Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

± 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