Newspaper Page Text
2.
THE DAILY
SUN.
'Wednesday} Mousing
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN.
POLITICS IN ARKANSAS.
Public Sentiment at the North.
From the Southern Standard. Arkadelphia,
July 2S, 1ST1.
Ark.,
very ex- XT
An effort is being mad
tensively to produce tlie impression
in the South that the Northern De-
, # . 1 n > IXVJLIVJJLG\.I U11UUL/U» \Ji. JL/CUiUUAttUV>
mocracy are almost unanimously for | party, shows to what low depths they
‘New Departure; 5 ' and that the
Alexander H. Stephens.
The virulence with which some of the
New Departure organs denounce Hon.
Alexander H. Stephens for his able and
manly defense of the great and time-
honored principles of the Democratic
the
Harrisburg (Pa.,) Oth resolution will
certainly be incorporated in the next
Democratic platform. This is but
part of the programme of that clique
in the Democratic party in New York
and Philadelphia, who set out with
tlie design two years ago, of either get
ting the Democratic party to adopt
Radical principles or of quitting the
organization themselves.
We give our readers to-day a sam
ple of Democratic sentiment on this
subject in the States of New Hamp
shire and Pennsylvania. Our infor
mation—information on which we
rely in perfect confidence of its
correctness, is that not one man in ten
of the rank and file in the honest and
incorruptible masses of the*Democracy
of Pennsylvania, approve or favor this
9th resolution of the packed Harris
burg Convention. A. H. S.
POLITICS IN NEW HAMP
SHIRE.
From tho Nashua Gazette, August 3,1871.
TUe 14tli and 15th Amendments.
A Western Republican exchange
suggests, that the Democratic party
should never have placed themselves
in a position to be compelled to take
“ a new departure,” because the 14th
and 15th Amendments were all fairly
adopted. That paper either has very
oblique vision, or does not know the
facts in relation to tlie adoption of
these amendments. In relation to
the 14th Amendment, Seward himself
as Secretary of State did not promul
gate it as adopted beyond a doubt. It
ajjjieftrs, that twenty-eight States were
r&jmred to adopt it. Of the thirty-
seven States in the United States
eight States rejected it. Ohio and
New Jersey ratified it and subse
quently withdrew their consent, de
feating the amendment. Mr. Seward,
in^his proclamation, says: “if the
resolutions on the aforesaid amend
ment, are to bo deemed as remaining
of full force and effect, notwith
standing the subsequent resolu
tions. of the Legislatures, of
these States which purport to
withdraw the consent of said
States from such ratification, then the
aforesaid amendment has been rati
fied,” &c. Even Seward had his
doubts about the validity of its adop
tion. A State has a clear right to
withdraw its assent to an amendment
before the requisite number has rati
fied it Before it is fully ratified the
passage of a resolution of ratification
is a mere promise or understanding
that each State, will assent when tire
others are " ITfr, ~ ornrcEat
f jxcrtriry 'after the assent is given, or at
any period subsequent to the giving
of tlie asseut, if the State assenting
thinks it lias made a mistake, and
that tlie Constitution should not be
amended in the way proposed, it may
withdraw its assent. Besides, the
amendments were adopted in several
of the Southern States under milita
ry coercion, which is enough of itself
to render their ratification a probable
nullity.
In addition to this, ten States were
excluded from Congress, when these
amendments were proposed to the
States for ratification. These States
had a right to be heard upon them
in either branch of Congress. Does
not the Constitution say, explicitly,
“ that no State, without its consent,
shall he deprived of its equal suffrage
i,u tlie Senate,” and that * each State
shall have at least one Representa
tive ?”
From tlioWost ChcBter Jeffersonian, (Pa.) Aug. 5, ’71.
Tlie “Ncvr Departure” Answered.
The 14th and 15th amendments
have become part and parcel of the
Constitution—no matter how or by
what means—they have beeome in
corporated into that instrument, and,
liow can you get rid of them ?
