles,
Wallace—10.
Hon. B. Conley moved)to adjourn. Lost
by yeas 16, nays 17.
Leaves of nb-encc grauted to Senators
Hinton and Jordan.
House bills read second time.
To declare null and void the State indorse
ment on the bonds of the Brunswick and
Albinv Railroad.
To declare null and void the State indorse
ment on the gold bonds of tbe Brunswick
and Albany Railroad.
Bill to declare the indorsement by the
State of tlie bonds of the Macon and Bruns
wick Railroad valid and binding. Passed.
The resolution relating to Judge Hopkins,
passed by tbe House at the last session, Was
taken up and indefinitely .postponed.
The hill anthorizingtheGovemortorcturn
deposits to tlie private depositors in tbe Geor
gia National Bank npon proper proof was
taken np.
Senators Hiliycr and Styles advocated the
passage of the bill Senators Reese and
lYellhora opposed the passage of the hill.
In order to give time for a sulistitute being
prepared, the bill was tabled for the present.
The resolution declaring the State’s in
dorsement of the itouds of the South Geor
gia and Florida Railroad valid aud binding
was adopted
The resolution declaring tbe State's indorse
ment of the bonds of the Alabama and
Chattanooga Railroad valid and binding
adopted.
The resolution authorizing the Governor
to appoint a committee of two physicians to
select a site for a New Luuatie Asylum for
the reception of idiots, epileptics and inebri
ates was taken up. A substitute au< horizing
the Trustees of the Lunatic Asylum to select
the situ was adopted.
The resolution to relieve the securities on
tbe penal bond of J. M. Hancock was
adopted.
The resolution authorizing tbe Governor
to subscribe for 175 copies each of Bacon’s
pcctatinns.
He did not care whether the $30,000 were
raised or not Was there any reason for
raising it? That waa the question. Were
there any outside obligations inconsistent
with fairness in obtaining the lease ? It mat
ters not whether these obligations were dis
charged or not Governor Brown would
not tell bis copartners tbe purposes of the
money. Why conceal them? The party in
tended that the transaction should not be
recorded.
Was it a fact that belonging to the Brown
company virtually an interest in tbe lease ?
None of the Hill wing bad been disappointed.
Was it a fact that >f * member of the Brown
company retired it was a retirement from the
lease, and the money asked of Hill andothera
was intended to compensate such retired
membera?
Governor Brown said the company should
furnish him with money to run the road, and
justice should be done to aJL What meanlthat
last demand? Was it not sufficient to have
money to run the road ? No, he most have
more that justice might be done to aU, to meet
outside obligations.
Governor Brown.it was alleged, wanted to
compensate General Gordon“<Airteen days
after General Gordon had positively declined
to accept an interest in the lease.
As regards security, if the endorsement of
the bonds by the railroad presidents was
unanimously ratified, would still be nnll and
void unless the act incorporating the compa
ny, authorized snch endorsement; and the act
authorizing the lease contemplated that only
such railroads as were duly authorized in
their charter to make such an endorsement
should endorse the seenrity.
The gentleman from Cobb had asked wheth
er any other company had complied with the
law. In reply he would simply State that
was a question of no concern. If the Brown
company had acted unfairly in obtaining the
lease, then the lease was unfair, and that was
the only question before the House.
Mr. Phillips contended that it was the duty
of the committee to investigate the fairness
or unfairness of the lease under the
law and Constitution. He thought
tho lease was fair, that tbe law had
not been violated and that the Gov
ernor (Bullock) had acted in good faith in
awarding iL The only question before the
House was “what was the best for the peo-
of Georgia?” Nearly 3,000,000 had been
squanders] by several administrations of the
road, and now by leasing tho road
for twenty years six mllion do!
