Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Ifhe dmly «pn. Wednesday MoBHisg August 16. STATE ROAD 1’liUXDERI.VGS. knowing what ■were made for. they may not. ly understood ijTrlt of Ilev. If. P. IIotcliki-;s, 1 nte Au ditor of tlic Road. Preliminary Examination before Judge Butt*. these heavy payments They may be right, and It seems to be common- ( _ that he, like Hotch- | kiss, was poor when he first entered the I service of the Road ; now he is a banker i * n city, and regarded as quite I wealtb J- Here is the list—the dates and amounts only being given : January No. 7 warrantpaid the ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN. February Alton nil ing Developments of Kaicality. j Money Refunded. Night before last Rev. N. P. Hotchkiss, lite Auditor of the State Road, was ar rested on a warrant issued at the instance 0 { Hr. McCalla, principal book-keeper of tlic State Road, who has been assisting ju the wol'k of ferreting out and exposing the rascality which has. so long been go ing on. Yesterday he was brought be fore Judge Butts for a preliminary exam ination, which was not concluded last evening, and will he continued to-day. This examination will probably Last for several days, as we think it likely that he rrill yet be arrested on several other war rants, cliarging distinct frauds upon the State at several times. If we have been rightly informed the charge is that he has audited, or procured the auditing and payment of unjust or fraudulent bills against the State Road, the proceeds of which he shared or pocketed. As illustrative of the beauties of Radi cal integrity, we may state that Hotch kiss came here from Walton county, at the beginning of Bullock’s administra tion, when the old faithful officers were turned out, and the hungry cormorants with nothing but Radical proclivities, (these proclivities are significant—as uner ringly lending to peculation as a flesh fly is to detect taint) to recommend them.— Hotchkiss was a rampant Radical and got himself snugly ensconced in a berth affor ding fine opportunities for pickings upon the State Road carcass, while the crowd of Radical jackals all around him were savagely plunging their teeth and claws and gnawing into the vitals of the body. He was worth but little in the way of property—perhaps nothing, or worse than nothing. We have been told that he had just passed through bankruptcy. Now he owns a number of houses and a large amount of valuable property in this city, from the rental of which he is deriving a handsome income. It is impossible for him to have made all this out of his salary as Auditor, and sup port his family. During tho investigation yesterday, which took a wide range, the merchant alluded to by us as having been arrested at the instance of Foster Blodgett, was in iu the court room, and his testimony taken. He openly and manfully ad mitted the pait he had acted in the mat ter—very much to his credit after what he had done, and every one of the vast throng present was moved with pity rather *than indignation. It appeared that long ago he had endeavored to re store the money to the State which he had wrongfully obtained, and though the restitution had not actually been con summated, yet it was virtually done, as it was set aside and held ready for that purpose by him, and kept in his hands only by the advice of those who have been trying to bring all things to light. Yesterday in the conrt room he paid over to the proper officer about 84,000—re storing accurately every cent he had ob tained, taking a receipt for the same.— His testimony explains itself. It had been arranged that about $35,- 000 of tho funds thus appropriated was to be restored yesterday, the $4,000 above alluded to being apart of it. The unex pected arrest of Fry and his escape with the bulk of this amount has prevented the restoration of any except the $4,000. We understand that Foster Blodgett will have a Card in one of the city pa pers this morning in vindication of him self, asserting his innocence, &c. We will not try lo pre-judge his case, or de cide upon his guilt or innocence before trial, but we imagine it wiU require much stronger and more positive proof than any man can produce, to convince our people that he knew nothing of the pec ulations which were going on, when he was failing to pay over to the State Treas ury fifty or sixty thousand dollars every month, which he could easily have done, and should have done. From the evidence published in anoth er column, the astounding fact appears that the principal officers of the road underBoUock andBlodgett have been kept regularly in office on salaries ever since the. road was placed in the hands of the lessees. Why has Goy. BnUock done this? And why did he retain Foster Blodgett and all the other officials in charge of the State Road a single day after they failed the first time to pay the surplus earnings of the road into the Treasury? Did he not know the money of the people of Georgia was being appropriated? Was not this misapplication of the public money done with his sanction? Did he not share a portion of it? All these thoughts rise up iu the mind. April « May • August * October ■ Cl November ‘ December * 48 71 8 72 0 29 82 1< 8 75 24 10 50 48 1 39 to receiving the $800. I said what lie got it for. O O don’t think he I don’t know! SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. | The same principal is applicable when one man | employs a laborer to work on bis farm, and any man fcuch contract of employment,* who I knowing said he lilnl nothin^Vo /fn 1 A ‘ Esw80n vs. F. Cherrv M o t UmTose t a si d n I enti .S e . s ’^ li ri 8 . °E Persuades the laborer to leave the i nn/lor- /.loir. g to d 1 With the Alex- , order of dismissal. ' n i ? er ' lcea bis first employer during time for wliicb 1 <uiuer Claim. . LOCHRANE, C. j. ! be was so employed, is liable to damages. Upon an issue joined to ascertain whether the de- I Uttoingtb* 4 * W “ Examination.