This is the sum and substance of
the arguments used by our “New De
parture” friends in defence of their
desertion of Democratic principles,
and the question with which the} 1
usually close them.
We answer—in the first place, we
do not believe they have ever become
part or parcel of the Constitution.—
If they have, by informing us how
they became such, they wul answer
their own question. If “in the man
ner and by the authority constitu
tionally appointed,” then they are
amendments to the .Constitution and
must consequently be stricken
out in the same “manner” and by the
same “authority;” but if, on the
other hand, they have not been
adopted “in the manner and by the
authority constitutionally appointed,”
they never were and are not part of
tlie Constitution; and we can easily
get rid of them by driving the usur
pers who enforce them as valid amend
ments. from power, and putting in
their places the true friends of con
stitutional liqerty and self-govern
ment.
will resort to foist their dangerous and
heretical doctrines npon the country.—
The very best evidence of a weak and bad
cause is, for its advocates to attempt to
cast odium upon its opponents by attack
ing their personal and private characters
and impugning their motives, rather than
to fairly and manfully discuss the princi
ples at issue. Notwithstanding the New
Departure advocates are exceedingly bit
ter and vituperative in their denunciations
of what they are pleased to term his bad
taste in obtruding his political views and
opinions before the public, because, for
sooth, he was once
Vice President of the Confederate States,
they have utterly failed to show wherein
Mr. Stephens has overstepped the bounds
of propriety, or to show the danger to
the Democratic party which they allege
liis position will occasion. Mere asser
tion and balderdash is their stock in trade,
and having no other weapons with which
to confront their adversaries; they use
them with an abandon that betokens a
consciousness of their own weakness and
impurity of purpose which augurs no good
either to the Democracy or the nation.—
They affect to believe that Mr. Stephens
is in his dotage; that his principles are
old fogyish and unsuited to the progres
sive spirit of the age. If
To Uphold tlie Constitution of tlie
Country,
to adhere, to the principles of true Re
publicanism, and to oppose all lawlessness
even though committed by those highest
in authority, be dotage and old fogyism,
would to God that there were more do
tards and old fogies in the country.—
These are the principles advocated by
Mr. Stephens. These are the principles
which governed the country in the days
of its brightness and prosperity. Shall
they be abandoned because they are tem
porarily passing under the cloud of des
potism, and sacrificed to the Moloch of
partisanism? Or shall we not rather
cling to them as
TJic Sheet Anclioz of our Government,
and if the ship of state shall go down
amid the breakers of despotism in which
it is now laboring, the glorious old flag
of Democracy may be seen floating un
sullied and defiant, as it sinks beneath
the turbulent and foam-crested waves?—
The great sin in the estimation of the
New Departurists, that has called forth
their vituperative abuse against Mr.
Stephens, is his advocacy of the true
principles of Republican government,
and his refusal to chime in with their
New-Fangled Democracy,'
and depart with them toward the camps
of Radicalism. If he would condescend
but to kick the mangy curs and mon
grel whelps which snap and snarl at his
heels, he coaid soon send them howling
to their kennels. But he has a nobler
and higher work to perform, and cannot
be diverted from it by tho puny efforts
of puling penny-a-liners to attract bis no
tice and draw him into controversy with
themselves. His time is too valuable to
be wasted upon such trifling work. Mr.
Stephens knows more about government
al polity and political economy in one
minute than they could learn in a thous
and years by the closest study, and there
fore could accomplish no good by notic
ing them. Dutr
The New Departurists *
appear to think that their only chance to
inveigle the people into the snares so
adroitly set for them, is to sneer at every
principle cherished by the Democracy be
fore the war, and to traduce the once hon
ored and trusted leaders who so often led
the party to victory. In this they have
mistaken their policy. The rank and file of
the Democracy are not yet ready to give
up every cherished principle of their
party, and to denounce their old leaders
who have stood by them through evil ss
well as through good report, to satisfy the
whims of the babes and sucklings who
now aspire to be
Tlie Leaders of tlie Democracy.
