Newspaper Page Text
± 1 I
&
4=
Term. a>
mSLV COSSTinmoJIpcr «»» -
a, ftttba cxpfnSoo of tactlra. foe whlA P*J®
Liafli. prrT—*T ■—* u»o(
ATLANTA, TUESDAY. MAT A
Tka Ttaci.r.’ Canaatm
A1 a A a< tbU body diet-lore* a Hoe k»W»g
intellectual ait-mM-tge of l*dte? aodgeDtic-
mea We like tbe lady f *««*. And by the
way we observed that ibt gvntletnen mono
polized the talking, which eery much con
flict* with the familiar notion of the appellor
activity of the feminine tongue.
Thera is preeotaal to be very little ma'erial
for excitement in the grave sutjeet connected
with education. Bat th* body w»* conrid-
erabiy stirred yesterday over the reeolntion
to appoint an intelligent board to all cut
bad acbool book'. The diacnaion
very animated. The ajeouof acbool pob-
■iabera made a lively oppodiloo. It
finally kill'd.
The attendance is large and incladea
of the leading edocatoea of the State, gentle
men alike dietinguiihed for aliiityand learn.
lag.
The deliberations arc very interesting and
will doubti«u result bencflcially to the catne,
to the profe* i«n and to the people.
Bankruptcy laformatton.
Atlanta, On, May 1,1813.
Editor t Constitution : A man who it unable
to pay bis debts and owes more than three
hundred dollar*, can file liis petition in the
United Bute* District Coart in Bankruptcy.
The party filing yetilioo has to pay all costa,
which varies according to the cue and num
ber of creditors. If there arc sufficient as
set#, he gets hick ail cub except fifty
dollars and bis counsel fees. And
all if his property is converted into
money by bis assignee in Bankropcy,
except two thousand dollars worth of real
estate at gold value, and one thousand dollars
worth of personal property at same value,
and live hundred dollars worth of household
and kitchen furnituse, and other necessary
articles, all of which most be set apart by the
assignee as property of the debtor in fee
simple. The debtor gets a discharge from ail
debts c mtractrd before the first of day Jan-
nary, 1889. And if hit assets in the
bands of the assignee arc equal
to fifty cents on the dollar of bis
dtb'.s contracted sir.ee said dale
which arc proven in coart be will be dis
charged from all bis debts. And if all or a
I rge portion of the a-aets are taken tiy
older liens or debts it will make no difference,
and he will bs discharg 'd from all bis debts.
And be is entitled to tbe exemption before
mentioned agsinat liens, judgments, mort
gages and debt#,whether contracted before or
since January 1,1889.
Lawson Black, Register.
Tbe Great Western Canal.
Our exchanges from the Wat come to us
filled with erticlaapon the great all-absorbing
question of the war now raging there between
the railroads and tbe people about the matter
of cheap transportation. Private letters
from Iowa inform us that affaire are even
worse than the press of that section repre
sents. Indeed, it is seriously feared that the
excitement may at any time end in open
violence and bloodshed. Nor is this con
fined to the Wat
Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Maryland have all railroad
wan of more or las violence.
And the press and tbe people are clamor
ing for legislation against the encroachment
of railroad monopolies.
In our judgment the esil can be reached
much more readily and effectually, and in a
way that will result in a ears Instead of par
tial relief.
The need of the West h an outlet to the
acaby meant cheaper than that afforded by
railroads. Georgia offers that outlet through
her Atlantic and Great Western Canal, a
-work which If speedily built will subserve
the interests of all parties and avoid the an
tagonism between onr great indnatial interests
which at the present moment it so imminent.
Let the Sooth and the Weal anile then upon
t lisgreat project, which is equally important
to both sections, and the work willUe done
We confess luraelvcs greatly gratified
at the assurances given us by tho leading
journals or the Wat that “the people of that
section will stand shoulder to shoulder wilb
us upon this question.” From every section
Georgia ii hailed as a new ally to tho great
“material progress idea,” which is taking such
hold nptra the country. For our part we
confess that we are heartily tired of this
continual and uaeless warfare which is kept
up upon questions that have in themselves no
clement of pi act leal good, and we turn with
disgust from the putrid corps of dead issues,
upon which small fry politicians invite
us to feed, and bail with delight
this new departure which promises
a a glut ion future. The movement made
by Governor S nith promises abundant sue
cess. Some twenty Bute. have been heard
from, and all respond favorably. The pro
posed canal and movement have been in
dotted fully and unequivocally by all of them.
We hope to see the Guvtr.iora of at least
twenty Stale* in Atlanta, and we hope to see
the gicit agricultural interests of the Wat
fully represented. It gives ns great
pleat ure to hear that our rail
roads are liberally rerpondiug to the call
made upon them, and are making prepara
tions to para tbe invited gnats free over
thdr lines. Wc hope nil the roads will do
this, and show that they, i i common with all
oar people, fed drrply interested in our gen
eral prosperity, and are willing to do their
part towards it. We will not call upon the
people of Atlanta to do their part in enter
tainiag these distinguished guests. Such a
rail would imply a doublet their hospitality,
and that would be an intnit to tbe city and
our ctti.ns.
THE WEEKLY
YfitolglToq Jjtdl
>u: i.jit
It ci w
o fiftkx
£3*t TOl JoOq
VOLUME VI.1
ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
DKCISIONS
haverer, quickly corrected, and now the jo
vial thief, “whose immediate relation* can I ov vas
coiittkdr.wealthbymiHfensr-bae atfsee sct . aBJIle coput or GEOBCIA.
at tbe luxurious bo-.rders’ tabic atotigaidc of
Mr. Van Name of the Market Strings Bank,
sad Ex-Senator 'Graham** of the Wslkill
Bank. Ball 1* aahl to be forthcoming to re
lease the man “of wonderful rffronttry and
In tbe course of e year or two he
will be pretty sure to come to the* surface as
one of tbe flat broken of Wall street.
Thin man Tain tor stole $000,000 entrusted
to his keeping. Bis crime is far more
banions than If he had Mown open the rate
of another bank to gat the money. And yet
be ia not treated, or regarded by the public,
a criminal. Similar defalcations are Ac
cruing in every pail of the country. The
betrayal of a trust, in public or private stalioe,
ceased to be thought to be dis
graceful. No wonder that the public con
science U debauched when an American Con
wonid not punish its own members
who bad been convicted of robbing the peo
ple. There is no use of expecting integrity
in private life when fi tch viplationsof public
trust are permitted In go unpunished.
THE BIG CANAL.
A. I’laclical Suggestion from the
Governor of Georgia.
We have already noticed the letter of the
Govtrnor of Georgia ailing a convention of
Governors and other prominent citizens of
many of the Stata to meet at Atlanta, Ga.,
on the 20th of May next.
This ia an important move, one which wc
feel satisfied will meet the full approval of
the people of tbe Wat, especially tho farm
era and deiltre in produce. The object of
this convention is to tske, as the Gov
ernor says in bis letter, such steps as xvi.l
insure the construction of a cheaper
and better inlet from the West to theses,
and give the Wat the means of securing a
more extended msrtet iu tbe cotton States.
This can be done by tbe construction of tbe
Atlantic and Great Westira Canal, which
will connect the Tennessee River with the
navigable rivers of Alabama and Georgia.
The route has been lurveyed, has been found
eminently feasible at a reasonable coat, and it
now requires a united iflort on tbe part of
the South and Weit to secure its success.
Let us have it!
It will bring our own State into closer com
mercial union with tbe rich fields of tbe At
lantic cotton Stata, and open op a commerce
and home trade which we have never known
before. This is wbat we need. We want
material progress We want the trade of
Kcntncky extended. Wc want her resources
developed, and we wish to see her brought
into closer commercial union with the
Stata .south and east of na. Hence
bail this progressive ruggestion
the bat evidence possible that
wbat we most desire is abuut to come to
. We are glad to see that tbe Executive
of a greet Bute taka tbe lad in thia matter,
and boldly directs the eyes of the people to a
future of prosperity which will certainly
dawn upon ns if we act with energy and
1 romptneBS at this I ime. Let our people join
hands with Georgia; let our Governor and
prominent men meet in counsel with the bold
and practical Governor of Georgia nnd his
. e, and we feel assured that great good
will surely result from this conference.
Kentucky Teaman.
TBE LUCKIEST MAN IN
AMERICA.
One of sixteen Thousand— 1 The Luck
of aPhlladcIptila Liquor Deal
er-Wafting In flew Tork to
Draw the Greenbacks,
Credit nebular la n Private Way.:
The latest defalcation was cool and com
plete. No suspicion of dishonesty or insol
vency hangover the Atlantic National Bank
of New York at oooa of last Saturday. Its
highly respectable president and directors
believed that everything was going on right
and the United States Bank Examiner bore
official and unvarying testimony to the
■ dvency and safety i t the excellent
limitation. At one o'clock on Saturday
afternoon its Cashier, Mr. Taintor, aged 33,
earned the Clearing House, and inquired f.
the President. He desired to say to him in
a quiet way that he was a defaulter to the
amount of $400000. The Clearing House
Commute astonished the btiasfu ly ignorant
directors of the Atlantic But, who happen-
ed to be in session, when they walked behind
the dak to examine the books of the bank.
