The Weekly sun. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1870-1872, October 04, 1871, Image 2

Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Weekly sun., October 04, 1871, Image 2

About The Weekly sun. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1870-1872 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 4, 1871)

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (5.5 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextTHE ATLANTA W E JS L. Y § U N -JP- THE DAILY SUN. Wednesday Morning September 27 iis mortmir Look (o Your !iis!its !«*— Let tl»e People A i-ouse!! .. Let no one fail to to id end rar.* hilly ponder the very important article of “Titus,” in The Sun from the jv n of ono -Georgia. Tho ]»..• i'h> must •their public servants, the greatest, the day of t:j _ It is tiic first hum in irouse and watch from the least to They must put an end to lir.g politicians, and gamb ling for public offices. By such foul and corrupt men and means, the people of Georgia have been plundered and crushed under the iron wheels of a corrupt bayo net despotism. These, trading, gambling, corrupt d m- ogogue practices must bo stopped, and • the people must stop them. They can do the work if they will.— They must be hsiiess uo longer, and must no more L t office-holders and office-seek ers leal them.by the ndse, blind them, hoodwink them, or deceive them: neither must those whose aim is to pnt money iu thejr pockets, at the expeuso of the pub lic Treasury, he allowed to quieriy accom plish their wicked schemes. They must be met at the threshold of their designs, • and sternly fought by an aroused and in dignant people, and public vengeance must be summarily visited iq 01 the heads of selfish patriots axe-grinders, and men whose voles and influence are for sale. There is now on foot a vile • combination by Bullock and his ■ friends, to coyer up all tho frauds and rascality of his administration, retain •‘-him in his place, and secure to Foster Blodgett, or some one no better than he is, a seat in the United States Senate. Of this we liavo evidence which con vinces us of the fact; and tho peoples’ • money is being freely used and promised, J to accomplish tho purpose. The carry ing out of this programme, or even a •part of it, would he a sore calamity to the State—especially would such an in fliction be almost unendurable, if heaped upon tho top of all the wrongs and bnr- •dens which have been laid upon our peo ple and which they have thus far borne with commendable patience. There is a point where forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and where tyranny jeiid legalized plunder must stop. '■'We call upon the people everywhere ' to arouse from their lethargy: to show forth in their majesty, their Strength, and make known their deter- imination to hold every member of the Legislature, and every officer whatever, to a strict responsibility—letting no one escape; and to moke their indignation too hot for the country to contain any one who barters away the people’s money or rights, or who lends his influ ence in any way to the accomplishment - of unholy schemes of any kind. .Major Metalla’s Statement. ""We publish, this morning, a statement • of tho money received and paid out by Haj. Me Calla on account of the State .Road—all by order of Foster Blodgett. Tu doing this, we remark.tliat he is the '•principal man iu bringing charges against delinquents and embezzlers, and has given most of, the information on which io base the prosecutions which have been -commenced. Since tho committee has undertaken “to make settlements, and bring up bal ances as far as possible ; and '■•Col. Farrow to commence action •against defaulters and ^delinquents, Mc- • Calla is the first one (and the only one, . so far as we know) who has been called -on for a statement, and the only one ''whom Col. F. has proceeded against. Why he, above all others, should be singled out, is strange to ns. It looks like an effort to break the moral force of his testimony, and to crush out all inves tigation. We have no right to allege -that such was the object, and do not even • make an insinuation to that effect; but if those who are engaged in making in vestigations and prosecutions had 'even Tcnomi him to be guilty of wrong doing, it seems to us they would have done the State some real service if they had used him, as far as possible, to gather up evidence against