If tbey honestly believe that the course
they advocate is for the best interest of
the country, they are pursuing a very bad
policy to impress it upon the people.—
The Democracy will take no departure
that will lead them away from the true
principles of their party. * The success
with which Mr. Stephens’ paper, The At
lanta Sun, is meeting all over the coun
try, is an evidence that the people have
yet an appreciation of his honesty, pa
triotism, and sound judgment on political
matters, and that they will be guided by
his judgment.
— >-• -<
KENTUCKY TRIUMPHANTLY DEMO-
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
August 8,1871.
Jacob Mackey vs. G. W. Mott
LOCHRANE, C..J.
When in an a£ti(fh against a surety to
promissory note, the surety pleaded
that he signed thesame after it had been
executed and delivered by the principals
aud accepted by* the holder, and there
was no consideration to him for such
promise, .„ ,
Held, That the Court below committed
no error in sustaining a demurrer to such
plea, as it was insufficient in law to bar a
recovery against him without his further
alleging that there was no consideration
moving from the- holder to tho original
promisors for such contract of suretyship.
Judgment affirmed.
John Harrell vs James Picket, et al.
W. A. Hawkins for plaintiff.
T. EL Pickett for defendant.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
The proper mode of bringing before
the Superior Courts of this State, the
judgment of an Ordinary rendered in the
discharge of the duties devolved upon
him in relation to county matters, pre
viously investigated in the Inferior
Courts, and any matters not touching the
probate of wills, granting letters of ad
ministration or guardianship and other
wise not specially provided by law, is by
certiorari and not by appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
S. S. Boon vs. James D. Collins et al.
Hawkins & Burke, and S. C. Elam, for
plaintiff!
C. T. Goode, for defendant.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where the facts set up by the com
plainant do not show fraud in the origi
nal purchase, Courts of Equity will not
interfere to protect vendors from losses,
bnt only in cases where fraud, unmixed
with negligence on the part of the per
sons giving credit, will equity interpose
its power to aid the vendor in the asser
tion of his legal rights to prevent the
consummation of fraud.
Judgment affirmed.
G. M. Stokes vs. Howell T. Hollis.
West & Kimbrough, and W. A Haw
kins, for plaintiff....
Fort & Hollis, for defendant.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where an instrument was executed by
a party in the form of a bill of sale, and
the language used showed the intent of
the parties to be the execution of a mort
gage ; held, that in as much as this in
strument was only a security for the loan
of money to be made by advances toward
the cultivation of growing crops, that it
passes no title to the mortgaged property
nor right to the possession thereof, so as
to authorize him to bring an action of
trover for the recovery of cotton grown
upon the place.
Judgment affirmed.
Robert Parker vs. Rufus King, et al.
Hawkins & Burke, for plaintiff
Hawkins & Guerry, for defendants.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where a bill was filed to enjoin a judg
ment at law and praying for a new trial,
and it appeared by the answer that an
affidavit of illegality had been previously
filed, and that the questions involved in
this bill were or might have been em
braced therein; held, that there was .no
error in the Court in refusing the injunc
tion.
Held further, that the verdict of the
jury that the defendant was in possession
of the land levied on at the commence
ment of this suit, and that the notes, the
foundation of the suit, were given for the
land, rendered on the tjial of the affida
vit, was an adjudication onuiri-^p^^rrajixx
equities of the parties under the relief
CRATIC.
The New Departure Thrust Overboard.
All the Democratic Candidates Elected
, to the Legislature.
The death knell of New Departurism,
alias Radicalism—has been sounded in
Kentucky. It will be seen by reference
to our dispatches that the Democratic
candidates are all elected by an over
whelming majority. These all went into
the canvass under the old Democratic
flag, standing squarely npon the old
time-honored principles ofj the party,
and all, from the highest to the lowest,
unequivocally condemning and scornfully
repudiating the “New Departure" theory,
as tho embodiment of Radicalism.