Mr. Taintor very cooly pointed oat the evi
dence of his crime,—afterwards roaming his
old position and joking freely with his vie
lima until the dose of honking hours. The
following dialogue occurred during the ex
amination of tbe books:
Hr. Tappan asked Mr. Taintor, ”How
long his this been going onr
Mr. Taintor—Five years.
Mr. Tappan—Have yon anything left?
Mr. Taintor—Na
Mr. Tappan—Where has it ail gone to?
Mr. Taintor—Speculation.
Speculations in gold and stocks absorbed
the entire capital of the bank, its surplus
and perhaps $900,000 of tbe deposits besides.
And yet no official could discover anything
There is nothing like onr national
He had brought sorrow and suffering to
many honest botna that it was considered
prudent to escort him to the Ludlow
s'reet jaO. Here a great outrage was eras-
milted on the sublime genius who had stolen
s bank without detection. They actually
committed him to an ordinary cell and placed
him on prison fare. This indecency was,
Detuered at Atlanta, April 23,1873.
On Thursday Martinez & Co., 10 Wall
street, received a telegram from Havana, in
forming them that ticket 1.077 had taken tho
lint capital prize in the extraordinary draw
ing of April 23. Upon consulting their
books they found that they bad sold the
lucky ticket, and at once telegraphed to the
bolder lhat the wheel of fortune had sudden
ly made him wealthy. The lucky man is a
Mr. Penfalon, a Philadelphia liquor dealer.
On tbe 6th instant he wrote to Martinez &
Co. to send him a full ticket for the exlraor-
ioary drawing and encloecd $150. The clerk
who received the order went to the safe where
the tickets are kept and drew forth the one
which lay on the top of the pile. This was
the lucky 1,077, which drew
HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
The telegram announcing his good fortune
reached Mr. Peniston on Thursday at noon,
and at 5 r. u. he was on his way to this ci y,
having previously insured his life, which has
become of some value to bim now (bat fickle
fortune had make him a millionaire.
Mr. Peniston is 45, tall and slim,and rather
stylish. He bears his good fortune with rare
modesty, and studiously avoids any display.
Yesterday morning he presented himself and
bit lucky ticket at the office of the firm ex
pecting to draw the cash for the ticket. He
was much disappointed to learn that the pay
ment coaid not be made until the receipt of
the official drawings, which will come by the
Havana steamer on Wednesday next. After
inquries as to the best means of drawing the
casn on his ticket he left the officr.and after
ward explored Wadslreet in the effort to find
an obliging banker.
TUB LARGEST PhlZS ON RECORD.
The drawing of Apr.l 23 contained the
largat prizes ever awarded by the Havana or
any other lottery. They aggregated $1,200,-
000, and were divid'd into sums of $500,000,
i .100,0 0, $50,000, and so on down to $1,000
’ ticket 1,077 has drawn tbe largat prize ever
drawn in America. Two years ago ticket
9,444 drew a $300,000 prize, but it was so
divided up that the largat amount held by
say one person was one-fourth, or 450,000
The man who drew this prize had just failed
in business, and bad actual'y pawned his
watch to raise money to buy his ticket A
widow in Western New York drew $10,000,
a soldier stationed on Governor's Island got
! 120,1100, and othira rceivei sums ranging
front $ ,0.0 to $10,000.
A STREAK OF LUOK.
Mr. Peniston’s prize when discontinued ac-
cor. ing to the lottery rule, will amount to
nearly $103.0.0. He may be looked upon as
an essentially lucky man, to bold the winning
ticket in a lottery which contained at least
18,1-00 numbers. He will remain in this city
until be has cashed his ticket
Lottery desiers say tbs' none of the tickets
bearing numbers from one up to fifty ever
come to ibis country. Number one is the ex
clusive ^property of ex Queen Isabella cf
Spain, who has bought it every drawing for
tbe past twenty years. Spsuisu grandees and
Havana merchants monopnl ze the other small
numbers, in the hope mat lock will change at
last, none of these numbers having ever drawn
a considerable priz-.
Lottery player* are nowhaying extensively
into what are termed do b'e combination-,
that is tickets inch as 9,414,1,077,1,111, and
ao on. They argue that the wheel is turning
them nut more frequently than any othcis.
Kew Task Sen.
The Atlanta Mining and Rolling Mill Com
pany vs. Robert C. Gwjer. Complaint,
from Fallon.
WARNER, O. J.
The plaintiff brought bis action against the
defendant on an accepted draft for tbe sum
of $1,219 33, dated 12th January, 1867, pay-
able one day after sight On the the trial of
tbe case the jury found a verdict for tbe
plaintiff for the sum of $989 54, principal,
nod $242 50 for interest. A motion was
made for a new trial, which was overruled,
and the defendant excepted. The defendant
claimed that the plaintiff had charged
$!,< 23 73 as commissions for the advance of
money for it in addition to the lawful rate of
interest therefor, which it is alleged was usu
rious. It appears from the evidence in
tbe record that in May, 1866, the (de
fendant borrowed of the plaintiff in the city
of New York, the sum of $15,000 00 on
three months time, at seven per cent interest
per annum, with the privilege of renewing
upon the same terms, the defendant deposit
ing with the plaintiff eight hundred shares of
the capital stock of the Memphis and Charles-
ton’Railrcad Company, ss collatlcral security.
When the $15,000 became due after one or
two renewals, and the plaintiff wanted his
money, tbe defendant was not ready to pay
it, but was anxious that the plaintiff
should not sell the collatterafs in
his hands at that time to reimburse him
self for the money loaned. There was quite
an extensive correspondence between the par
ties in relation to this subject. On tho 30th
of November, 1666, the defendant wrote to
the plaintiff: “ We have no doubt yon an
negotiate a loan upon them (the collaterals)
if yon are obliged to have money, and save us
from !o s, and we will feel under additional fa
vor, and baidea, we are willing to pay for
the accommodation. You are at liberty to
make for us the bat arrangement you can for
the extension.” It appears from the corre
spondence that tbe plaintiff did negotiate a
loan for the defend rat, anil did pay to the
party negotiating such loan, by way of com
missions, one jicr cent, per month, in addition
to the seven per cent, pa annum for interest,
and the plaintiff charged the defendant the
tame commissions which he paid and no
more. The C ourtebarged the jury that if tbe
plaintiff borrowed the money for hii own
use until he could get back what he had loan
ed defendant, and if plaintiff paid a certain
sum for the ute of the money so borrowed
by him, he coaid not charge against the de
fendant the amount so paid for the loan to
himself, unless the testimony shows that
defendant has authorized him to so
borrow the money, and to so charge the
defendant with the ezpensa of the same.
We find no error in the charge of the Conrt
in view of tbe facts of this case. It is quite
clear from the evidence in the record, that the
defendant did authorize tbe plaintiff to nego
tiate a loan so at to enable him to carry the
collateral seenritia for the benefit of defend
ant and prevent a sale thereof at a sscrifiice,
and stated to him that defendant was willing
to pay for the accomodation. Wherea party
issoliciled to make a loan and to procure tbe
mans of doing so must spend time and in
cur trouble ana expense in collecting the same
from others, and does this at the request of
the borrower and upon his agreement to pay
for such services and expenses, the transaction
is not usurious. Whether the payment upon
a loan of more than the legal rata of interest
is usury depends upon the particular facts of
the case and the intention of the parties, and
these are questions for tbe jury. If paid or
received for the loan, or forbearance of the
money it is usury, but if the excess is for
other good and vainsble considerations, not
interposed as a device to cover usury,
the transaction is not usurious. Thrus-
ton vs. Cornell 88lh New York Reports 281.
This is a New York contract, made
there, and ao far as it appears, was intend-i.
ed to have been executed there. We find
no error in overruling the motion for a
new trial.
Let the judgment of the Court below be
affirmed.
Pope and Brown, for plaintiff in error.
L. J. Glenn and Son, for defendant fa
meat older than the first, on the ground
that the latter has received from the debtor
a sufficient amount of usury to discharge
hfs existing judgment, and from that fed
ask a decree, either that such judcmcnl
be dt dared satisfied or postponed until tbe
senior judgment is paid.
2. Where it is daimed by the joniorjadg-
ment creditor of a debtor who ia unable to
pay hii debts, that the holder of the oldest
judgment purchased another judgment
younger than either of the others, for about
one-fifth the amount under an agreement
that the debtor was to have the benefit of
the surplus, and by agreement between the
creditors they released their judgment liens
ana certain portion of the debtor’s proper
ty, which the debtor vu to sell and pay a
large portion of the proceed*! to the creditor
who held the oldat executions, and it was so
•old and nearly all the portion paid to said
creditor applied to the payment of the
whole of the judgment ao purchased by bim,
and on the hearing of an injunction to re
strain each creditor from selling the balance
of the debtor’s property under the oldat fl fa.
and claiming the whole of the proceeds nn
derit, and asking that the money so appro
priated shall be credited to the oldat execu
tion, the evidence being conflicting and the
Chancellor grants the injunction, this Court
will not interfere with his discretion in so
doing.