—I never offered !, . . - to Settle with Alexander if Pr> vitnld mv (® n( lant was in possession ofland, for which the note, . mo s:o iwi .-e i P*\- | the foundation of the suit was given, at the com- ! mencexnent of the suit. The death of one of the i parties to the note. The suvivor being the one to I e 000, nor if he would pay me a cer tain sum of money. I cot none Don’t , -. , „ „„„ know that Blodeett o-nf . mx - wi if T '^P^stbe deed was made, would not exclude the know is from hefrSv. S ‘ ■ Y l!pla - mtlff asawitness from «*- MB. MCCALLA. on orn This account (examining sev- I - . .. ——jing iu tho case, and it. was error in the court to refuse his evidence, .a f .?* this case, we are of opinion that defenc^ant had the posesaion of the law. either bj* • I ******SQlf or his tenants and that the jury found against Total $184,598 4G We will only add that this list has never before been published, though the opportunity to do so has been offered to one of our city cotemporaries. Examination of X. P. Hotchkiss. GEOEGE BUBNETT, Sworn.—Examined by E. P. Howell — Examine these bills. . Witness These bills have been paid, signed N. P. Hotchkiss, Auditor, $5,- 11 • 1 bad a conversation with Jndge Hotchkiss about this or a similar bill, a bill of the same amount that we spoke about. The biH he spoke to me about was paid to Alexander. I stated to Judge Hotchkiss that Mr. Alexander had stated that he (Judge Hotchkiss) had received a portion of the money, I think $800. I asked him if he would not see Alexander about it. He said he would not; he shonld not pay any attention to it. Dur ing the conversation he said he had got $800, and had given half of it to McCalla, v>400 or half of it. I never talked much to Alexander about it. The bill was be tween four and five thousand doHars. I think that is all that passed between us at that time. I do not know that he stated what ho received the money for.— That conversation was about two months ago. Nothing was said about the time at which the money was paid. It was some time previous to the conversation. Mr. Hotchkiss acted as Auditor of the State Road, during 1870, and previous. I think that is his signature on that bill.— He was acting as Auditor at that time. I do not know if these articles have been received by the road. I think this is Hotchkiss’ name (on draft). Cross-examined by Gen. Qartred.—I think the conversation was about two months ago. I was employed as General Agent of the road. My business was to look after such matters as I was directed to do by my superior officers. If I saw any thing necessary to be done I was to see to it. I received a salary. I left the road on the first of January after the road was leased. The conversation I have spoken of was at the Sasseen House, about the 15th of June. McCalla was not present at the conversation. Question—How came you to talk about this matter? Ans.—I don’t remember how I came to go to that room. Mr. Hotchkiss and Mr. McCalla were in the room. I had nothing to do with the matter. Question—How came you to go there? Ans.—I had heard about it from Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Blodgett, and Mr. Fry, and, probably, other parties. I do not remember now why I went there.— There were only myself and Mr. Hotch kiss together when wo came down stairs. I did not hear McCaUa say anything about it. I have forgotten what conver sation took place between McCalla and Hotchkiss at that time. I don’t remem ber anything else said by Hotchkiss at that time. I do not know how many accounts Al exander had with the road. This [exam ining a bill] is a bill for goods sold. Al exander had only one account, but sever al bills. At first I rather think he denied receiving theSSOO. I don’tremember what he did say, whether he actually denied it or not. I asked him if he was not going to look into it, and suggested the propri ety of so doing, if he was innocent. He had very little to say about it. That was not the Post-office matter. That oc curred afterward, when I mentioned to him that something had been said about liis collecting Post-office money. That conversation was probably a week after ward. Judge Hotchkiss wrote me a let- er about that matter. I do not remem ber all that Hotchkiss said in that con versation. He wrote me a letter about a week afterward, stating that I was mista ken about the matter. The letter was not mailed to me the next day after. It was directed to the city of Atlanta.— Hotchkiss resided at Marietta at that time, and resides there now. I talked with McCaUa that day. I mentioned to him what Hotchkiss had stated to me.