Thus it will be with the Democratic
party in a majority of the States of the
Union, if it shall boldly plant its ban
ners upon the ramparts of truth and
and proclaim eternal hostility to all in
novations upon or departures from the
doctrines of Thomas Jefferson.
165“ John G. Whittier has a new book
in press called “Child Life”—a subject
that he can know but little about, as he
The World says: “The moral at
mosphere of New York was never purer
than it is now.” That is probably true,
as at the time the paragraph was written,
Greeley was off talking agriculture to the
Alexandrians and Dana was off on
Western excursion.
Judgment affirmed.
Mary C. Stewart vs. Ben. Stewart, Ex-
exutor.
C. T. Goode, for plaintiff
W. A Hawkins, for defendant.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where a married woman separates from
her husband and institutes suit for per
manent alsmony, and the husband in re
ply sets up by way of cross-bill a prayer
for the reformation of an ante-nuptial
settlement set up by her in her hill and
by consent of parties, the Court reforms
the instrument and decrees permanent
alimony to the wife, with counsel fees.
Held, That the wife, in view.of her sepa
ration and the institution of such suit,
was sui juris and had the right to insti
tute suit for permanent alimony, and
that the decree of permanent alimony
was a bar to her right of dower in the
future in the estate of the husband at his
death, under section 1742 of the Code,
and the decree of permanent alimony was
binding upon all parties until it was set
aside.
Judgment affirmed.
J. L. Larimore, et aL vs. John Hinish.
Hawkins & Burke, for plaintiffs.
Lyon & Irwin, for defendants.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where the plaintiff in an action of
ejectment put in evidence and proved pa
per title from the State to himself, and
the defendant relied upon a statutory
title under claim of right, and there was
a failure of evidence as to the time of the
adverse possession and the defendant was
a witness under the act of 1866; held, that
the question of his credibility was a ques
tion exclusively for the jury.
Where the faots of a case show that
substantial justice has been done, though
the charge of the Court may have con
tained some error, this Court will not in
terfere to set aside the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
M. M. Smith, et al. vs. W. N. Magouric,
et al.
Peeples & Howell, for plaintiffs.
H. Buchanan, and G. N. Lester, for
defen ants.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where under an act of the Legislature,
a new county was organized, and the
voters were required to fix the county
site by ballot; and in casting their ballots
various places were designated, which
the commissioners appointed by the Leg
islature and the Ordinary elect, from
their contiguity to each other, held to be
one and the same place, and consolidated
the various votes, which by adding to
gether gave a majority over the “ centre
of the county,” which was also voted for,
and such commissioners proceeded under
the act to lay out town lots and offer
them for sale, and other parties dissatis
fied with their judgment brought a bill
of injunction to enjoin such commission
ers, and the Court below granted it, and
upon the hearing various affidavits were
read, and several witnesses testified that
these places were not the same, and a
much larger number testified that they
were : Held, that under the facts of this
case, the Court of Equity had jurisdic
tion, at the instance of the citizens of the
county, to enjoin the commissioners from
doing what they alleged to be an illegal
act, which would result in injury to
them. , , , , .
Held again, under the facts of this
case, that the question of the location be
ing a question of disputed fact we cannot
say that the Judge violated the discretion
vested iu him by the law, in granting the
injunction, and we therefore affirm the
judgment of the Court with the following
modification and direction, to-wit : that
the place selected by the commissioners
and located by them, shall remain as now
located as the place for the transaction of
the county business by the officers of said
county, who may make such arrange
ments in connection with the commis
sioners for the holding of Courts, as may
to them seem prper, till the final hear
ing of this case.
Judgment affirmed. ^
Thomas G. Bryant vs. The State.
