Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

'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.