lars were secured to the State apd
she ought to accept iL The proposition to
lease waa pnblishod to the world, and no
other company in bidding had conformed to
the requirements of the acL He admitted
that the $50,000 were raised for outsiders
But who received it? Not Gov. Bullock,
assuredly. Tbe company applied to Bollock
for the lease. He complied with the law,
awarded it to them, and the people of Geor
gia had been benefitted thereby. It waa com-
ilained that there was a combhiati ul Why
exceedingly embarrassed by the nldigatit it*
under which ho had placed himself, says t io
wijness. There la not a jury in <?: 'i-tria tb it
not And a verdict for the State. So a
the lessees had secured tin; road, Url-
came forward in their belie, i: -1 r»-
itol a contract for two hundred ca: L
evidence of the Bond Committee >-
potted the belief that Bullock v. ; , a
optn to bribes. ; Gentlemen wanted t-. ■ : . • v
wliether the committee desired to I, , d:; a
tho State iu a law suit. .That v. is not t a
questKmi 'Determine wTicld.'r tl , j
fair or unfair, and then .deter, nl : t
coarse to pursue*. Keep Georgia’ \
sullied and unimpaired. Descend . : r
statesmen, survivors of her dead . , >
perns yonr> opinions in no unec-aia • l
Spt ak fa a voice as loud as lliubd
Mr. Pierce concluded his nrc I
the following beautiful and patriot
ment:
“And now,gentlemen, I beg •>•••■• ■ t
on this question in no unccrtr :i .: t
as loudly as even the thun-Yr : l
the clouds, so that-it mity-be kaowntos |
men that the honor of Georgia I
to tlie keeping of her own sous, h • ; . .»
will bo established on a basis af ::: j
as the mountains which are iml> ’’ r * ;
bosom; and that her fame will b •■it el
untarnished as the diamond which sp.arkh I
in her soil, and ns bright as Uic : ' ,i t
winch halos her hill tops and a ill
golden splendor the valleys where h, - fra.
grant flowers bloom.” [Loud and ;-K: .-.ceil
applause.]
Mri Glenn was in favor of w< :: -p-Bt
tho reports pure anti simple. If had
reported right sustain them, if wrong, co.v
dcihnthcm. They afitftld^hS! t-rads .
suq. The committee had faMuct-I ::: r o
that the lease was unfair. Mr. H i , l
other lessees.had tried to Imn: - tl. • ■ •
with the belief that they Were l. ir.d ,
twenty years, when such was not t..- c at.
What was a greater wrong than t.r C..
gia’s own peopIe_lo_pcrpctratoa L■': her
people because they secured $25. i:0 >cr
month. Did your soldiers di. f i . For
a few paltry dollars the people of G ia
should lie down and submit to fraud V
hoped the pcoplo were not so G o - '
Noj one disputed the policy of h • -
road. Ho honored tho gcnticinju . ,
Jflkjyd.for introducing tho levs ?.'
If the lease act granted aiditional powers to
tho corporations, tlie whulo matter was- re
duced to the facts in the case. Tho Com
mittee bad in their possession a let-
leri from au officer ot the Cen
tral Railroad, in which ho declared that the
stockholders of that road had never ratified
tho indorsement by tho President and never
would be; moreover the motion to ratify the
action of John P. King, President of the
Georgia Railroad, in Hitlpraing tho bonds was
laid on tho tabic, and thereby the stockhold-
most sue for this road with this imperfect
bond, it were well.thal the Legislature should
forestall the indignation of tlie people, greater
probably than that against tho members of
the committee so sagaciously fursccn by ihe
editor of tho Augusta ConstitutionalisL
The suspicion was strong and almost con
clusive that the gentlemen who framed the
lease act framed it in the interest of persons
who afterwards became lessees.
It waa proven by all the witnesses that
Governor Brown received $50,000 for outside
mirpoaes. If it were true that Governor
irown wanted the money for the legitimate
expenses of the road, why did he withhold
those purposes? And why did Mr. Hill ask
for the appointment of a committee to watch
the appropriation; nnd Mr. Hill now says
that the committee never reported on the dis
position of that money, because he was not
summoned for that purpose. Mr. Hill was
very suspicious, yet he did not follow up the
use of that money for fear be might discover
how it was used? Why did it require a spe
cial committee to look after the money when,
if legitimately used, it could bavo been ac
counted for by the Treasurer. The commit
tee was needed to conceal the appropriation
and to prevent a record of iL
CapL White testified, Jwith tears in his
eyes, that after this same money was paid
ont the Treasurer had some difficulty in ac
counting for it; that Gov. Brown had no
vouchers for it, snd ho did not like iL Mr.