Lyon, deGraffenreid & Irwin, "W. A.
Hawkins, for plaintiff
P. B. Hollis, Solicitor General jiro
tem., for defendant.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
An indictment is sufficiently teohnical
under section 442S of the Code, that
charges that the defendant “did in 1870
employ the servant of one Phillip West
during the term for which he was em v
ployed; knowing that such servant was so
employed, and that his term of. service
was not expired.
Where the Court let in testimony of
the previous employment by the defend
ant, thaugh before the end of the, and
not in writing, it was error to charge
the jury that such previous contract was
no justification, inasmuch as that ques
tion was one for the jury under the facts.
When one was employed by the prose
cutor to bring other hands with him to
liis plantation and superintend them.
Held, That such employment did not
constitute such person a servant within
the meaning of the act.
McKAY, J.
A contract that one was to furnish a
lot of hands to work a crop, and that
they were to receive a third of the corn
and a fourth of the cotton, and that he
was to superintend and oversee the things
and get 8150 extra, was not a contract of
service under section 4428 of the Revised
Code.
WARNER, J.
The demurrer to the indictment in this
case was properly overruled.
When a man has employed a servant
to work for him for any definite period
of time, and another man, knowing of
such employment, employs that same
servant for and during any portion for
which the first employed, him, he is
guilty of the offence of employing the
servant of another within the true intent
and meaning of the law.
I concur in the judgment of reversal
in this case, on the the ground that the
court below erred in his charge to the
jury in relation to the prior contract.—
That contract should have been left to
the consideration of the jury, to show a
want of criminal intent on the part of the
defendant to violate the .law.
Judgment, reversed.
Gilbert M. Stocks vs. Duncan & Johnson.
Hawkins & Burke, F. H. West, for
plaintiff
Hines & Hobbs, for defendants.
McKAY, J.
Held, That there was nothing in the
letter of Stocks, of October 15, to bind
him to send to Duncan & Johnson the
whole of the cotton crop in question, and
that the court erred in charging that
sc?$f^*w)iether it was made or not.
Held, That the verdict of the jury is
sustained by the evidence.
Judgment granting anew trial reversed.
A. B. Raiford, Sheriff, vs. S. K. Taylor.
Hawkins & Banks for plaintiff
J. A. Ansley for defendant.
McKAY, J.
Where a sheriff had levied on personal
property and had turned it over to a third
party on his making the usual claim affi
davit and giving to the sheriff a forth
coming bond, but no bond for costs and
damages, and the claim was dismissed on
motion of plaintiff in fi. fa.,
Held, That it was not error in the
Court to hold the sheriff liable for the
value of the property levied on.
Held, It was no error in the Court to
order an issue to be made up and tried as
to the value of the property levied on, in
the absence of the answer of the officer
which contained nothing as to the value
of the property, the same having been
mislaid.
Judgment affirmed.
F. E. Lumpkin, et al., vs. W. T.
Eason.
Hawkins & Burke, Cook, ’Blandford,
Smith and Hudson, for plaintiffs.
C. T. Goode, for defendant.
WARNER, J.
This is an action of complaint instituted
byMrs.Lumpkinand her children to recov
er possession of a tract of land on the 9th
No.v,J1868. J. T. Lumpkin, the husband
and father of complaints, was adjudged
a bankrupt on the 28th. Assignees were
appointed to take charge of the property
of the bankrupt, and dispose of it accord
ing to the Bankrupt Act. The land was
sold by the assignees, and bought by
Crawford, who conveyed it to the defen
dant. On the 12th of December, 1868,
the land in dispute was set apart by the
Ordinary as a homestead to Mrs. Lump
kin and her children out of the land of
her husband, who was then a declared
bankrupt; and this is her title to the
land.