Judgment affirmed.
Collier, Mynatt and Collier, for plaintiff
in error.
A W. Hammond and Son, for defendant
in error.
J. T. Willingham ct a!, vs. Lydia Smith
Ejectment, from DeKalb.
TRIPPE. J.
1. It was not error in the Court to rule oat
a evidence an answer of a witness taken by
interrrgalorira as follows: “But knows that
the general report was that G. R. Smith
owned it, (a store house,) and had used it for
several years”—nothing else appearing in the
answer to show that the “report” did not dp-
ply to theuting as well as the ownership.
2. George K. Smith executed a deed to
Georgo Hamilton, and afterwards I'icd. Ham
ilton conveyed the property bv deed, after
Rmitli’a rloolli tn Li j I. f n.
. M*Y ti, 1873.
INBMBER 2
married female of ordinaay sense Jrho knows
he is mtrried, is not a rad count,
unleu it also contain charges'of otter means
fthe and fraudulent, sufficient in themselves
to constitute the offense, sad tfid count,
though then a good count, is only*? because
of the charge of said other fahsqMo fraudu
lent acts.
3. A charge of seduction which;
that the defendant was a teacher
and thegid seduced his pupil, a,
the Gospel and the girl &-mf
church of which he was the p"
told her he loved her, that she
with him, that he had prayed i
lions, and that it would not be
to submit her person to him,
which, eta, is a good chaige.
4. The guilt of the accused
proof and on the actual infli
facts, including the several
and her confidence in him am
which such statements had in tri
girl.
5. On the trial of an indictmi
it was error in the Conrt to
that whitit the woman sedi
virtuous, unmarried female yet
virtue was whether she bad or
that time, ever had illegal
with a man.
A Whenonatrialforseducli
alleged to have been seduced,
witness to the principal facts, sm
dence she declared that for two
the alleged seduction before the ti
lived a life disclosing great mi
hypocrisy, and the Conrt
vrlling, to charge tbe jury, thskflpe ground
for disbelieving a female witness-was that if
the witness disclosed in her tatiraony acts
done by her and habits of life,*
her which exhibit moral torpit
self, and the Judge refused.
Held, That thia was error,
that the prisoner on trial is
been the cause of said act!
joined in them docs not slter
7. If a written request be
legal in its terms and pertinent
on trial, it is the duty of the C(
at least the substance of it; it l
if by reference, it may he cm
Emma Jones vs. the Slate. Larceny after
lrn3t, from Fulton.
WARNER, C.J.
The defendant was indicted for the offense
of larceny after a trust delegated. On the
trial the defendant vu found guilty. A mo
tion for a new trial waa made oo the ground
of error in the charge of the Court, and on
tbe ground of newly dscovered evidence,
which was ov.wrulcd, and the defendant ex
cepted. The alleged error in the charge of
tbe Conrt is “that every witness in the case
is to be believed until impeached in some
one of the modes known to tbelaw. A jury
cannot arbitrarily, of their own motion, set
aside the evidence of any witness, tbe (ire-
sumption of incocenec attaches to witnesses
rar*Among the incidental lyrics of Lord
Lytion's last novel is the following pretty
song, ailed “The Flowir-Sirl by the Cross
ing:”
••By IS* noddy cradii la the rr. wded itreel.
fctand* a UtUe maid with her basket fa'l of poll re,
~ “ring all .ho wes ber choice of kaltted eweete.
Dptir-g Ago with bean’s case, ecnrti&c Youth
“>Kt disdains the betn'tet
Lover-ice's the roses;
Loedoo lire Is busy—
Who sea stop for posies I
•111 on T oedaa crocs lex.
Farce the sale of posies;
Are disdains the heart's esse.
Tooth rejects the races”
which remains until removed by proif.
There was no evidence offered on the trial
jo impeach the credibility of the witnesses
examined on the part of the State, unless the
statement of the defendant to tbe jury, not
ttDder oath, shall be considered as such. The
Court charged the jury ia relation to the de
fendant’s statement, “that they were the ex
elusive judges of the weight that w-sdueto
that statement—you are to give it jutlsuch
weight as in yourjudgmentilis entitled to.”
The statement of tho defendant, not under
oath, cannot be said, in the legal sense of
that term, to impeach tbe testimony of the
witnesses for the State delivered under oath.
We find no error in the chaige of the Court
to the jury, inasmuch as the Court left the
credibility of the witness on tbe part of the
State, in connection with the defendant’s
statements thereon to them. The newly dis
covered evidence is that the defendant expec's
to prove that she waa at a different place on
the day the offense is alleged to have been
commUted.bat where she was dora notap
par, that she was not the owner of a certain
alpaca dress, which one of the witnesses for
the State swore she had on at the time of re
moving the clothes fer wash, and that there
was a mulatto woman living in Atlanta, by
the name of Dora Robinson, about the time
of the alleged larceny. If all this newly dis
covered evidence had been admitted on the
trial, it would not even probably have pro
duced a different rranlL The Courts do not
favor new trials on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence.
Let the ju igment of tbe Court brio a be
affirmed.
John Milledgc and A H. Orr, for plaintiff
in error.
J. T. G'.enn, Solicitor General, for the
State.
John Jonet vs. The State. Robbery, from
Fulton.
McCAY, J.
This Court will not reverse the julgment
of the Judge of tbe Superior Court refusing
a new trial, simply because from tbe evidence
there may arise in a fair mind a reasonable
donbi of the prisoner’s gtulL
To authorize a new trial on this ground,
the failure in the tratimony to atabiish guilt
must be so complete as to make doubt and
uncertainty inevitable. If a fair mind may
nnder the testimony, te s tisfitd beyond -
reasonable doubt, tbe verdict is not illegal.
Judgment affirmed.
Thrasher & Thrasher, for plaintiff in error.
J. T. Glenn, Solicitor Geierai, for the State,
Alabama laws.
Montgomtry has about four hundred Good
Templars.
The Tuscaloosa paper* say that, owing to
the drouth, comparatively little cotton has
come op in Tuscaloosa county.
The Chambers County Clipper ays the
prospects are flue for an abundant fruit crop.
From all quarters of the State the papers
refer to the interesting, solemn and impres
sive ceremony of decorating the soldiers
graves on Saturday last
Mobile and Montgomery are playing
match game of chess by tefcj
State.
Smith's death, to his widow. The property
was levied on as Smith's projterty, after
his death, and sold by the Sheriff, by virtue of
an execution issued against Smith in bis life
time, and bought by Willingham, who went
into possession. Mrs. Smith brought eject
ment The issue was made by the defendant
Willingham that Smith’s deed to Hamilton,
who was his father-in-law, was fraudulent
and void. One badge of fraud alleged was
continued possession of the properly in
Smith after making the deed to Hamilton.
Held, That Mrs. Smith, not being a party
toaranseof action, the other party to which
was dead, nor the administrator or executor
of George K. Smith being a party to the suit
tending, she was a competent witness for
herself on the trial of the ejectment
3. Where possession in the vendor after tbe
sale was claimed as a badge of fraud, it was
competent for a witness to testify that she
heard the vendee some time after the sale
say to the vendor, “hemight have possession
of the house free of rent if he would pay
taxes and keep up repairs.” Although no reply
was proven to have been made to the propo
sition, the fact that the vendor did continue
in possession for several years, entitled the
party offering the evidence to have it to go
to the jury for what it was worth.
4. The entries on the sheriff’s docket, the
Sheriff being dead, and the record of the
judgment being produced, showing the pay
ment of an execution by the security, are
admirable in evidence.
5. There was no evidence in this case to
anthorizs the Conrt to give in charge the re
quest as to the deed being a mortgage.
6. Two verdicts hauing been rendered for
the plaintiff, and there being evidence on
which this verdict coaid have been found,
we will not interfere with the refusal of tbe
Court below to grant a new trial.
Judgement affirmed.
Hill & Candler, for plaintiffs in error.
T. P. Westmoreland and A W. Hammond
& Son, contra.
Eli J. Halsey and Wm. G. Mitchell, vs. War
ren J. Clark. Con plaint for Land, from
DeKalb.
TRIPPE, J.
A plaintiff in (jectmsnt claimed under a deed
conveying “all that part of lot No. 28, lying
on tbe northwest side of > aid branch." The
branch bad been identified in a proceeding
part of the deed as running through thecomer
, cf lot Nt 37. The branch ran 1 • a northeast
direction but did not run quitelbtnugh lot No.
20. It emptied into a river running through
the northeast corner of the lot, crossing the
nort and south boundary line nt the lot on the
cist side a shoit distance from where the
branch joins the river. The land in dispu'e
was that part of the lot in the northeast cor
ner cutoff by the river, and the question was,
did the deed convey that po. tiun ? Plaintiff
claims under a deed made in 1947,1 y one Col*
lier under a power of attorney from one
Lofton. The land was afterwards conveyed
to Minter and by Mintcr, in 1863, to plaintiff.