others, and -allowed him to be the last man called on "for a settlement. Whether innocent or guilty, the de mand made upon him, and his arrest, ••^seems to us to have been a mistake—cal culated to do harm to the cause of the ,people, instead of doing any good. These • are our views, given to the public for what they are worth. He has come^forward with his state ment. Will the first movement be to get his assistance in bringing others to • -do the same thing, or in picking flaws - in his exhibit? >-♦ -< lion. A. R, Wriglit. Judge Wright, of Borne, has written a letter to a gentleman of this city, that he will servo the State as attorney in the prosecution of the State Boad embezzlers, without fee or reward. Perhaps we maybe mistaken, but we - are inclined to think there was not much, *• if any, need of employing a number of • lawyers to help in these prosecutions. Yictor Hugo, it is announced, is going to return to Paris. Poor Paris !— It seems that her scourge of petroleum was not a sufficient chastening; and now - she must he subjected to oil of vitriol. Col. CPfcrrovr’s P«y m* Attenejr of the Western and Atlantic Railroad. Col. Henry P. Farrow, the Attorney General, is receiving a salary of 82,000 per annum. He also has a written con tract with the Governor, by which his services are retained as Attorney of the Western and Atlantic Bailroad, at a sala ry of 63,000 per anuiun. This contract was entered into in 1808, and bar con tinued up to the present time. Lately there has been some investiga tion into las account for a half year’s salary from the 1st January to 1st July of this year, as Attorney of the Road, and the OhtstiU’.fion of yesterday contained a letter from him to Maj. Hargrove, includ ing the papers involved in the account, giriDg explanations, etc. Tho following is a correct copy of the account against the Road : Atlanta, July 1,1871. Western and Atlmjtic Railroad, Du. To Henry P. Farrow, Attorney at Law: To services rendered from January 1 to June SO, 1871, under contract with Superintendent Western and Atlantic Railroad, approved by the Governor prior to the lease of said road.... .$1,800 00 Approved: Foster Blodgett, Superintendent, To this was also attacked a memoran dum of approval l»y Gov. Bullock as follows: TUi 1 ; .should be paid by I. P. Harris, Treasurer, on order from the funds in his bauds. B. All aceonnts against the Boad, after being made out and approved as above, are handed to the auditor, who investi gates them. If'approved, the auditor makes out what is called a “passed bill.” The following is the bill in this case. Western and Atlantic Railroad, To H. P. Farrow, Dr. For Amount of bill, herewith No— ....... $1,800, Atlanta. December 27,1870. Passed for Eighteen Hundred Dollars. N. P. Hotchkiss, Auditor. Received Payment: ' - H. P. Farrow, Attorney, Western and Atlantic Rilroad. The bill being thus allowed and receip ted, the Superintendent gave the follow ing order on the Treasurer : $1,800. Atlanta, Ga.. December 27,1870. Isaac P. Harris, Treasurer Western and Atlantic Railroad: ' , Pay to H. P. Farrow, or bearer, Eighteen Hundred Dollars, to pay Voucher No. — Foster Blodgett, Superintendent. N. P. Hotchkiss. Auditor. On the back of the paper containing the foregoing copies, is the following in dorsement: We, the Committee, certify that the within copy of account and passed bill, is a correct copy of Col. Farrow’s passed bill against tho W. and A. R. R. C. L. Bed wine, C. C. Hammock, E. E. Rawson. Col. Farrow, in his letter to Maj. Har grove, says this bill, &c., was carried to Mr. L P. Harris, the Treasurer, for pay ment, but he did not pay it, and * it was left in his hands to be paid as soon as he received any funds. Several circumstances have caused this account to be examined into and discus sed with more than ordinary interest: 1. The passed bill and receipt of Col. Farrow, as well as the order on the Treas urer of the road to pay the same, are da ted 27th December last, while the account itself is dated 1st July last, and is for ser vices rendered from 1st January to 1st July, of this year. Col. Farrow says he did not notice the incorrect dates fill quite recently, aft9 the foregoing papers had been called for by Mr. Rawson, and received from Mr. Hands, the Treasurer, and on this point Mr. Rawson gives the following certifi cate: r, “ I certify that I called on I. P.Harrisand received tho passed bill for CoL Farrow and banded it to him as stated. I did not notice the date of the passed bill until attention was called to it by Col. Farrow. E. E. Rawson.” Col. Farrow says the whole account and passedbill—all the papers in the case were made out about tbo 1st July last, and he does not know how or why the auditor and Superintendent dated their papers in December last, unless it was because a number of bills approved by them dur ing this year were dated in December last, prior to the lease, and that this one was also thus dated by them on account of this habit—so he tells us verbally. 