Under the provisions of the 14th sec
tion of the Bankrupt Act of 1867, all the
property of the bankrupt vested in the
assignee from the time of the commence
ment of the proceedings in bankruptcy,
except such property as is specified in
the act, and such other property as was
exempt'from levy and sale by the laws of
this State in the year 1864. The question
in the case is whether -the complaints,
under the provisions of the Homestead
Act of 1868, acquired any title to the
property set apart to them for a home
stead, as against the title of the assignee
and those claiming under the sale by
him. *
Although the sale, made by the assignee
of the land, may have been irregular and
void, still if the title thereto was vested
in the assignee of the bankrupt, from the
time he was declared a bankrupt, the
complainants acquired not title to the
land under the Homestead Act, which
would have authorized them to recover it
from the possession of the defendant.
The jury, under the charge of the
Court, found for the defendant; to which
charge or refusal to charge, the complain
ants excepted.
Held, That on the statement of the
facts disclosed, there, was no error in the
charge, or refusal to charge; that the set
ting apart of a homestead to complain
ant out of her husband’s property, after
he was adjudicated a bankrupt, conferred
no title upon her to that property or
against the assignee and tho3e claiming
under him. If the sale by the assignee
was irregular and void, still the title
thereto would be in the assignee and not
in the complainant; and she could not
recover the land from defendant. Though
he may not have a good title.
Judgment affirmed.
LOCHRANE, C. J., concurs for the
same reasons.
Reuben J. Allen, et al., vs. E. G. and T.
J. Brown.
Hoyle, Fielder, for plaintiffs.
Wooten for defendants.
McKAY, J.
When A being fairly indebted to B in
discharge of the debt sold him the north
half of a lot of land, and A being indebt
ed to others, it was agreed that B should
take a deed to the whole lot, including
the sonth half, and the deeds were so
made, and A afterwards sold the whole
lot to C, who had notice of the contract
between A and B:
Held, That the contract for the two
halves being severable, the fraud as to
the south half did not vitiate the contract
as to the north half.
Ladd & Wilson vs. James Jackson, Ad
ministrator.
Hawkins & Burke for plain tiffs
Lyon & Irwin for defendant.
WARNER, J.
This is an action of ejectant brought to
recover possession of a lot of land on the
demise of A. J. Lamar and on the amended
demise of the guardian of the minors of
A. J. Lamar, against the defendants.—
The adverse possession of the land by the
defendants and those under whom they
claim, commenced during the lifetime of
the intestate. The administrator on his
estate was appointed in 1850 and the
guardian of the minor children appointed
in 1854. The action was commenced in
June, 1863. The Court charged the jury
that the statute of limitations had begun
torfinas against Lamar in 1847 and up
to his death in 1848, and that it stopped
to run during the minority of the chil
dren^ Lamar. The point in the case is,
whether the infant heirs of Lamar were
bound when there was an administrator
of the intestate and guardian of the mi
nors, who could have sued for the land
during their minority and failed to do so
within the time prescribed by law:
Held, That inasmuch as the title to the
land vested in the minor heirs of the in
testate at the time of his death, the stat
ute ceased to run against them during
their minority.
Judgment affirmed.
of the capital stock and constitutes
part thereof. Do
Judgment affirmed.
LOCHRANE, C. J., concurs for the sam
reasons. ‘ 135
KcKAY, J., dissents.
By Section 813 of tlie Code, the sever >
corporated or unincorporated compand
m winch there is no other special m A ,i 8
of paying taxes provided, are taxable I
the same rate, as other property, bat ft
assessment as to be made on the vvhiS*
amount of stock paid in. But as ft
constitution adopted since this clause !
the Code became law, provides that k
upon properly shall be ad valorem 0 nb
and uniform upon all species of preperft
taxed, and ns the mode of taxation nr
scribed is not act valorem, since it fixes-t
arbitrary value thereon, nor uniform
since that is not the way other proper*-
is taxed, said sections, in my jnd^mon?
are repealed, as inconsistent with
constitution of 1S6S.