Each deed described the land alike, the power
of attorney to Collier describing it as on the
north t nd west sides of the branch.
It was in proof that .neither of plaintiff’s
predecessors in tbe title, and who were given
in the abstract of title attached to the declara
tion, was ever in poscssi-m of the premises
in dispute and that plaimiH never
claimed them until 1863, and instituted his
action in 1870.
Go the trial defendant offered to prove by
one George W. Morris ti at at the lime Miu-
tcr sold to plaintiff “it was agreed >tn under-
stood by them lhat a certain fence row ol
hedge row, which Wes pointed out at the
time, was the northeast boundary of that
part of lot No. 28, sold by Minter to Clark,
the plaintiff, and that he did not own or sell
any land northeast of aid lme.”
The Conrt, on plaintiff’s motion, rejected
the evidence.
The “fence row, or hedge row,” prop! red
to be proved ran nearly northwest from the
month of the branch, on the west side of the
river, cutting off not only the premises in dis
pute, but a small portion of the lit on the
upper line, lying wat of the river.
Held, That, looking at tbe w;
mony, and the plat of the lot as drawn from
the description in the deed, and from the
facts in relation to the branch and the r.ver,
and the non-claim of titlo or possession by
plaintiff or hia privies for so long a time, tbe: c
was at least a sufficient ambiguity raised as
to the real boundaries of the land sold to
plaintiff to make the r. jected evidence cum
petenL
2. As the record does not show the cltarge
of tbe Court on the question of the statute
of limitations, and as that depends on the
fact whether the prior possessions to-which
defendant must tack bis, were adverse or not.
and whether his or these to which he must
a? tack were in succession, ail of which was
a matter for the jury under the charge of tbe
Court, wc do not feel authorized to interfere
with the verdict on the ground that it was
contrary to law or against the evidence.
Judgment reversed.
William Ezzsrd, Huliey & Tigner, for
plaintiffs in error.
L. J. Winn, Hillyer & Bro, contra.
other charge, unless that jnflrkce be veiy
plain and noticeable.
£8 On a trial for seduction, acts, and sayings
between the parties, bearing upon the princi
pal fact, b-Jth before, at the time and after
are admissible in evidence as inducement, as
port of theresgestee.andaaexpKaatoryand
in mitigation or exculpation cT the principal
fact v
9. Under an indictment for soJucLion, it is
competent for the jury to find the defendant
guilty of adultly or adultery ani
if the proof would justify it.
the higher offence and necc
the other, and it was error In ti
the written request of the defenf
to refuse to point out to the jury _
the difference between these ofiidices.
Judgment reversed.
George N. Later, Hill & Cknd'er, for
plaintiff in error.
J. T. Glenn, Solicitor Genoa), and C.
Peeples, contra.
TRIPPE, J., concurring. .
The plea in this case makes the Issue,
whether a married man, whoso' marriage is
known to the female alleged to he seduced,
can commit the crime of seduction by per-
suasion and promise of marriage: The
words of the law are: “If anyserson shall,
by persuasion and promise ormarriage, or
other false and fraudulent means, seduce a
virtuous unmarried female, and-fcduce ter to
yield to hia lustful embraces, aud allow him
to^tave carnal knowledge of Ue^such person
shall on conviction be punished, eta”
The first count in the indictment charges
the seduction to have been accomplished by
persuasion t nd promises of marriage. The
secoDdcouotcbargra other falre and fraudu
lent means. Tbe third count, 'charges both
persuasion and promises'of marriage, and
other false and fraudulent means. The plea
was filed to all the couats, and agreed by the
Slate to apply to each and all. The State
demurred to the plea, the demurrer was sus
tained, and the plea disallowed as to either
or any of the counts. Thus t jt> Court below
h -id that a married man, whose marriage was
known to the alleged victim con’.d commit
the crime of seduction by'persuasion and
trnmiscs of marriage. That judgment is
nought here for review.
What was the object of tbe statute? It
was not to make adultery cr fornication an
offense and punishable. 'J bnCuad been done
It was not fornication
’.ween whom
Martha C. Pbipps vs. Jama H. Morrow, Or
dinary, el ah Equity, from Clayton.
McCAT.J.
Prima facie, an Ordinary of a county has
no right to settle a debt due the county by a
defaulting public officer, by taking land in
payment of the debt, as the property of tbe
county, and in a suit in the name of tbe
Ordinary to recover tbe land, tbe burden ia
epon the Ordinary to ahow that it waa neces
sary to take the land to save tbe debt or that
the land was taken for some specific public
purpose, for which the county .authorities
may boy land for the county. Bat
' this be shown as that it was
necessary to save tbe debt
tbe land wa bought for such specific pur
pose, and noder such circumstances <s would
give the Ordinary the right to buy, that
makes cut a case where the Ordinary may
sustain the action, other proper title being
Jcdgment reversed.
W. Waterson, A W. Hammond & Son,
for plaintiff in error.
John L. Doyal, E. W. Beck, Speer & Stew
art, etafro.
W. R. Phillips ts D. A Walker, Iuju c-
p;tion,frcm Fulton.
TRIPPE, J.
L One creditor bolding a common law
the death ..f the King, for no one coaid in-1 wa s in bad health and could not livelong, young lady, according to bia account of it,’
herit from the King uatil he waatiai j when in fact she was not in had. health, and did not improve tte opportunities ao grata-
The Whole spirit «f our.law, the reason j conditionally promised to marry as before itouslyand repeatedly qffereatoanm: After qjt
and the coirix\ seem to require the coustrc-1,fated and thereby persuadod her to yield to all, the question on this branch of the case m
lion that title promise of marriage must be *nj a lustful embraces .etc. .therein he would be 5? r . fkejuty to decide, was whetharMisa
made under citcuuistancm that would not
only make it false, but the victim of that
promise must 1st deceived by it. This she
could not be, it t-hc knew the promise conld
not be performed.
Again, it is said that the promise might bs
made by a man who waa married and bis mar
riage not known to the woman. What-1
have said mats this point and that by such a
promise thejerime of seduction conld be com
mitted under the law.
It ia furl her said that the promise might b;
conditionally made, lo-wit: On the event of
a divorce or tbe expected death of the wife,
and a virtuous female misled or.deceived by
such a promise. The Indictment does charge
this latter condition, that is, that the drath of
the wife was expected or it was believed or
stated by the defendant to Mbs Chivera that
his wife wonid not live longer than two
years and he wonid then marry her. I will
not dismiss this as was done by s Judge iu
his reply to a similar point, by the single re
mark, “That such a promise would be voiJ
as against public policy, I have no doubt
whatever.”
Doubtless such a promise would be void.
But a higher ground may be taken in reply.
Such a promise and such negotiations are
not only void as against public policy, but
the public policy that would allow no woman
damages for a breach of marriage promise so
made, still less would vindicate her, if
she gave up her virtue by means
of such a promite, and in Each vindialion
impose a longer term of imprisonment upon
her alleged wrong doer than for any other
crime save one that is punished by death or
imprisonment for life.* Thejnan who would
thus act might deserve such a fate, bitt I do
not think think any law or law-giver wonid
give as a reason for the punishment that he
seduced a virtuous unmarried female. The
moral crime against the dying wife might
call for any penalty—but hardly any law
would punish the act as a wrong against her,
who would by her own showing exhibit her
self as unworthy of any defender. Least of
all, could such a woman thus bartering her
virtue, claim to be a “virtuous female" se
duced by promise of marriage—and I do not
think that snch a promise or such a charac
ter comes within the scope of tho provisions
of the law.
The man who thus acts, who comes within
cither class that I have been considering, may
be vile and a criminal, he is vile and a
criminal and would be punished on convic
tion, bnt not for what he is not and cannot
be in such esses, the seducer of a virtuous
unmarried female by percussion and promise
of marriage.
But few laws of a similar hind to oorahave
been brought under notice in the argument
of this case. One statute, that c-f Wiscon
sin, exdudra all idea by its very terms, that
a married man can seduce by or under a
promise of marriage, or that a promise of
marriage from a married man can b&ve any
agency in seduction. The statute is: “Any
unmarried man who, nnder promise of mar
riage, or any married man wbo shall seduce,”
etc.
The law-makers there did not seem to th : nk
sods a thing p ntible as seduction by a mar
ried man under a promise of marriage.
In New York the statute says nothing of
a married man, but a punishment for seduc
tion “under promise of marriage.”
Under lhat Act it was held in two
rases that a married man known to
the woman to be married, cannot be guilty
of seduction “under promise of marriage."
The Court, in pronouncing judgment, says:
“To rail such an engagement a promise of
marriage would be a fragrant perversion of
ail leg»l sense and learning.” 1 Parker’s
Cr., Rep. 333
1 do not think that the Court erred in
targing “the presumytion of law is that the
male alleged tn have been seduced was
virtuous, and that presumption remains until
there existed an engagemerif to marry more
ponai than it already was, simply because of ”
that engagement. ,
Tbe statutes of some of tho States do this,
bat in each such statute, or in tho decisions
construing them, it is i rovided or held that
the man must be unmarried, or not known
to the woman to be married. The great ob
ject of those statutes, and of ours and of all
such law givers must have been to prevent
the sacred promise of marriage, the promise
to become one. the promise of taking the vow
of love and fidelity and protection for life,
from bring made the means of destroying
the character, the peace and happiness of one
wbo accepts and confides in that promise.