— I do not remember whether it was the next day or the day but one after that McCalla wrote to Hotchkiss, and Hotch kiss wrote to me. McCalla did not deny receiving any money. Mc Calla said that Hotchkiss had re ceived money, and that he gave receipt for it. McCalla said he knew nothing about the Alexander account, but supposed that the money which Hotchkiss gave him was what he had col lected on other transactions. I took my meals at the Sasseen House at that time ; Hotchkiss did not; McCaUa boarded there. Question.—Why did you go up there ? A ns,—I was sent there to find out. I am not certain which of the two I talked to—Hotchkiss or McCalla. Question.—Whom did yon teU about this conversation ? Ans.—I might have mentioned, it a few days afterward to A. L. HARRIS. Question.—Who else ? Ans.—Since that time I hawe talked about it, I think, to COL. BLODGETT, and I don’t remember who else. My ob ject was to have Hotchkiss set right. I did not advise him. I had no other mo tive. Hotchkiss is no relation of mine. We were together on the railroad a long time. Our conversation at the Sasseen House was not about' tho post office money. I have had no talk with McCalla lately. I don’t know how I came to be ® In connection with this matter we here I summoned as a witness. McCaUa told .. .. me yesterday he was going to have Hotch- annex a list of the payments made to H. kiss J arrested. I went with McCaHa when O. Hoyt during the past year. He was : the warrant was issued. It was about in the employ of the Road, in some ca-1 half past eight o’clock last night when we know not what. It wiU be * be warrant was issued. i ;—- — -- ocv | 77—.w UHU k B i.uu luaiiuejuryfomul against era! presented him by counsell was re-1 11- - < ! T l de ?. ce fining the contrary, ami the court ported by me in tile iM&ahnnlr nf the ! erred m dismissing ihe case on the ground of the ~ ^ ,,,v : , passbook Of the , non payment of taxes under act Of October 13th - ■* - ■ '1870. Judgment reversed. Worrell Wimberly for plaintiff. Beale and Gillis, for defendant. Stale Green, et al, vs. state of Georgia.—Assault and Batterv. LOCHRANE, C.J. . r * ,a not error in the conrt below to direct the testimony to taken down, in a case where the law does not require it. It is not error iu the Court below to interrupt counsel who are misstating the evidence to the jury, by reading from his notes, what was sworn to on the trial. It is not error in tho Court Vt hen requested bv the jury, to read over the evidence, as to such points of facts as the jury in- tl ’ no F is , f^'li action violatine cf section of th e c?do which makes it error for anv Judge of the Superior Courts of this State, in anv case, dont “’ipng its progress, or iu his charge, to express or intimate his ojJiniou as to what has or has not been i F5^ Te .?‘ .Presenting tnith of the facts sworn i° •“ c l UI y ls different from expressing an opinion a8 to the fact proven. Judgment affirmed. Wooten and Hoyle, for plaintiff W. Harris and J A. Taylor for s’tate. Kirtlanu, Babeockauu Bronvon vs. Martha Davis. °C^f >mCStCai3, ai>1>ea * from °*rtin*ry. Upon an appeal from tho judgment of an Ordinary setting aparc a homestead of realty and personalty thoST’fi 4 \ 3 e -FF° r tha cou . rt below to restrict the juiy to find either for or against the homestead "'b° 5e , ca ? e .comes up by the appeal, and the Court should administer the lav,* with regard to its terms and provisions. ° The act of 1809 applies to personalty, and tho wife in making application for exemption of personalty, is bound by the fraud or concealment perpetrated by ^ l f Sb f a ?c!’(i ail T r ? ust Perform the provisions of the act of 1S69. Judgment reversed. Hood & Kiddoo, lor plaintiffs. Hubert Fielder, for defendant. James W. Boon vs. H. L. Graves,, executor—Mo tion for continuance. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where a motion for a continuance was made on the ground of the impression and belief of the defendant that no case3 under the relief acts would he tried, on ° f a general announcement of the Judge to 'n aut !, the ? ase - in fbe opinion of tho Court, Provisions of the announce ment of tha Judge to that effect; and the case, in the Court, did not fall within the provis- in t. ^ ann .° + UnCem ° nt - Ho1,1 it WOS not Cr- uance ^ Coart t0 overm le the motion for a coutin- 011 a . 111:11 ofan i^ue to ascertain whether °r was ,8iven for the purchase money of land, it uas found affirmatively, and a motion ter a ? cw trial to allow tho defendant to set ofi k 1 ®.t aris i E g from losses sustained by the war. Held that the finding of the jury places the case withont the act of 1870, and the entitles under toe act of 1868 must have been in some manner oc casioned by too plaintiff, which does not apnear in toe motion, and we affirm the judgment overruling the same Judgment overruled. , ° Hubert Fielder lor plaintiff. C. B. Woottn, for defendant. r Scaifevs. E. H. Bell-Evidence. LOCHRANE, C. J. \\ here a note was given for an attorney’s fee, it is not competent by part evidence to superadd new agreements or conditions to such written contract. Ihei note itself was the best evidence of what toe contract was, and while a failure of consideration in \v Jioi e , or part,m ay bo given in evidenco, new con- ditions or agreements cannot. Judgment affirmed. Moses & Downing for plaintiffs. E. Beal for defendant. KczziahFord vs. H. & C. B. Adams, administrator, et al.