Second. Companies corporated or in
corporated, except where the State bv
contract has otherwise allowed, are mi
to pay a tax upon the whole amount of
the taxable property in their possession
like individuals, the-value of their pron
erty to be ascertained -*n any wav be-i
calculated to attain'that end.
T. B. Myers vs. D. H. Wilcox & Sly
Crisp & Goode, for plaintiff
Ansley for defendants.
McKAY, J.
Where a judgment was obtained in
Schley county on 25th October, 1870 on
a debt contracted before 1st of Jn Ue
1865, upon which an execution issued
and the sheriff failed to raise the money
but received from the defendant an affil
davit that the taxes had not been paid on
the debt, together with a claim of ofiset
and recoupment, according to the act of
October 13, 1870.
Held, That it was error in the court to
hold the sheriff liable for tho money he
failed to raise, the proper construction
of the act of 1870 being at the time doubt
ful and the sheriff having apparently
acted in good faith. * :
Judgment reversed.
LOCHRANE, C. J., concurs.
WARNER, J., dissents.
Mv opinions in regard to this class of
legislation have been frequently ex
pressed, and it would be a waste of time
to again repeat them. I shall therefore
merely direct the Clerk to enter npon the
minutes of the Court my dissent from
this judgment, so that those who come
after me may see by the records of the
country that I have been faithful to the
Constitutional obligations imposed upon
me by the supreme laws of the land.
McKAY, J., concurs, though not exactly
upon the same reasons.
The right of the wife and children to
a homestead out of the property of the
husband is no sue,h lien as follows tho
property into the'bfifclsof a third person,
who require a title "before any application
is made for homestead out of it; and if
the husband is declared a bankrupt be
fore the application is made, then that is
matter for the Bankrupt Court.
E. Loybss vs. Thomas R. Blackshear,
et al.
Wooten for plaintiff, Hawkins for de
fendants.
WARNER, J,
John T. Walker, on the 26th of Janu
ary, 1859, conveyed land to P. H. Mills,
trustee for Martha Mills and her children,
trustee, and with her written consent, on
tlie 5th January, 1864, obtained an order
from the Judge of the Superior Court to
sell said estate, and after paying the debts
against the same, to reinvest the balance
of the money for the benefit of said trust
estate. The children were not parties to
this application, and are not named, eith
er in the petition or order for sale. The
defendant derives his title under that
sale; the children in this proceeding ap
ply for said land.
On the trial, the defendant moved for
a non-suit on the gronnd that the deed
from Walker to the trustee of Mrs. Mills
and children created a life estate in her
to the property conveyed, with an estate
in remainder to the children, she being
still in life. The motion was overruled.
The defendant offered testimony to
show that part of the purchase money of
Mrs. Raydon’s part of the estate was ap
plied to the payment of debts of the es
tate and the rest invested for the benefit
of her and children. This testimony was
rejected and defendant excepted.
Under the direction of the Court, the
jury found for complainants, .and defend
ant excepted.
Held, that the 'motion for nonsuit was
properly overruled.
Held, also, that only such children of
Martha E. Mills who were in life at the
time of the execution of the deed by
Walkeivwere entitled to recover.
Held further, that the purchaser at the
sale of such lands purchased only the in
teiest which Mrs. Mills had in it.
Held again, that with the proper alle
gations in defendant’s plea, he is entitled
to the same equitable relief in a Court of
Law, under our Code, as he would be in a
Codrt of Equity, in relation to the pay
ment of the debts of the trust estate,
from the proceeds of the sale of the moth
er’s part, and the reinvestment of the
balance for the benefit of the children.
Judment reversed.
>-♦ A -
Georgia Western Engineers.
* I
re- RS
The Engineer Corps of the Georgia
Western Railroad commence their pre
liminary survey this morning at 9 o’clock. f5
The following is a list of the corps:
John A. Grant, 1st Assistant Engineer.
Richard Peters, Jr., Transit Man.