It was to protect the honor and purity of
woman from an attack by a seducer, armed
with all the power and influence that such a
promise must give.
If a woman ba in danger from a seducer
the power and th races of that seducer is
greatly increased when she surrenders her
heart, and the strong itond of promised mar
riage t xists between them. Just then this
wise and salutary law—salutary if not per-
verb d-steps in ami says to the lustful out
law, if you mako tho promise to enter into
that relation which the law of God and man
sanctions,approves and invites, and public
policy demands, au instrument to debauch
virtue and ruin her who has trusted to it,
the brand e f tbe felon shall be upon you. 1
repeat, such a law is wise, prudent end salu
tary. It pucLheswithseverity a most odious
crime, and protects virtue where its de
fences are overreached by the false pre
tences or fraudulent artifices of tbs spy and
the traitor.
Bnt to say, that a promise of marriage, no
.Latter by whom made, whether the man he
mttriid or not, whether the promise bt im-
p-isri .le or not, shall or ran be the means of
seducing a “virtuous, unmarried female,”
removed by proof: ste must have personal
chastity, it she, at the time of the alleged
seduction, had never bad unlawful sexual
intercourse with man-if no man bad then
carnally known her, she was a virluoqs to
male within the meaning of the law If maD
had then carnally known her, had had sexual
intercourse with her, she is not a virtu ins
female within the meaning of the law.” The
proof of lascivious indulgence#, dalliances,
with other evidence short of .direct proof of
the ovtr: act, may authorize a jury to infer
actual guilt, the illicit lcL In the eye of the
law a women is virtuous unless she is gui’uy
of sexual intercourse. She may do wild and
wanton things, but unless styptic leg illy guil
ty, she is legally wirtnoas.tiBf.she does not
violate tbelaw, she does uotXuLnt
tection of t o law. Any other ttan 1-
srd ic law would seem to set up to? 1 rase
a rule for ttieguidance of juries, and what
would bo Leld by one jury as showing a
want of virtue, would be considered by
another as innocent. If a jury believes from
the evidence that the illicit act has been com
mitted, the w nt of virtue is then shown
This may be shown by circumstances as well
as by direct proof.
I concur withiny brother McCay as to the
right of the defendant to have had the rt quest
in relation to the credibility of a witness
given in charge. An 1 the more espci i illy
was it his right when his conviction may be
had on tho uncorroborralcd evidence of the
woman alleged to have been seduced. The
statutesonthis print in several of the Suits
and of the United States, require the woman’s
testimony to be corroborated. I have found
o statute that does not require this. When
_ defendant is thus exposed, be is entitled
specially to tbo right to have all legal and
proper principles applicable to ibe case to be
given in charge to the jury. 1 concur also
the other points in his opinion on which
the judgment of this Court is given, and gen
erally in his reasoning thereon, except as to
the point wherein I have above expressed a
different opinion, and I concur in the judg
ment reversing the judgment of the Court
below and granting a new trial.
WARNER, C. J., dissenting.
The defendant was indicted for the seduc- statute? Wi 1 the way ward, imprudent acts
tionof Enma J. Olivers, an unmarried fc- of a school girl, the allowing Improper Jib- : .. . . t
male, under the ptovisions of the 4305th cnies to be taken with her person, in play or Baranac, put a pistol to hU head ycaterday | his
section of the Code, which declares that, “if otherwise, rebut the presumption of the law
any person shall, by pcieuuion and promises
uf marriage, or other false and fraudulent
means, seduce a virtuous unmarried female,
and induce her to yield to bis lustful em
WARNER, C. J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the Court in
this rase, bnt bold that the plaintiff's deed did
not include or cover the land in dispute. The
words of the plaintiff’s deed are “to all that
part of lot number twenty-eight in said dis
trict, lying on the northeast side of said
branch, containing two handled and fifty
acres, be the same more or less.” The land
in dispute is northeast of the branch, across
the river. There is no ambignity on the
face of the plaintiff’s deed, and therefore
parol evidence was not admissible to explain
it If the bed or ran of the branch had been
changed or altered since the execution of the
deed,‘parol evidence wonid have been admissi
ble to show that fact, bnt not otherwise. The
plaintiff’s deed alls for the land “lying on
the northwest side of the branch,” as it then
ran at the time of bis purchase of it, and he
most recover on the strength of his own title,
although the defendants have none, except
the naked possession. As the Court admitted
parol evidence in relation to the title of the
land in dispute, the evidence of Morris should
also have been admitted.
M. D. Wood vs. Tbe State. Seduction, from
DeKalb.
Smokehouses are fullering from the depre- judgment, where the debtor is involved or
dations of negroes jn the Westers part of the unable to pay all hia debts, cannot enjoin
McCAY, J.
LA married man known by a female of or
diaary sense to be such, may be guilty of the
crime of seducing said female, but nnder
section 4305 of the Revised Code, which
provides that any person, who, by p-rsuarion
and promite of marriage^ or other false and
fraudulent means, shall seduce, eta, a mar
ried man, known by the woman to be such,
cannot, if she be a woman of ordinary sense,
be gntity of seducing her by “persUA-ton aad
promise of marriage."
2. Whilst we recognize the law to be that a
married man, known to be such by the
woman seduced, may b: gtri.ty of seducti. n
by other false and fraudulent means than by
persuasion and promise of tn irriag', j el a
count, in an indictment which c tug—. educ
tion by false and fraudulent means, ani sets
forth as one of such means a protnit] *
riance with the true wisdom of all law and
sound morals as it would be for her to claim
the sympathy, vindialion and protection of
the law for yielding herself by a promise of
a palace from a pauper or a crown from "
beggar. As well might she say a bauble or
penny washer price, as that a known, barrcD
worthless promise won her.
Surely, the law does net set up her virtue
as of such great worth that it must be vindi-
rated by such high penalties.
But it may be said that if tbe law so de
clares, it matters not what may be thought
of its wisdom, or the consistency of its logic,
it most bo administoed as it is written. This
ia true, but it is none the less the duty of a
Court to construe snd define the meaning of
the law when a question for cods'ruction
arises.
The words of the law are: “Shall by per
suasion and promises of marriage or other
false and fraudulent mans seduces virtuous
unmarried female, eta” No one an deny
that the “other means,” other thin promise of
marriage, must be “false and frantulenL”
Those are the very words of the law. “False”
means that which is not true, coupled with a
ijiagintent “Fradulent” is something that
wi l deceive, chat, mislead, induci. g a be
lief in what is not true, and action on sach be
lief. Can it b: faiily claimed that all the
other means inii.t be false and fraudulent,
believed in by tb-. victim and she deceived by
their, bnt it mailers not whether the prom si
of marriage was false or fraudulent nr be
lievedio. or whether she was deceivid by i
or not This wool l ra ike mere words, words
known to be nothing but an empty sound.
ct puc'crci nihil, constitute an a en-
tid in a mott infamous crime,
I' coulJ only be effected by that constiuc
tiou of ibe old EnglL-h statute, making i
treason to im ipne tbe drath of tbe Kiog.
when it was held that tbe owner of an inr
c led “I be Grom.” on urging his son todc
another creditor in a common law judg- marriage made by a married man to au un-
guilty of seduction notwithstanding he was ®Jrera was a Tirtuous unmarried female at m,,
S married man. Persuasion and promises of ^otime of the alleged seduction by the de-
marriage are not the only means content- fendant,mtlunthe meaning of thei
plated by the statute by which a virtuous un- before , “ at
married female may be seduced.. Thestatute knowledge of a man? was Elio m pos_.
did not intend to enumerate all the means to JJ "2 P®! 80 ? 8 } ^hasUty at that Unit, and aid
which ibe artful seducer might resdrtto ac- the defendant, take it from her? Thepre-
compiish his purpose, but if he promises aomption of the law was' tn her favor, be-
mamSge, or by “ other false and fraudulent “desher positive evidence of the fact, and
means' 1 seduces ft virtuous;unmarried female admitting all the evidence offered to prove
he would b3 guilty of seduction* although he contrary thereof to have ban true, still, it
might not Lava promised marriage. The * ve £3 r 8hort of being sufficient evidence
other means employed to accomplish bis pur- u *iaerthe to rebut that legal presumption,
pose* as contemplated by the statute, nr st the proven fact that she was at the time
be such as the law . will recognize to be o* the seduction a virtuous unmarried female
false and fraudulent, according to tho legal “ sense and meaning of tho statute.