Morrill, who testified at the same time, there
quailing under the honest, straight forward,
candid testimony of CapL White, did not
deny any of IL
When Gov. Brown undertook to explain
the manner of disposing of that money, he
was unfortunate in saying it was to compen
sate Gen. Gordon, was not consistent with
the facts of the case. It was not true, if
witnesses, who were at least as credible as
Gov. Brown, were to be believed; and if
Gov. Brown waa at fault there, it was proba
ble that he was also at fault at other times
Hr. Pierce being unwell, yielded fora while
to Mr. W. D. Anderson, of Cobb, who arose,
aud after, some remarks vindicating the ac
tion of tho Legislature in leasing the road, he
stated the gentleman from Hancock had in
vited him to discuss the issue before them,
viz: The fairness or unfairness of the lease;
An aider committee, he would say, could not
have been obtained in or out of the Legisla
ture. They were Bent out on the mission;
they came back, but without saying a word
about the fraud. Why did not they send for
Brown and Hill, and all the other lessees and
make them disgorge the troth ? Brown, Mr.
Netherland slat d was not called upon be
cause he was an astute lawyer. Was that
right?
According to the testimony he did not think
there was a combination for stifling bids.
Talk of dissolving tbe lease for $12,000, ($50
per month) when no lawyer would under
take to take charge of the case for a
less amounL We must look to prac
tical results. He could not afford to
drag it into the court for “the fun of thing”
when the probabilities arc that the State
. secured tho mB'jQuce ot.CV-.. •
lanb and Buubct; DuBock" yr.' .My
promised a foreign qpssion. Wn ;t tr.
had Allan amT/Ryncron an IDG . j
;ing the railwrair ihtfcrc4a of *v ■
(Td any less;* preswj.) Are y, a ■,!
givfe a bond.tout,wili coms cl you
reap for twenty Jtsirfi? There,is n i r.
ant} ytiu don’t -fafeHl to do it!■ Tl. ■
s of the-hbnd krero fluff;' that u 11
d be nullified at any time, a: .'; .
wn bade on the Sjfefe .’
r the Iqgeea V ■ ro
hfied that ootilil no’.
Why wan iilhat Dinsmmv. m
. waa secured ? Was n«< 1 .
ress man too? Tho gee.:
to put his hand npon tho fr
d put Us hand on frand? . It v
pahle. But it was nuTalr ou its
elusion lie exhorted them to ct . .
ort in simple^
Ir. Richards failed .the pccviotl* q
Ich call was sustained.
‘ho question Mu* on Che substitute o
by [Mr,. McMillan,cf- Habersham.
n. Pieroc, ifforder to reach a direct
ho report of the. Committee, mm-
hiylthc two substitutes, Mr. McMillan's
Mr! Hall's, on tho tabic. ,-.i .
Mr. McWhorter, qalWfr -..G v'J,
Thu question, ivi; then v.
i-uljdRutn of Mr. ’’ Fu <■:-
which was carried will: ’’’ R .
■MB -YjSc 1C
The question teas then tn lay the v
tat i by MT.-HrM-on the table, cn v, hie!
yen i and nayfi were call'd.
The result Wis, yens 46, nays 110, a;
reetlutlon was not laid on the table.
The question then rtcurred on the ;v Y>
of hosubsdtnth tjv Mr. Hall.
1 [r. Pierco called for a division of the i
lion and the yeas tsd nays,-anti this . ...
bus niuciv
1 he res
son, is ns
Rcsolve-d, That the 1 investigati
Special Committee, raised for Ui ..
investigating Uie, aud pawing u; • . j-
ncmorutifalmcrt) of thclciso of G
t ro! and Atlantic Railroad, have U i
close eviduneo sufficiin* to jUp:uL i
of fraud in procuring the lesae.