—Suit on administator's bond. LOCHRAN12, C. J[. ^ A bond was given by an administrator, bearing datei January 9, 1865, without the attention of toe Ordinary, but upon the minute of the Court of Ordi- sanje date, appeared an order reciting the fact that too administrator had given bond, with good security, and he approved toe same as a good bond. Held that under the Code of this State, this bond being by such order of the Ordinary upon toe minutes approved as a good bond, it was error to reject it in evidence on the ground that it was invalid, because of toe absence of such attestation. Judgment reversed. v Worrell for plaintiff. M. Gillis, E. H. Beall for defendants. LOCHrIS? J?' SmiUi &ead "-ell-ln Equity. Where a trial is had in equity, and the jury re turned their verdict, and a motion made for a new ov 6wnled, and toe judgment brought to this Court, and the judgment affirmed by operation °£"V m the dismissal of the case, such judgment of affirmance is conclusive upon all the parties as to the merits, and the ground embraced in the motion for a new trial, anil aiumni auhsanuouUT b© reviewed nr reheard by toe Court. reviewed or And where a bill was brought, asserting no new grounds of equity, it was proper to dismiss toe sai> e for want of equity. The failure to enter toe decree at toe term the ver dict was rendered, is no new ground for equitable interference to set aside toe verdict; but it was ihe duty of toe Court to enter such decree by an order nunepio tunc. Judgment affirmed. DeGraffenreid & Irvin for plaintiffs. Wooten, Walker, Harx>er for defendants. George O. Mercer vs. A. J. Mercer—Trover. McKAY, J. Where, in an action of trover it was in proof that too property for which toe plaintiff sued, and to which the plaintiff showed title, was at the house of the defendant, though there was no proof of any use of toe same by her. Held that this was some evidence of possession by the defendant, and it was error in toe Court to withdraw toe cause from the jury and grant a nonsuit. Judgment reversed. Thomas J. Jones, H. Fielder, for plaintiffs. Richard Sims fer defendant. ?L ar FF U V8 1 H ‘ G- Eagan, Sheriff—Rule vs. Sheriff, Homestead. McKAY, J. The crop made upon a rented place is subject to the hen o. toe landlord for rent; and if toe same is set apart under toe homestead act for exemption, it is nevertheless subject to levy and sale upon a judg ment for the rent, the claim for rent being in the nature of th6 purchase money, toe Court below ought to have directed an issue to be made up and tried as to whether that was the truth of this case. If it was, toe Sheriff washable for toe amount of toe crop, notwithstanding toe exemption. Judgment reversed. Moses & Downing for plaintiff. J. L. Wimberly. E. H. Beall for defendant. ' R. Garrett for use of Rawson, vs. A. Cordell et ah— Relief Act of 1870. McKAY, J. The Act of 1870, requiring affidavit that all legal taxes have been paid on toe claim sued, or suit shall be dismissed, is not in conflict with that section of the Constitution of the State which declares that toe Court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases,’founded on contract, where an issuable defence is not filed on oath. WARNER, J. I simply enter my dissent with the clerk, on toe ground that that act violates toe Constitution of toe United States. H. Fielder, for plaintiff. E. L. Douglas, for defen dant3. C. M. Lowe vs. W. A. Rawson—Relief Act of 1S70. McKAY, J. State Road as “disbursement.” It is presumed to have been paid. Was re ceipted. I record them monthly, as Judge Hotchkiss supplies them. I was general book keeper of the Road, sup plied these things to be recorded in tbe passbook, and go to tbe credit of the treasurer. I first got this from Hotch kiss for the purpose of recording in the passbook AS SOMETHING ALREADY PAID OUT. Hotchkiss’name was on it when I got it. I entered it in the book. I dont know that he ever told me that THE ACCOUNT WAS BOGUS. I have spoken to him about its being bogus, and he never denied it. I mean b y hogus that the goods were never snp- plied to the Road. I had a conversation with Hotchkiss in my room in the Sas seen House. Showed him these papers and told what I understood from other parties. I said I understood it was bo gus, and that HOTCHKISS RECEIVED PART OF THE MONEY. He'denied it to me just then and said he knew nothing about it. Couldn’t recol lect anything about it, and said many things were done that he was not to blame for. . He seemed disposed to shove the responsibility of irregularities on oth er people. He denied to me that he got the $800 in my room at that time. Once Hotchkiss brought to my office a pile of passes and papers, which Tie wish ed me to record as he read them over, without me seeing the inside of the pa pers at all. This excited my suspicion. Finally he left them. This particular pa per (the one in hand) is not one of that particular batch. Hotchkiss and Burnett were at the door. In the afternoon I wrote to Hotchkiss in reference to re ports. He answered. He never paid me $400 out of these bills. He paid me $150 and $250 for which he holds my due bill. I gave him credit on my regular cash ac count for it. Had authority for so doing. THE SALARIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, TREASURER AND SUPERVISOR TTAK BEEN GO ING. ON SINCE THE LEASE. SOME OF MY BOOKS HAVE BEEN ABSTRACTED. The regular pass-book is abstracted. I exercise control over it; don’t know who took it; it disappeared this morning about the time I was up here. When I came out of the room I locked the case in which it was. I left the room door open, as there was a gentleman in. When I got back the case was open and the book gone.