* * * *’ •* * There Is no evidence offered by the defend
ant which approximates to the establish
ment of the fact that she h&d.carnal knowl
edge of any man prior to tho alleged seduce
tion. The evidence of Collier, if true,
>roves improper conduct on her part,
rat there is nothing in that evi
dence, which would authorize tho jury
under the law to find that she had carnal
knowledge of him, or any other man. I
will not say, that evidence of a man and
woman being found in bed together, or other
acts of a similar character, which, under the
law, would raise a violent presumption of
sense of those words, as applicable to
the fac’s of the rase. As if the defendant,
although a married man, being tho Pastor of
the Church of which the yonng unmarried
female wes a member, and her school
teacher, as is disclosed by the evidence in this
record, having her entire confidence, told her
that he loved ber, and asked her to retain
bis love, and if she would allow bim to be
intimate with her he would not harm her,
would not hurt her fie’.ings for the world,
that he had thought of all this before, ana
knew it was not wrong, baJ made it a subject
of prayer, bad prayed to ba directed right,
that hia couscienuc did not smite him for the
course be was taking, that he believed if it
had been wrong, that Providence would have
interposed sonn: way to prevent it, that he had
that much cmiti Jence in God that he believed
that some obstacle would have been inter
posed to their intimacy, that his wife did not
lovebim and bad refused to have anything to
do wilb him, that be had no one in whom he
could place confidence-trad begged her to
trust him wholly, and not to be eo reserved,
that she must know if be did anything
wrong, it would hurt him as much as ber,
that she might know ibat he wculd cot in
jure himself, etc. In view of tbe relative
position which this unmarried female oacu-
pied toward# tho defendant, the means em
ployed l>y him to seduce her, come
within the definition of “other false
and fraudulent means” as contemplated
by the statute; and the fact that ho was a
married man at the time, and that his victim
knew it, does not protect him against the
crime of seduction, as charged in the iidict-
ment, and in my judgment there was no error
in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s
plea. The object and intention of thestatnte
was to protect the virtue of unmarried fe
males against seduction by married as well as
unmsmed men, cither by persua ion or
promiso of marriage, ibiolutc or condi
tional, or by other false and fraudulent
means, and to punish the offender therefor In
the Courts, so as to prevent the injured par
ties or their friends from seeking redress by
the punishment of the offender with their
own hands. Tbe statute is a beneficial one,
aad I am not disposed, as a judicial magis
trate, to restrict it operation, sou to defat
its object and manifest intention. The mo
tion in arrest of j udgment waa properly over
ruled. The offense as charged in rack count
in the indictment is sufficiently tecbniral and
correct, and stata it in the terms and lan
guage of tbe Code, and so plainly that the
nature of the offense charged might jtave been
easily understood by the jury. Ilia only
necessary to allege in the indictment inch
facts, as make out the offense under the pro
visions of the Code; all the evidence ex
pected to be introduced on tbe trial need not
be set forth in tbe indictment, and, therefore,
titer? was no error in the Court in admitting
evidence pertinent to the issue on trial, be
cause it was not set forth therein. It is in
sisted that the Conrt erred in charging the
jury “that the presumption of law is that
she, Emma L (Shivers, the female alleged to
have been adduced, was virtuous, ana that
presumption remains until removed by proof,
she must have personal chastity. If she, at
the time of the alleg.-d teduction, had never
bad unlawful sexual intercourse with man,
if no man had then had carnal knowledge of
her, the was a virtuous female within the
meaning cf the law. If man had had this car
nal knowledge of her, had had sexual inter
course with her, she was not a virtuous fe
male within the me raiog of 'the law.” This
charge of the t ourt, was in my judgment,
a correct Interpre'atlon of what the statute
mans by a virturas unmarried female. If
tho unmarried females of this State, are not
in the eye of the law presumed to ba vir
tuous until the contrary is shown, the condi
tion of our unmarried females is quite
diffirant from wbat I have always supposed
it to ba, and rannot, by my judgment, sanc
tion the contrary presumption that they are
not vionoa-v but_ moat affirmatively prove
that they ore so. Tfle presumption of
law is that all of our unmarried females are
virtuous, and lhat the reverse thereof is the
exception. The projtosition contended for,
us applicable to our unmarried females in
this State, is ti.nply monstrous. The public
morals of our people have not yet become so
into ancighooriug drug storo and told tho
druggist to put np a bottio of tho deadliest
poison ho could compound. Tho dru
took a iook atlhoyoung man, and, dlvu.^
that his purpose was not a good one, put him
up a bottio of harmless mixture. Dennison
put the bottld in bis pocket and went home.
That nlglitho and his wife had another dif
ference, and then ho tohl her he waa going
to kill himself. Ho swallowed about half
tho contents of tho bottle, bade his
wife’ farewell, told God to bless
her, and laid . down on
_ Batin sofa to die. This Bocnc created con-
of tho Court, of which the defendant can sternation in the household. Mrs. Dennison
complain. The Court ought not to have seized tho bottle, and scut one servant to tho
charged the jury upon an assumed statopf drug store to find out wliatllic contents were,
facts not proved by tho evidence, but the and another for a physician. The drug man
Court did * * * * " '
have had pi _ m
carnally known ber, bad'had unlawful sex- home aqd telVhcr mistress that her husband
nal intercourse with her, she was not a vir- was in no dsnger. About this timo the Sar-
tuous female within the meaning of the law, anac was ordered bn h cruise, and for months
dchcc < f Coll cr and omen-, whether Miss
drivers was a virtuous, unmarried female,
ai contemplated by the statute, at the time
of her alleged seduction by the defendant.
The Court did charge the jury ihajif she had
never hail unlawful sexual intercourse with
man—if no man had then had carnal knowl
edge of her—she waa a virtuous female with
in the nicaniog of the law, but if man had,
then carnal knowledge of her—had had un
lawful sexual intercourse with her,she was not
a virtuous female within the meaning of the
law. If that was not the proper standard by
which n virtuous female should be tested in the
sense of the statute, what shall be tbe proper
standard? If she bad her pristine virtue at
tbe lime the dt fendant seduced her, and he
deprived her of it, was she not a virtuous fe
male in tbe sense that word is nsed in the
and left tho jury to decide that question
nnder the evidence in relation to that point
in^the case,including Collier’s cvidcnce,sa well
as that of other witnesses. Where is tbe
evidence in this record that raises a violent
presumption under the law, that Miss Chiven
ever bad, at any time, carnal knowledge of
any man other than the defendant, which
wonid have authorized the Conrt to have
ed tbo jury in relation to it?
ien a defendant is iudicted on the
criminal aide of the Conrt for seducing a
virtuous unmarried female, it is not a good
legal defence for him to black-ball her charac
ter, by proving loose declarations, imprudent,
or immodest conduct on the pert of his vic
tim, but he must go further and prove that
she had lost her personal Chastity prior to his
alleged seduction of her, or he most prove
snch facts as nnder the law, would raise a
violent presumption that she had dono so,
such facts, as under the law, would author
ize a jury to find that she had had unlawful
sexual intercourse with a man.
To hold otherwise, will make tbe
statute, which was intended to protect the
personal chastity of unmarried female#, not
worth the paper on which it is written. It
was not In? object of tbe statute to protect
the defendant’s personal chastity, as tho ar
gument assumes, but the object of it was to
protect the personal chastity of the unmar
ried female against bis attempts to take'it
away from her, no matter what may now be
his pretexts, or excuses, for depriving her of
it. If she was such a nototious character as
he would now have us to believe, why did
he not exclude her from tbe cbutch of
which he was the Pssto- ? Is it a legal de
fence for bim now to say that be was se
duced to deprive her of her personal chasti
ty? The argument amounts to just
that, and nothing more. It was not
a question of damages that was In
volved on the trial of the accusation, or
whether the defendant was guilty of the
offence of adultery and forairation, hut the he
question was, did the defendant deprive the I To Mr.
Ttsaf*g££5?$8g
• ■ AWWA (JSOUUim/ EUDK,
i cortafa pangs of regret
older^e, Mo^htoi&Sd
Bkadows wire constantly sprinrinSiS
teSs
band s will Mrs. Dennison waa made an «*.
ecutnxi 4nd had tali a49aj-BWNMF
S^T Bh ***W*“9j§»<Pn>Pjctyv. Bnl |-
a Dennison she threw avray
—CDIlUflllllB was evidently
ndh awan* when she put her head inside the
•""‘rimomal noose: Tbgknowledge of tb*
tion she wis thus placed in chafed her
t#* Bwi this fact, together with her yotuw
mtemporanoe and extravaganocL
. .cr one oj-tiio uukappiest of women,
ien came a scries of jars and wrangles,
as if to crown this edifice of woe, than
another misery. By her hasty matrbwe
Dennison had thrown away her share
y slice of the Commodore’s prop-
Toco nf o□ -*» - -
-man, and thereupon she was more unhappy
than ever. Besides, she accused him of spend
ing her money recklessly, and, in fact, actual
misappropriation Of a goodly portion of it
Be this as it may, Mrs. Dennison found hex-
self growing poorer every day, and finally
felt compelled to lessen the expenses of the
*mBy. At this Dennison, who minted to
keep up style, and who, it is said, only mar
ried tho widow for her money, got indignant,
and became more reckless than ever.
r* J ; rmsx ATTEMrr AT SUICIDE.