C. S. Solomon, Level Man.
J. B. B. Smith, Rod Man.
T. J." Flake, Assignment Agent.
J. D. Patterson and George S. Cassia,
Chain Men.
The first survey will be the most di
rect route from here to Elyton, Alabama,
and return. The Engineering corps are
all closely identified with the interests
and prosperity of this great enterprise,
and will not weary until they have survey
ed and._Dointed_oiik ■»
.a.ioauie
Tax Receiver of Richmond County vs.
The Augusta Factory.
McLaws & Ganahle for plaintiff; Hull
& Miller for defendant.
WARNER, J.
State Agricultural Society.
This Society is well organized, and is
doing efficient service 1 in the cause of the
most important of all occupations. Gen.
Colquitt, 4 the President, is active, zealous
and unremitting in his labors. He is
honored by our people, and worthily
wears his honors.
Col. D. W. Lewis has long held the
highly important and responsible office
of Secretary. He understands all its j:
routine, and every lady knows him.
His two assistants in tho office—Mr. |
G. W. Hinkle and Capt. Malcolm John
son—are both active and zealous. Mr.
Hinkle has been more than a year in the
office, and has demonstrated' a peculiar
fitness for the position he occupies.—
Capt. Johnson has been but recently ap
pointed. He has not yet had the oppor
tunity to demonstrate his ability and fit
ness, but we know there will soon be ex
hibited in a marked manner by him. He
is a young man of first-class and rare
qualifications, whose great merits will he
seen by all who come in contact with him.
fig?” The Chicago Post, of a recent
date contained the following business
like announcement:
Whereas, It having been stated that
Aleck Stephens, the late Vice of the late
Confederacy, had gained nine pounds
since he had been an editor ; and where
as, the Courier-Journal said he must have
been, weighed with, one of' his editorials
in his pocket; and whereas, Aleck has
retorted that, if the Courier-Journal inan
had been weighed with one of his ear
torials in Ids pocket, he, the aforesaid
Courier-Journal man, would go up like a
balloon ; therefore Resolved, that in this
round the first blood should be, anu
and hereby is .awarded to the said Aleck,
the said late Vice of the said late Confed
eracy.
This the Courier-Journal copies, and
then adds, as follows :
The handkerchief qpon which was
wiped the blood from the dislocatednoa-
of the Courier-Journal has been forwar
ed to Mr. Stephens by Express.
The handkerchief has arrived and up° u
examination it is found to present the
This is a bill filed by the Augusta Facto
ry against the Tax Receiver and Tax Col
lector of Richmond county, praying for
an injunction to restrain the assessment
and collection of a tax which the com
plainant alleges to bo in violation of the
tax laws of the State. The Receiver as
sessed the capital stock of the Company
at 8162 per share, on its 6,000 shares of
capital stock, and as the ad valorem or] ,, -. , - 0 l^ntv-fota
market value of the stock on the first of | appearance of having had a twenty i
April last, whereas the complainants al-i pound beet wrapped in it. Ao »
lege that said Augusta Factory being an i would have thought the blow worn
incorporated company, was bound only | have made his nose swell so.
to return and pay a tax on 8600,000, or !
8100 per share on its 6,000 shares; which !
injunction was granted and the defend-1
ants excepted.
Held, that the Augusta Factory, an in- J
corporated company, is liable to a tax
only on the whole amount of the capital
stock of the company paid in and not on
the market value thereof.
Held, also, That the Augusta Factory
is liable to the payment of all legal tax
XMPlSTlMCT PftUrTl
£2?“How must the Courier-Journal f
to see its party defeated by 30,000
jority, in spite of an increased streng ^
of 40,000 negro votes? Pogue says ^
can find relief from depression only 111 •
little old-fashioned Bourbon.
The Pennsylvania oil product
on the property owned by it as an incor-1 y ear was the largest ever known, u n •
poration, which is not included as a part the people make light of it.