2. While this bill, thus made out and re ceipted, was lying in the hands of Mr. Harris, CoL Farrow drew from Maj. Mc- Calla the sum of $1,000 as part payment for the same, as the following receipts will show: Received of Charles P. McCalla, seven hundred dollars, on account for W. & A. R. R., this 29th July, 1871. H. P. Farrow, Att’y W. & A. R. E. Correct copy of receipt in office. E. E. Rawson, One of Committee. Atlanta, Ga., Aug. 17, ’71. Rec’d from Chas. P. McCalla, G. B. K. W. & A. R. R., three hundred dollars on aco’t of draft for $1,800.00. H. P. Farrow, S300.00. Att’y W. & A. B. R. Correct copy of receipt in office. E. E. Rawson, One of Committee. We publish these papers with the fore going explanations, as part of the his tory of the times. CoL Farrow explains, in his note to Maj. Hargrove, that being Attorney General does not restrict him as a lawyer from serving any client—the State Boad not excepted; and that he has never received a dollar contrary to law. figk. The Des Moines (Iowa) Eegistei', speaking of the social movement in Washington city, says: “The most prom ising part of the story is that the reform- era had pluck enough to go in person and see with their own eyes, and hear with their own ears.” But alas ! they saw and heard ^things that defiled them— things that will render them less pure forever, hereafter, in the eyes of their fathers, brothers and husbands. It is barely possible that, if the Washington women really wish to reform society, it were better to commence in their own social circle. Get that pure above sus picion; then they may reach down to their fallen sisters, to save them, or send upon them a greater curse. MAJOR HcCAbLA’8 STATKUKKTT. Charles P. McCalla In Account with the Western & Atlantic Railroad. April 7 To Kelly & Webb, of fice reut ..$ May 2 N. B. Hotchkiss. If. 300 00 250 00 912 37 29 O. Money) Nor. Car. R.B...... JUHG 27 30 A. & C. R, R 1 42 •« Lou. Cin. Hz Lex.... 372 7U “ Barton A Albany 8 04 *« Kansas City, St. Jos. & C. B 83 84 «• Terra Haute & Ind’a 79 57 “ Chesapeake & Ohio 0 93 Cin. Ham. & Dayton 4 48 « Paducah k Gulf 13 75 «< 10 76 Ind. Blom. & Wert.. 7 GO 4< Burlington k Mo... 7 00 ** St. Louis, V. k T. H. Indiana i 7 00 Va. k Tenn. Air- Line (Ticket)..., 13 25 Milwaukie k St Pa’l 7 59 *« Char. Col. k Aug... 2,18193 -. «• TJ. S* Hail Line.... 135 91 eg?*! Ai t Char. Col. & Aug... 235 GO • «• Richmond & Dan 31 73 St. L. A L Mount’n 493 81 XlUnois Central 149 80 “ Chi. k Nor. Westr’n 94 00 a StyaU’s Agency 12 42 •* Lake Shore & Mich. 118 90 Western Railroad.. 275 02 «« Pacific Railroad..... 21 00 Balt. St’m P’ckt Co. 29 85 •« Mobile A Montgm’v 250 74 7 00 July 29 Pennsylvania B. It... 409 68 •• Erie Railway 329 92 •« Gr. So. Mail Route.. 217 68 * «« So. Ca. Railroad.... 180 29 <( P‘g Cin. A St. Louis 20 46 «* Va. A Ten. Air-Liao 140 35 •* Mem. A St. L. Packt 54 50 Aag. 18 Graysville Agency, W. Shannon... . £0 20 •« Tunnel Hill,W Whit- ten 82 11 . «« Big Shanty,G T Cur- w ** J. .ie 13 33 *« Mobile A Ohio...... 249 39 •• C. C. C. A Ind 206 43 . Jack. Pen. & Mob’le 192 15 Michigan Central.. 287 53 Tenu. Coal Compny 50 00 Ga. Air-Line 828 90 «« Central llailroad.... 194 40 South A North 77 35 “ EG, A LaFayelte... 152 63 *« Gr. Lino, Baltimore 111 35 «- Freedmen’s. Bureau 3S2 21* 21 E. F. Blodgett 408 00* A. L. Harris 715 22* W. H. Marbery, Agt 13 18—11,184 2 ’•’Restitution money. 1871. Cr. April 7 By Draft, G. Robertson,; Tr $ 13 55 May 20 Draft, W. J. T ylor, Tr 123 00 39 J. W. Wilson, salary 800 00 J&n. 1C 600 09 7 F. Blodgett •* 1,375 00 11 John W. Wilson..** 200 00 C, P. McCalla....** 416 60 si Office Expenses .... 150 48 19 W. T. Newman salry 400 00 20 J. H. Thibadeau.. *• ’ 525 00 July 31 James B. Wilson. .** 400 00 “ F. Blodgett,.....** 541 07 «? C. P. McCalla....•* 208 33 *« Office Expenses 104 64 «« H. McBride, salary. 