About this timo tlic conple lived in arent-
cu house on Slbckton street. Their lifo waa
one cf exceeding bitterness, each accusing the
other at-being the canto of their mutual
misery. One day last summer Dennison went
unlawful sexual intercourse between Utc par
ties, would not be sufficient evidence of carnal
knowl. die of each other to authorize tho jury
to>o find, bnt there are no facts of that kind
proved in thia rase, or any other facts, which,
ouder the law, wonid raise a violent presump
tion that sbo had-had carnal knowledge of
any man, other than tho defendant, nnd for
that reason there was no error in tho charge
Mrs. Dennison lived, in jtcace. Tho Saranac
went down on the coast of Mexico, and waa
gone all the past winter.
, On Thursday tho eihip returned and
anchored in the bay. Lieutenant Dennison
came ashore and repaired to his wife’s resi
dence on Stockton street. Thia wsg about S
o’clock iu tho evening. To his utter aston
ishment he fouhd his home broken up, and
hia house in chargo of an agent of tbo man
from whom it Was rented. S’rom inquiry he
learned lhat Mrs. Dennison was then in mili
tary custody, being under the protection of
Brigadier General John Ilcwston, Jr., com
manding tho Second Brigade, National
Guard, of California. The Lieutenant’s fint
impulse was. to- suo out a writ of habeas
oirpus, but lie finally concluded togoin search
of Mrs. Dennison himself. This search was
unsuccessful, resulting only in the following
better being placed in bis hands:
' 1 Citf Bar Fraroieco, April 17.1S73.
■ZieutenantK Dennison, United States Steam
er Saranac: .
“Sir—During your absence I have long
and painfully considered our relations of tho
past few months. It will, perhaps, bo no
surprise to you to learn that I have irrevoca
bly resolved never to livo with you again,
and I shall at qnec take steps to procure a
divorce. If .there is any necessity for com-
mnnlcatlng with inc it must be done through
tho Mcasr?. Rodgers, my attorneys.
Lkeskttb Dennison.”
RESOLVED trail DEATH.
Crushed, heart-broken and filled with re
morse, Denniton probably at once resolved
to die. Ho went to the house of Mrs. M ary
Pleasants, where he once used to live, and
there indulged in a strange behavior, bran
dishing a pistol and threatening to kill both
himself and wife. Finally ho became very
much intoxicated, and in this condition went
to tho room of a friend—Alexander Casselll,
jn the Washington Houbc, in whoEC company
i ho showed his wife’s note,
unmarried female of her personal chastity, as also another ho had received from the
as alleged in the indictment? If she had I Messrs. Rodgers, stating that a suit for di-
lost it before, then ho did not deprive her of vorce had been brought against him.
it, for he conld not take from her lhat which Cat f .-111 at once volunteered (o go and^ee
she did not have. The law, however, pre'-1 Mrs. Dennison and try and get her to relent,
gomes, that Miss drivers was a virtuous un- He did go in the morning, hut the lady was
married female in the sense of the statute, inexorable. Casselli came back at noon and
at the time of the alleged seduction, she met Deunison as ho was coming out of the
swore that she was, and take all tho evi-1 house. Dennison asked the result of the
dence offered by the defendant to show the visit, and when told, drew two letters from
contrary thereof to be true, it is not sufficient his pocket—one addressed to his father and
nnder the law, to have authorized the jury the other to his wife—and handed them to
to find that she was not a virtuous unmar-1 Casselli, wi lt a request that they bo dcliv-
tied female, as contemplated by the statute, I ered. Ho then stepped into an adjoining
and who could not have been seduced and I room, and without speaking a word, drew a
deprived of her personal chastity by the pistol, and placing it. to hia right temple,
defendant, as alleged in the indictment. In I fired. The bullet crashed clear through the
my judgement, there was no error in tho re eknll in a direct lme, passing out on tho left
fusal of the Court to chaige as requested, or I side of the temple. In a few moments the
in the charge as given, of which tbe dc-1 wounded man wag picked up and tenderly
fendant bad a right to complain, in view of I cared for. There was still life, bat the fatal
corrupted that the law will ptesume that our the evidence contained in the record. If the I bullet had done its work well. He sank rap-
unmarried females are not virtuous, and if jury believed the testimony of Miss Chlvers,' idly,and in an honrafterwarda died,
such a stale of thingexisted.it wouldbea andbermother.andthatwasaqucstionexclu- tub letters.
very cogent reason why the statute against rively for their consideration then tho ver- Dennison’s letter to his father was formal
seducti ra should be enforced for the protec- diet waa unquestionably right, and according - n rt M?cre B tatinir that the wnto * ^
tion of society generally. But it is said, the to the repeated rulings of tins Court hereto-1
C urt; erred in i?s charge in not submit
ting ibe question to the jury under the evi-
I am therefore of tbo opinion that tbe I
judgment or the Court below Ehonld be at- XS. u “w ““
1 ter to liis wife was conchcd in the most ten-
. ... __ . .derand affectionate language. He said that
A SAD TRAGEDY. The loved ber even now as fondly as ever,
that ho had always been true to her, and
lhat the terrible deed which he was about to
perpetrate was prompted by a desire to spare
Ucalcnant Dennison, United Staten I the feelings of their daughter* nnd tho dis-
grn v which would ensue from a divorce suit.
From the Saa Francisco Chronicle.]
and shall be punishable in case of such a se- braces, and allow him to have carnal knowl-
duction with the same ignominious penalty, c j g00 f her, such person,on conviction, shall
is to confound all gradations of punishment, be punished by imprisonment and labor in
nnd to vindicate the assumed wrongs of one - - *’—— *—
who leaps to her ruin,as strongly as the
wrongs of one who has been cheated, blinded
and defrauded to ber ruin by falsehood, and
fraud. No rule of tbe civil Code grades its
penalties on such a basis.
A false and fraudulent premise of mar
riage, trusted in by the worn tit, has doubtless
often txen and may be again the means of
seducing a “virtuous, unmarried female,”
and though by her fall she may draw the
finger of scorn upon her, yet the law becomes
ber avenger, and punishes her wrong doer
because, by bis falsehood, she is defrauded to
her ruin. But for her, or any one, or the
law to ascribe her wrongs or ruin
to a promise which she knew was both false
John Phoenix in the Ladies’ Car.—
John Pkamix, tho imitakle wit, thus told
an incident connected with a ride on the
New York Central Railroad:
“I had observed that at cash change of
the cars, and they were frequent, when tho
general scramble took place, one car was de-
_ _ . ... , fended from the assault by a stalwart mar,
Lieutenant Erasmus DenmaOD, of the anally of the Itish persuasion, who, deaf to
United States Navy, attached to the steamer menaces and softened by bribe#, maintained
“-ranac, put a pistol to his head yesterday his post for tho benefit of the “leddiea.”
_ m noon and blew hia brains out. liicu-l “ Leddiea* car.sir, av you please ;forrcd car
that siie is a v r:uous female in the sense of tenant Dennison was twenty-seven yearaold, I f or ginllemcn without ladies.”
the statute, aad that she has had carnal was a son of ex-Postmaster General Denni-1 “Need I say that this car was the most
knowledge of a maa? In the estimation of son, of Ohio, and brother of Henry H. Den- comfortable one of the train, and with the
some people, if on unmarried female wears nison. Paymaster United States Navy. His I resolve that distinguished mo in the dit
her dress to short, or too* low, and thereby terrible end may be attributed to two charge of my duty toward myself, oclermin-
expose^ her person, she might not be consid- causes—rum and domestic unbapmnesL I ed to get Into it So when wc changed cars
ered a virtuous female. What shall be the Dennison graduated at the Umted 8tatcs| a t Utica, I rushed fourth, and seeing a nice
the penitentiary for a term not less than two test of a virtuous ucmarried female, in the Naval Academy in the clan oflEOG. lie young person and a pretty fscourging her
nor longer than twenty years. The prosccu- sense and meaning of the statute, unless we served W through the crowd, 1 stepped up to her
Son may be stopDed at any time by the mar- adopt that, as stated by the Court, in Us up through the diffraent grades to that of „ de> and with my natural-grace and gaUan-
riaee of the parties, or a bona fide efler to charge to ihe jury? In my judgment, so Lieutenant, and in the _faii or 1870 lie ob-1 ^ f 0 ffcrcd my arm and assistance. They
mOT on the part of the sednwr.” When long as an unmarried female retains her per- tained leave of absence for ono year. with I graC cfally accepted, and proud of my
thertiefendant was arraigned he filed a plea sonal chastity, she is a virtnoas unmarried permission to visit Europe. He went there, I SUCCCM> j urged my fair charge upon tha
in bar of the indictment, alleging therein that female within the true intent and meaning roamedAround France. Germany,Italy; mid I pj a tform of tho ladies’ car. My old enemy
he waa a married man at the Jime the offence of the statute, and lhat he who persuades finally brought up ra Vienna. There ho fell ^ ho lding;th2 door,
is alleged to have b.-eo committal, and had or isduats her to surrender to him that per- in with a fascinating ladyfrom San Fran-1 u j, this your leddy, sir ?”