— Don’t know of my own knowledge who got the money. I know of a settle ment in which some was restored; it was restored by Mr. Alexander. $3,950 was the amount restored. A number of bills, accompanied by a draft from Mr. Hotch kiss for hardware from a New York firm, was presented to witness for examination. Bills for much the same articles, amount ing to the same sum, were presented by Alexander. There is a probability that it is all the same transaction. MR. ALEXANDER Sworn.—The Western & Atlantic Rail road bought goods from us through Mr. Fry. He was anxious to get money, and he suggested to me he could do it in a way that was going on all the time— A GENERAL SYSTEM OF MONEY MAKING on the State Road. He then furnished me these items and said— Objected to. Fry furnished ma a list of these goods and I put them in my bills as purchases by the State Road. I presented the bill to Hotchkiss. He said he couldn’t pay it then but gave me an acceptance of thir ty days. When the time of payment came the road had passed into other hands.— Hotchkiss made no objection to me. My opinion is that Fry got the money.— Hotchkiss audited the account when I presented it. Hotchkiss signed the draft. Date of account and draft are the same. Question—What do you know of these other accounts ? Answer—Am I obliged to answer that question ? ’ Court—Not if it criminates you. Witness—Don’t know whether it will criminate me or not. The fact is, Mr. Fry represented to me that it had not been paid, and asked me to put in a bill before the Committee, and he could col lect it, which I did at his suggestion.— The $5,945 WAS PAID TWICE. My impression is that draft was paid.— These papers are all in the same hand writing—all made out by the same man. Don’t know whether Blodgett or Mnllen signed these papers or not. (to BE CONTINUED.) Joseplx .Fry. We learn that he is not a relative of Foster Blodgett, as was stated by us yes terday, though he was a boarder and an inmate of his family. Oar informant was mistaken as to the kinship. He has not yet been heard from. Stealing to Hide their Guilt. Yesterday while Mr. McCalla was ab sent from his office for a few moments a very important hook, containing evi deuce of the guilt of some of the State Road plunderers, was stolen from where he left it locked up. This is to be 1 gretted. Why was that book left within the reach of any one ? pacity. seen that from January to December, be was paid the enormous sum of $185,59S } Redirect.—Hotclikiss DID NOT MENTION THE $5,000. 46. Wc Lave, at present, no means of ■ do not know that he denied lor owned A fire at Youngstown, Ohio, burned eight small houses and three children. The steamer Chattauqua, on Chattau- qua Lake, exploded. Several were killed and many wounded. A dispatch from Pittston, Pennsylva nia, says : Five bodies have been recov ered. Thirteen remain in the mine. A majority of the volunteers have been damaged by foul air. A convict who had served six years ~of his sentence in the penitentiary, commit ted suicide by jumping into a vat of boil ing water. It is positively asserted that the Mar quis of Lome and the Princess Louise will reside in Canada for a lengthened period. The Act of Oct. 13,1S70, requiring toe affidavit of toe payment of taxes in all pending suits on con tracts made before toe 1st of June, 1865, applies also to pending offsets, toe same being crop actions, and in such action tlie defendant is the same as plaintiff and must file toe affidavit within toe time required by law. The charge of the Court in this case and the ver dict of the jury are sustained by the evidence and the Court did not err in refusing a new trial. , Be £ * Taci e r plaintiff. Wimberly, Gillis & Jno. T. Clarke for defendant. B FS u ? t £~ Uins vs * Bri & ht Miller.—Belief act of 1870. Plaintiff a non-resident. MCKAY, J. A promissory note given by a citizen of this State to a citizen and resident of another State, who has never raided here since toe note was given and does not now, mid has not kept the note here, until it is pied, is_not subject to tax in this State, and if suit is pending on such note, proof of this fact will excuse toe plaintiff, anon-resident, from paying tax an^fromfihng toe affidavit , required by fho Set of E. G- Raiford, for plaintiff, Wimberly and M. Gillis, for defendant TS - Brinkley Chaney—Equity. ~ Jiv Avia Va Wh F re ^vanced money to B to enable B to comply with her bid at sheriff’s sale, and A to secure himself, took sheriff’s deed to the land to himself, agreeing that on payment of the money lent to-wit: $40 with liberal interest, he would make a title to B and B toereafter tendered toe money borrowed with $20 interest, and A then claimed that the land was his own, and on bill filed by A for a specific per formance of too agreement. The jury declared that