Resolved, That in jhccphtiun r ‘
nal[Assembly the lease of the Wc :
Atliclio Kattrovl secures to tho • i
tain bum for rental touch larger ti;
hoped for under political control.
itivulved, That the.Governor In
to have the entire stock and iratfi!
appraised and the oppraisr-m ut to
order of the Gnyomoti shad - ,
place and Bleed of tho previ.t a
■esolvcd. Tint williin £8. c ; -
of
'each sign G
boid, that Uie question of tiiuir li
hefctatrcsL . ...... •
hqycas, on.the firF. reVibdd -
. - iusytt - “th
a£r*ied lo.
Yeas—AllrcJ, W. D. Andcreon, A i 1
of Pulaski, Bacon, BtiUcr, of Bryan,
I*ikc, Barron, Bateman, Battle, JL-r
Berrien, Blue, Booth, Boynton, Br..
Ion, Brown, Biyan, Bunn, Cain,
Cato, Chanccy, Chastain, Clark,
mond, Clcghorn, of CbaUooim, Ck^’u.
Muscogee, Cloud, Clower, Co!Jin:, ■,> .
Criltcndcn, Davenport, Davis, of (
Dukes, Durham, Emerson, Fain,
Forrester, Franklin, Goldsmith, C
Goodman, Gray, Gridin, of IT
Houston, Griffin, of Twi^s, Hrdl, of Uj
Hammond, Hancock, Harvey,
yer, of Camden, Hooks, Hughes, IU
Johnson, of CIav, Joiner, Jo* < of T.
Kennedy, King, Knowles, Lev. ; , M
Mattox, McConnell, McWhorter, ■
Morrison, Murphy, of Butko, Mnne
Harris,Oliver, O’neal^Polmcr, Panik, I ..
Peeples, Phillips, Pou, Putney, 1
~ * ’ — -, tin
10W could a company bb formed without a would lose the verdict
combination ? No one in Georgia was worth No other company ever made a bid that
$8,000,000. complied with the law. Fraud without dam-
The company could not swindle the State, age would not be recognized in the court
They were compelled to return the road in as room, as damage without fraud would be also
good condition as when they nceived it It ignored. If he hin\self had been Governor
iad been c* mended that the Seago company how could he have avoided the duty of award-
had made a higher bid. Grant it, but they ing the bid to the only company which had
did not conform to the law, whereas the complied .with the^tenns of the act
Brown company had. Mr. Glenn—Was Bullock under any obli-
Granting that political influence was used, gations to award the bid if the bid was
was there any testimony that unfair means frau lulcnt ?
were exerted to influence Bullock? Waa Mr. Anderson—I understand the ^
there any tiling unfair? The fact ia, they to apply here. He would have given ihe
were men of means, solvent, and able to lease to no Company that could give nothing
furnish means for conducting the road. better than individual security. If the bone
Mr. Goode thought there was not evidence at present failed to secure Un; people against
enough in the report to commit a man on a loss, being in strict spirit with the law, the
warrant. The State should not repudiate people alone were responsible. No man need
her contract on a bare suspicion of fraud, tell him that the Georgia Kail road was not
Evidence was one thing and proof another, bound by that bond. Great tricks and frauds
The question of fairness or unfairness was a because Hannibal L Kimball was the keeper
question of law. When a plaintiff comes in of the Governor’s conscience. How does
court, he must prove his case if he expects a that sound to a lawyer t If such testimony
verdict in his favor. It was a provision of *“* * u * s ‘ ,J * ~
law that doubts shall always bo in favor of
Uie defendant It was a litUo remarkable
that Johnston, Nutting and others, who had
never been connected with politics, and
who were always honorable, should be con
nected with fraud. He could not believe it
CapL White himself had said that he had
no reason to believe that any unfair means
bad been used to obtain the lease, and he was
tiic leading witness, in the opinion of the
was before the court it would be ruled out as
irrelevant Admitting that there was fraud,
how were people of Georgia damaged?
How was the Stale to be piofited by bringing
the question in the courts. The character of
the Committee was not involved. They liad
done all that could have been done. As a
combination uniting all the interests of the
entire railroad system of the State, was a
most advantageous one.