been so for more than eleven year?, had a tonal chastity m the manner ag prescribed cisco—Mrs. Belim E. Woodworth, wife of I “ With an inward apology to Mrs. Phcc-
lawful wife with whom he was then cohabit- therein, ia a seducer; in other words, if no Conra-Q lore Woodworth, of tho navy. His I n - lx forithc great injustice aono her charms,
inz. snd three children, which was well man has ever before deprived the unmarried j—vycMracaanaraWAJaimatlght-to_,bapo-1 Frq»Hed.“Y«,” Judge of my horror when
known to tho said Emma J. drivers, and female of her present chastity, the first man Ute to the lady, and he exeroiseatho right to | thirioW-empTSyeff'Of a monopolizing com-
eould not have been a party to a contract of that unlawfully does so is the seducer of a its fullest extent Commodore Woodworth, I pany w uh the tone of aa aqusintanoe i”
virtuous unmarried female, as contemplated who was immensely rich, was obliged to re-1 “Well, Sal, I guess you have dono well;
by the statute. In this case, the female main in California to look after hU invest-1 j, ut j do n>t think hia family will think mnch
marriage, etc
The counsel for the State demurred to the
plea, which was sustained by the Court, and
and Impossible of performance, to say she nj, defendant excepted. Toe question msde
was seduced by listeniag to a promise as de- p™ the defendant’s plea is whether a married
grading to her by listening to it as to the tna m.n. known to b: so by the female alleged to
who msde it, by a promise of a man of wbat |, aTe been seduced, can bo indicted ana con-
she knew be did not have, is as utterly at va- yieted under the before recited section of tho
seduce a virtuous and unmarried female, etc.
The fact that the seducer cannot repair the
injury done by marriage because he is already
married, does not lessen the offense, bnt is an
aggravation of it. It might as well be said
that if an unhurried man, should seduce a
virtuous unmarried female by persuasion and
promise of marriage, and afterwards marry
another woman, that be could not
be convicted and punished because
he could not then repair
injury by marriage of tbe victim of his lust.
This section of tbe Code should receive a
reasonable coastiaction, that the injury done
to the seduced female may be reputed by
the seducer by marriage, when it can lawfully
be done. But it is said the seduced female
in thia case knew at the time that the defend
ant could not marry her, and therefore she
was not deceived by him; that she acted in
her owa wrong. Tbe reply i#, lhat
the pravi i os of tbe statute are
aimed at ibe sulnc:r, and not at iris
victim; besides, i is alleged in tbe indict
ment taat the ri> fend rat’s wife was in bad
alleged to have been seduced had not only
the presumption of the law in favor of her
being virtuous, but she stated positively in
her evidence that no man had ever had carnal
knowledge of her but the defendant Was
there anything in the evidence of the defen
dant, which in the judgment of the law,
Code. This section of the Code, it will be
perceived, is not restricted by its terms to .
unmarried men, but declares lhat if any per- a virtuous unmsmed female, in the sense
son shall by persuasion and promises of mar- the statute, and her sworn statement that she
riige, or other false and fraudulent mean#,
ber some night like a decent yonng man and
after he went oat, wait oa the railroad about
naif an hour or so, she would come out and
meet bim on the railroad; that arrangement
was never consumated; was sick, and went
represented to yissehivers that his wife was
ia bad hat lb and could not live long, and
promised to merry ber after bis wife’s death
and thereby pe. su ided and induced her to
yield t? hs lurtful embraces, and
allowed him to hive carnal knowledge
of her, then he would be guilty of
reduction nnder the protri ions of tbe
bis duty became he would be heir to the Code. If the de endint faltly, and
crowm was guilty of treason in imagining fraudulently represented to her that bis wife
Karri shoots Hlmsell 1 lrrough
the Head—Tho Snd Sequel to
a Wealthy Widow’, mar
riage.
meats, but as his wife was fond oftravel he o{ rag match!”
permitted her, with the children, two in num-1 — — -
— ». 1 , I.-...... in i-.- i-mh*. I Georgia State Bond* in Row York.
A friend of oars, having seen Georgia 8
yeara"old afthetime.liiho wreri^ftabft I Ef
SarfjarjffiSasre' SSsSHrar
dared it, and finally, fn defiance of propriety, | J* ‘^ ng to m H ^[s. G E^WdiSdto^
was so at the time of the alleged seduction? ia»™ .. i v. wrote "to Messrs. E. Y
Whether the jury believed the statements of though perhapsiaclnM Co., of New York, to purchase
Collier, I do not know; that was a question wrong, Mrs. Woodworth permitted him to f h - Th e following is the reply ot
for them; but what were his statements in be her constant comproi^-in ftcL made [tos= Smcn7 iouowm S isuie repiy or
relation to Miss Chiven,’ personal chastity ? hhnso to sp^, a mernbw cfher familyln b New York, April 19,1873.
In 1867 he went to school with her to the de- Vienna, and elsewhere in Europe wherever I _______ Columbus Oa. •
fendant; ahe called him to her one day in she traveled. Findly.itUa European drmm I deab8ib—favor of the 16Ui instact
the school room and told him to sit by her; of bliss wrascut shortby the drath ofCom-1 ^ h^d, and in reply to the same we
he did ao. and she took his hand andputit modore to tha oly, abont^wo would 8tttU that paatdSebonds of the Stale
inride her bosem. next to her skin; he felt or yearn or less ago. “is willowatonce return I Qf Ge( _ i& g^ngt be bought in this market
ber legs, hugged and kissed her. At an- *d fiom Europe, young Denmsonoonriug | fnr VrKi,h«n rar The hand# van cmnnntnri
other time, she told bim that ehe would with ber as far as New York, and she com-
let him sleep -with her that night
provided her mother was absent—
agreed to go but did not—was sick. At
another time, one day about two o’clock, she
sort of pulled up ber clothes and asked him
if he did not want to feel cf her legs, this
was near the school house when the boys
were playing ball. She also told him one day
in the school house, that if he would call on
for Ices than par. The bonds yuu see quoted
ingacross tbe continent. i have some time yet to run.
A few weeks after her husband’* death, We «? . _
and after settling some matters connected
with bis estate. Mrs. Woodworth returned to , jarv? 1 ?.!*
New York an3 took up her residence. Six t ^? cgoit ‘
monthsjaf terwards, in direct opposition to the I
wishes oP her friends, and without evincing S9T Yotk,the effort thus far; has not been
much respect for her husband’s memory, she I very successful, w.umtms ienquirer.
married young Dennison. The Bffrir created I
conrilenbla stir in fashionable circles, both I
here and in New York, and excited a world ?*?* “
of unfavorable comment About that time
or shortly afterthe honeymoon, (if there was l 9 ra#^,„rin
such a thing then in their esse,) Mrs. Denni-| ni S ht ? e , k A“5, cl
vfri in .n In CaUSO he failed OS * Mgh BO
to those fond of solemn harmonica One
in the month be-
note, andean old
health’and could n -t live long, and that he borne to Alabama where he lived then and son rraotvea loreium to sm FMnmsco to | d ^ acoI ^;^ mar i.ed~that he would gladly have
oromis-d to m«rrj her after hia wife’s death, now. Take all thia evidence of Collier to be lo<* after her pecmriaiy interests, and in orfer I _i Ten do Uars if he bad not left htsspeCA
&her of the human race was tempted true, and what of it? Does it prove that to havei hmtUMla. near her Mporaiblc |
and Ml aid ihe olject and theory of onr any man had carnal knowledge of her per- she managed to have bim ordered to toe osra- — m m •
law k to nuciati the tempter, the aedneer, son, or that she was not a virtuon?, unmarried nac. Tbe two then came here, and, to aU ggy* Mrs. Stowe thinks, “with suitable in-
whefltsr he be a married mra or an unmar- female, in tbe sense of the statute, at the appearances, were as happy as happy could alruc tjon, alligators may yet be seen in the
ried mra. It tbe defendant Unthfully time of the alleged secduction by the defend- be. Legiriatnre. They certainly would not be
ant? The law presumes her to have been so shadows. I more grasping and voracious than many in
and she swore positively that ahe was so. So Bnt there were many little differences ho-1 the situation; and there is a fine openness
far as the evidence ot Collier is concerned, tween them, which finally led them both to I about their manner of doing things that ia
admitting it all to be true, the citadel of her believe that they had made a mistake. It prepossessing." Ah. if wc conld only have
virtue remained intact, it was not captured was not all cruiser de rose, their married life. | them in Congress, hslf and half,
by bim or any other man up to the time of jn the first place, tike many other naval of-1 "• ■ ■* - > • i
tbe alleged seduction by the defendant It ia fleers, yonng Dennison was somewhat convi-1 Mrs. C. A. Hickey, formerly wife ot,
somewhat remarkable,- however, that Collier vial in bis habits. He was an adept in tbe I Judge TV. T. Barry, Postmaster-General, unrip <
being about nineteen or twenty yean of age, performance ot that miracle by whicha tittle I President Jackson * administration, died talit
wbo waa so ranch temetei by tb:*i water was turned into a great deal of wine. | Newport, Kentucky, paiterday.
INDISTINCT PRINT