Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.