Mr. Pierce resumed his argument Refer-
Committee, to influence them in declaring ring to the imaginary testimony In the court
the lease unfair. Fraud without injury room, suppose the witness should testify that
amounted to nothing. It was remarkable $50,000 were spent for outside purposes? It
that the Seago-Blodgett Company could not was put to such use that Governor Brown
get a single champion on the fl >or. said to the leasees that they owed their seats
The people of Georgia had spoken and to such disposition of the money, yet it was
asked us not to distort) the lease even if not used for the legitimate expenses of the
branded with fraud. The act itself authori-1 road. Mr. Hill, charged to watch the fund,
Digest and Jackson’s Analytical Index was zed the various railroad corporations to en-1 never did iL Governor Brown said he was
Ro
Renfroc, Riqhards, Itilcy,
Russell, Rutherford, 8cott, fVllo-P, >;m
of Gwinnett, Binmvms, of Hall, i5ini .
Coweta, Smith of Oglethorpe, ir. i*ner:-.
mem, Summerlin, Taylor, Wat'.. /, \\ '■
Woffbri! of Bartow, Wood, W>. >. i” - : •
Nays—W. P Anderson of Cobb, !! •'
ger, Bowie, Brawncr, Butts, Cnr}’-.n, C: -
of Troup, Cox, Craig, Davis of -
Dell, Edwards, Flvnt, Glenn, c . -vi r,
ham, Gueny, Hail of Mcrriw S r, J
Hill, Hoge, Howell, Hudson, Jcnki -, .T«
of Gwinnett, Killian, Lumpkin, i, .n/
Millan, McNicl, Nctheriand, Pattiii■», 1-
coat. Pierce, Sargent, Slaton, Sn« ad,
Tarver, Trammell, Wallers, \\\. l, '
Woodward, Wynn—45.
Mr. Hall asked leave to withdraw
ond resolution. The House voted
question. The withdrawal was jp.-mle
yeas 89, and nays 47.
Mr. Glenn called for tho yens n:.d r.
which call was sustained, with ti e ‘ !o’
result: yeas 106, nays 41.
Mr. Pierce stated that his only « ! i Ti
to get a vote on tlie fairness or ir..' Ti
the lease, he would withdraw his ( K.i
yeas and nays, and also call for a div
the remainder of the resolutions.
The remaining resolutions were th.r.
crally agreed to, and the resolutions aa a w u
agreed to.
Mr. Pierce then moved to adjourn. V
57, nays 71. LosL
Mr. Scott moved to transmit the bill to
Senate.
Mr. Pierce stated it was out of order v
the Senate was not in session.
The Speaker ruled it was no cor.rvr
the House whether it, the Senate, v.;
sion or not, and ruled the motion .
Mr. Pierce called the yeen and x.. v s ■
motion, which call was sustained.
Mr.Scott withdrew the mot'u... lot:
miL
Mr. Glenn gave notice that he would u.
to reconsider the acli jn of the II. . c a
morning.
On motion of Mr. Pierce the II-
, oumed till 9 o’clock to-morrow u:: : a
raving been in session 41 hours.
COKTmVKD ON ftBCOND PACK.
OOUD?X*UvWyi
Courts, Etc -The Connty for J Tim
for Cou|KCk«.
Calhoun, Ga., August
Editort Constitution: Tlie Super
is now in session, Hon. C. D. McCu .
siding with an ability and fidelity
ere long mark him as one of the l*
in tlie State.
The case of A. H. Johnson vs. .1 *.
Ham, ct al., is now being tried. O
a hulf consumed already, nnd it’w .
take another day to do c the .
There are near sixty witnesses, . .
witnesses are all to ascertain <
fact—was Joenson capable of c
land on the 7th of August, 18GU. .
been three misstriais.
The different Militia Districts •,
S through delegates, held a Co:.. •;
y. There were thirty-one deli
tv-nine of the delegates were .
Johnson, of Daltou, for Congr< .
delegates of this county are for .1
Cora crops beyond JescriplioL.
Atabuuia ft civs.
Judge T. F. Leake, of Mont*:-.: ;•
Eufaula has received four .
cotton.
They gather caterpillars hi
by the basket fuiL
Montgomery is receiving r.ev:
the fall and winter trade.
On account of ill health S' Incy
is compelled to vacate tlie editors
the Troy Messenger.