a’ 11 S 16 dee< l B on B’s payment to him II el a that the verdict was illegal since $40 with legal interest was all A was entitled to. Fleming and Rutherford for plaintifl. Hubert Fielder for defendant, Jones mid Jeter vs. S. and C. Blocker—Hiring toe servant of another. VTAKXER, J, It said by Blackstone, that too retaining of another person s servant during toe time he ha3 agreed to serve ms present master, as it is an unmanly, so it ia an illegal act, for every master has by his contract purchased for a valuable consideration toe service of ms employee for a limited time. The inveigliling or . TU3 S his servant which induces a breach of this contract, is therefore an injury to the master, and for rror in the Conrt below, iu sus- murrers to the plaintiffs declaration and dismissing the same. 1L H. Powell and H. Fielder for plain tiffs. Hood .V Kiddoo for defendants. H. M. Jenkins vs. J. C. Grimes, eta’..—Injunction. Warner, j. Pending an action for a divorce by Mrs. Grimes against her nusbaud, she fil<-d a bill against him, praying that certain property therein mentioned, should be placed in toe hands of a receiver, to be ap pointed by toe Court, wbicli was done. Jenkins, is note-creditor of the husband, filed his bill against • Mrs Grimes, praying an injunction against the re- : ceiver, to restrain him from disposing of tho pron- erty, and that his note might be paid out of it. The Court refused the injunction! a motion was then made to make Jeukms, the note-creditor, a party to the bill filed by Mrs. Grimes, which motion was over ruled by toe Conrt, and Jenkins excepted. Held that there was no error iu the Conrt, in refus ing the injunction prayed lor, nor in refusing that Jenkins be made a partv to the bill filed by Mrs. Grimes. Worrell & Wimberly for plaintiffs. Beall A Gillis for defendants. W. C. Sawyer vs. A. J. Pace.—Complaint on open account. WARNER J. This was an action upon an open account The parties entered into a written contract to cultivate a plantation in Early county, tor toe year 1868, on toe terms therein expressed. The plaintiff claims that he did not get his share of ihe crop, after deducting expenses, etc. After hearing the evidenco on both sides, the jury found a verdict for too plaintiff for t65. Defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground that too verdict wes contrary to tho law and evidence and weight or the evidence. The Court overruled too motion for a new trial, and the defeudaut excepted. Held that ihe jury were too proper- judges of toe evidence and the credit of toe wituesses examined on tho trial, and this Court will not interfere to con trol toe discretion of toe Court below, iu refusing tue motion, on toe statement of facts contained in toe record. John T. Clark for plaintiff. Hood & Kiddoo for defendants. W. A. Rawson vs. W. B. Thornton.—In equity homestead. WARNER, J. This was a bill filed by the plaintiff against defend ant, to receive a dormant judgment and have n t> act of land covered by homestead, made subject thereto, for the payment of toe purchase money toeroto. On toe trial, motion was made to dismiss the bill on tho ground that there was no equity in it, which would give to a Court of equity, jurisdiction of too case. The Court sustained toe motion and dismissed toe bill and complainaut excepted. Held that toe allegations iu toe bill do not make such a case as will give to a court or equity jurisdic tion thereof, but on toe contrary, toe remedy at law was ample and complete, and there was uo error in dismissing the bill at toe trial term for want ol juris diction. Beall & Tucker for plaintiffs. Wimberly, Gillis & Felder for defendants. John McK. Gunn vs. N. H. Miller—Homestead. WARNER, J. The main question presented by toe record, is whether Miller was entitled to a homestead, against the plaintiff*s judgment, which was obtained against Eliza Hall, who was the owner of tho land at the time of the rendition thereof. The judgment against Eliza Hall is dated May 1, 1866, to 3d of June, 1868, Miller purchased toe land from E. K. Hall and Eliza R. Young, tho heirs at law of Eliza Hall, the defendant in judgment who died after tho rendition thereof. On the 10th of April, 1869, Miller applied for and obtained from the Ordinary of Randolph county, a homstead on toe land in question, and the Court below decided that Miller was entitled to toe homestead as against too plaintiff’s judgment to which decision toe plaintiff excepted. Held that toe Court below erred in holding and deciding Miller was entitled to a homestead iu toe land, as against toe plaintiff’s judgment, and the statement of facts contained in toe record. Clark, Hood k Kiddoo for plaintiffs. Ordinary for use of E. H. Worreil, vs. H. and C. Adams.—Relief act of 1870. Affidavit that taxes were paid. WARNER, J. This was an action brought by tho plaintiff upon administrator’s bond, dated 8to Jauuary 1865, to recover too amount of a debt reduced to judgment against toe intestate Samuel Adams, alleging that toe administrators of Adams had wasted the estate. The original debton whichtoejudgoment was contracted was dated in 1858, and was renewed several times. The amount due on it at time it was reduced to Judg ment in 1867 was about $2600. The plaintiff filed his affidavit under toe - provisions of the act of 1870, in which he stated that he lxad paid all legal taxes chargeable by law on the debt up to too year 1835, which year no tax was assessed thereon. That in 1866 and 1867 he gave in said debt at what he believ ed to bo its market value, to-wit: $1000 and paid the tax thereon. That since 1867 he did not give in and pay tax on the debt, because it was uo longer a solven debt and ceased to have any market value whatever. On motion of defendant's counsel tho Court dis missed the plaintiff’s action on the ground that toe affidavit of toe plaintiff wqs not a compliance with toe act of 1870, whereupon the plaintiff excepted. If I believed the act of 13th October 1870 to be a valid constitutional act I would hold that the taxes on all debts contracted prior to Juno i, lees, on .contracts in renewal thereof should bo regularly given iu aad paid on im such debts, whether solvent or not, as a condition precedent to entitle toe plaintiff to recover on toe same in the courts. That such was toe clear and mani fest intention of too Legislature, there can be no doubt. It is entitled “An Act to extend toe lien ol set off and recoupment, as against debts contracted before toe 1st day of June, 1865, and to deny to such debts toe aid of the courts until toe taxes thereon have been paid.’’ The third section of the act de clares that “In suits upon such contracts,.in every case toe burden of proof showing that toe taxes have been duly paid, shall be upon too party plaintiff,, without plea by toe defendant.” The fourth section declares that “In every trial upon a suit founded up on any such debt or contract as described in this act —Provded, That said debt has been regularly given in for taxes and toe taxes paid, shall be a condition precedent to recovery on toe same, and in every such case, if the jribunal trying is not clearly satisfied, that said taxes have been duly given in and paid, it shall so find and said suit shall be dismissed.” In view of toe condition of toe people of toe State and the status of this particular class of debts at toe time of toe passage of this act, it cannot be reasona bly supposed that any member of the Legislature was so stupid as to have intended that it should be an act to increase toe revenue of the State. The ob ject and intention of toe act, as is patent upon its face, was to hinder, obstruct and prevent toe collec tion of all debts contracted prior to toe 1st of June, 1865, and those in renewal thereof, and for toe ac complishment of thatpurpose the aid of toe courts of toe State is denied to toe holders and owners of such debts, unless they shall make an affidavit that said debts have been regularly given in for taxes and toe taxes paid. That too 4th section of the act de clares shall be a condition precedent to a recovery on toe same. That makes no exception as to the solvency or insolvency of the debts, but embraces all suits founded upon any debt made or contracted be fore the 1st of June, 1865, or in renewal thereof. The plaintiff in this case, like other honest tax payers in toe State, did not regularly each year give in and pay tax on this debt, because he did not hon estly believe it was'a solvent debt, when he gave in his taxable property. Yet the act requires him to make an affidavit that this debt has been regularly given in for taxes, and the taxes paid on it, as a condition precedent to his. right to maintain a suit on it in the courts of toe State. Be cause as an honest conscientious tax payer, he could not swear it was a solvent debt when he gave in his taxes for 1867,1868, and 1869, he has not regularly given it in for taxes and regularly paid the taxes on it, and inasmuch as he cannot make the affidavit, toathehasdoneso, toe act outlaws him from toe courts of toe State, as was most clearly the inten tion of toe Legislature to do, in regard to that class of debts specified in toe act. If this, in my judgment, was a valid constitutional act, I would confirm the judgment of toe Court be low, but as I believe it to be unconstitutional and void, I concur in toe judgment of this Court; revers ing toe judgment of ihe Court below. LOCHRANE, C. J., and McKAY, J., concurred on the ground that the act was constitutional and toe plaintiff had complied with its requirements, as to the payment of taxes and filing toe affidavit pre ecribed. SUN-STROKES. tyi?'' The Chicago 'Tribune makes a cor rection. It says, “/or ‘setter pup’read ‘letter press. ’ ” “ The Lost Curse ” is the title of 4 E. A. Pollard’s new book. If it is no better than his former books he will find a great many curses that are not “lost,” A credulous writer says “poverty is a blessing in disguisp.” If it is a blessing at all, it is so well disguised that its best friend could never reeo<niize it. ’Boston wants better pivements.” Tho impression has long been, abroad that her ways are not as good as they should be: The New York Sun says: “Liars should have good memories.” In that case the editor of the S>tn ought to re member everything he ever heard, saw or read. BSU Mrs. Saul Justice tried to hang herself at Columbus, Ohio, last Friday, but her neighbors rushed iu and pre vented her. That is tho way with peo ple. They are never willing to allow Justice to take her course. At the National Camp Meeting at Urbana, Ohio, “a young man asked the prayers of the congregation to enable him to stop the use of tobacco.” That young man follows the way of the world and wants to be compelled from sin by some dispensation of Providence, but is not willing to make any sacrifice- for tho sake of a release from his burden. An exchange says : '“Miss Alcott is preparing a second part to- ‘Little Men,’ so that we shall hear no- more of Jo and her boys. ” To which, the Mobile Registerresponds : “As‘Little-Men’was - the sequel of ‘ Little Women,’ the third will most likely be ‘ Little Old Men and Women,’” As Miss Alcott has recently married, it is quite reasonable- to- conjec ture that her next will not be “ Little of Men and Women,” but little babies. Greeley will not die happy unless some efficient means of punishing Ku- Klux are devised. The best tiling that could be done to-moke the olcLman com fortable, and at the same time inflict a horrible punishment upon every nmn found in the Ku-Klux garb, would be to induce Congress to enact a law compel ling every man, known to be a Ku-Klux, or against whom rests a reasonable suspi cion, to read “What I know about Farm ing.” That would cure the most aggra vated type of that “disorder.”’ “ A fine set of thieves these fel-. lows are,” says the New York TForirf, “ who are forever plunging the-country into hot water with their tales of Ku- Klux outrages. In the old slave- States occur 94 out of the 291 revenue- defalca tions confessed by Secretary Boutwell, and of the twenty odd millions-admitted by kim. «mi ctQlan^gfi.789JZ21-95 ai’e to be put down to the score of these same per secuted partriots. A fine picture it makes of Southern outrages, these dry figures, telling how government functionaries steal with both hands, bawling mean while at the top of their lungs “ Ku- Klux ! ” ’ Washington, August 14.—The Secreta ry of the Treasury decided to-day that, under the late decision of Commissioner Pieasanton, in relation to interest on the coupons of corporations, the question of collecting the tax upon dividends and undivided profits of corporations was not touched upon; therefore a tax upon div idends and undivided profits for the last five months of 1870will be at once assessed and collected. Phila., Aug. 15.—A defalcation of $300,000 is charged against the agent of the Pennsylvania War Claim. It is claimed by the friends of the accused that he has been three times at the Pennsyl vania capitol to settle accounts, but failed to find the proper officers at home. It’ is alleged the defaulter is at Harrisburg now to settle, but the Auditor and Treasurer are both absent. The Jommeymen Tailors’ International Trade Union commenced its session this morning. It is composed of delegates from subordinate Unions in the United States and Canada. The object of the organization is protection in prices ~ _ _ Cus tiiat injury too law has ~given fiim~a~remedy‘t>y'a toca tailors only are connected with the special action on toe case. Tfiree Blackstone 142. ‘ Union. The New York Tribune in a recent issue says:: Gen. Sherman, replying to an applica tion for more troops for the protection of Montana, takes occasion to say that the available force of the United States army is not sufficient for the demands of the frontier. -And by implication, he censures the Government for sending troops South for political purposes, whereat the settlers grumble. Consideringthat the workmen on the-Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad lines will need protection and defense, it must be acknowledged that the effective force under the command cf Gen. Sherman is; small. But it is akflt clear that, in some parts of the South,' white men and black men do need to bo protected against white men. This, means that thejtroops will be needed in the States to. assist the Radical party to cany the approaching elections for Grant and his dependents. When two companies of troops and some Gat ling gjins are ordered for the protection of a Radical convention, it can be readily seen what use the Government has for troops in the South, and how necessary it is that the Indians may have full per mission to carve and scalp the frontier men at wilL Those people who are re ducing and populating the Western wilds are, at present, without political influ ence, and the Government cannot afford them protection. The troops are needed to do battle against hosts of irnagin fiy Ku-Klux and make Radical votes in lie South and elsewhere. Koumiss is the name of an article of food recently introduced into England from Germany. It is of Tartar origin, and in its original form is made by fer menting mare’s milk and agitating it dur ing the process. Cow’s milk is used as a substitute. The result of the treatment is a mixture of alcohol, carbonic acid and finely divided caseine and butter, with the residue of the sugar and salts of the milk, in taste resembling a mixture of champagne and cream and supposed, as the Tartars are very athletic, to be con ducive to health and a preventative of phthisis. It is reported that in boring for salt at Speronberg, near Berlin, Prussia, they have penetrated to the enormous depth of 3,500 feet—the greatest depth _ ever reached either by mining or boring— 500 feet of this being in a solid bed of salt, which has not yet been pierced through.