175 00 « Draw Bark Tickets 4 70 «< A. A C. R. R. bill.. 2 59 “ H. P. Farrow, on ape draft 700 00 “ R. H. Brown,Atyfeo 25 00 •• T. Pinckney’s draft 15 58 Aug. 10 J. J. Blake, order, A. L. Harris 250 00 F. Blodgett, salary 400 00 A. L, Harris “ 715 22 Kelley A Webb’s Iron Com 150 00 17 H. P. Farrow, on ape 300 00 22 A. H. Baker, labor.. 15 00 *< C.R. L AP. R. R.. 04 90 St Vick. A Merid. R. R. 115 09 «». D. P. Kendrick,balif 20 75 « Office Expenses.... 32 11 Sept. 20 C. P. McCalla,salary 410 CG— 9,422 Debits.... Credits... Cash on liand....$ 1,702 25 The abovo statement showing a balance of $1,762 25 in my hands to the credit of the Western A At lantic Railroad, comprises all Receipts and Disburse ments made by me sincethe Road was leased, and were mahe by order of' F^teejModgett, Superinten dent, E. & O. E. CHA°. P. McCALLA, G. B. K. Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 20,1871. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. September, 26, 1871. H. Karwiscli vs. The Mayor and Council of tho city of Atlanta—Certiorari— Sabbath Laws. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where, by the petition for certiorari, it appeared that the petitioner had been convicted by the Mayor and Council of the city of Atlanta, for a violation of the city ordinance, against dealers keeping open doors on Sunday, and the proof showed that six or seven persons had gone into the store house of petitioner on Sunday, by a back door, and that he was a dealer in liquors, cigars, &c., and the Court below refused to sanction the petition for certiorari: Held, That this was not error in the Court. The Christian Sabbath is a civil institution, older than our Government, and is recognized as a day of rest by our Constitution, and the regulation of its ob servance as a civil institution, is in the power of the Legislature, as much as any laws having for their object the preserva tion of public morals; and it is within the right of the city of Atlanta to punish the keeping open of doors by dealers gener ally, within the limits of the city, upon Sunday, for the purpose of preventing the violation of the State laws, as well as preserving the public respect for the laws themselves. Judgment affirmed. H. Jackson & Bro. for plaintiff. Jane and Moses Frank and L. A. Guild vs. Longstreet, Sedgwick & Co.— Usury LOCHRANE, C. J. Where the payee of a note indorses it after maturity, and suit is brought by the indorsee, against the makers and indors er, and apleaby the makers sets up usury, and the Judge held such plea by the makers did not affect the liability of the indorser upon his contract of indorse ment after the maturity of the paper: Held, That this was not error. The contract of indorsement was a new and distinct contract, not affected by the usury between the payee and makers, in the hands of the indorsee with out notice, and the indorser, in a suit against him, “by the indorsee, cannot set up his plea of the ille gality of the act in takiug usury, to de feat a recovery against him as indorser. Held, again: Where a note made to be negotiated at a chartered bank was not negotiated, but held by the payee at its maturity, who took from the indorser a written warver of demand and notice, and after its maturity, it was endorsed by the payee upon such paper, under our law,audiudoraement after maturity upon suit by the indorsee, is in discharge of the failure to prove demand and notice, and it was not error to refuse a non-suit upon that ground. Held, again: That in order to render verbal evidence of the contents of a no tice required by our law, even when such notice is out of the jurisdiction of the Court, it is first necessary to give notice to the party, or his attorney, to produce it. Held, again: When the evidence shows that the maker of a note borrowed $24 00 from the payee and gave three notes of $1126 each, aad paid two oi the notes, and the payee indorsed the last note to a third party; Held: That in the hands of such third party the note is only void as to the amount of usury therein, and ib is not competent for makers of the note to set up the usury paid upon the other notes to the holder and payee thereof, in their defense to this note. Held, again: That the amount due on the third note,by the makers,is $8 00, with interest, after deducting any payments made thereon by them. The verdict was, therefore, in excess of the amount due and should have been, under the facts of this case, $134 18, with interest, from the 15th of January, 1868, and we direct that the verdict conform to this amount, or else that a new trial be granted to Jane and Moses Frank. Held, again: Under our Code, juries may find according to the equities of the case by their verdict, and that the ver dict against Guild stand affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with instructions. M. Arnold & R. J. Cowart for plain tiffs. Hillyer & Bro. for defendants. J. D. Cameron vs. Warren Aiken. Re lief act of 1870. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where upon the trial of a suit at com mon law, upon a note made before 1st of June, 1865, the defendant moved to dis miss it, upon the ground that the plain tiff had not complied with the act of 1870, which was overruled by the Court: Held, That this was error. Under the facts of this case, Aiken being the trans feree of the note, was not called upon to go further than to show a compliance with the act of 1870, by having paid the legal taxes due thereon, while he held the note, or otherwise shown no tax due thereon. McKay, J., concurring. Warner, J., dissenting. L. J. Glenn & Son for plaintiff; Hill & Candler for defendant. L. J. Hillburn vs. George S. Black. Re lief act of 1870. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where the court below rendered judg ment on a note made before June 1st, 1865, overruling a inotion»to dismiss the suit for non-compliance with the act of October 13, 1870: Held, That the court committed error. Judgment reversed. Dabney & Culberson for plaintiff; Broyles for defendant. Lee L. James vs. Ed. R. Elliott. In equity—Recoupment. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where, upon the trial of a bill filed to restrain the collection of notes given for the purchase money of lands, both cases, the common law suit and the bill being tried together, it was charged that by the misrepresentation and fraud of the ven dor as to the boundary of the land, the vendee made the purchase, and by such fraud he had been misled into the ex pense of preparation for making brick, for which purpose ha bought the land, and which was known to the vendor at the time of the sale; and the court re jected the evidence offered by complain ant, the vendee, to show his damages, resulting from the alleged fraud, and also as to the quantity of land. Held that this ruling by the Court under our law, fraud with injury gives a right of action and ho may recoup the damages whatever the jury may allow in an action against him for purchase money, the rule being confined to the actual damages suffered, the fraud being for the jury to determine: Held again, it was error to rule out the evidence in relation to the quantity of the land. Under section 2600 of the Code, an apportionment of the price may be made when the piu’chase is per acre. Where a deficiency amounting to fraud is proven, it is for the jury to determine, and not for the Court; the whole case ought to have been submitted to the jury and let them weigh it under the legal rules concerning the evidence. Judgment reversed. R. Baugh for plaintiff; Glenn & Son for defandant. Lydia A. Smith, vs. T. C. Willingham et al—Tenants—new trial. LOCHRANE C. J. Where upon a motion for a new trial, the Court granted the motion on the ground that the father of one of the parties, a warrantor, who had been re jected as a witness upon the trial, having in the court room near the jury and within the hearing of the jury, talked to another person who had been a witness for the other side, about the case and said among other things, that if he had been permitted to give his evidence, he could have told • a’l about the transac tion and such act was unknown to the counsel or the parties until after the verdict: Held that in view of the necessity of preserving the purity of jury trials, when the Court below presiding at the trial, whose opportunity of knowing the effect of such influences upon the jury is much better than ours, has granted a new trial under section 3267 of the Code, we will not interfere with his discreation. Judgment affirmed. T. P. Westmorland, A. W. Hammond & Son for plaintiff; Hill and Candler, P. B. Steward for defendant. R. B. Bullock, Gov., vs. J. W. Hancock, et al.—Recognizance. LOCHRANE, C. J. Where a pardon of the Governor was pleaded by the sureties, in discharge of their bond, for the appearance of their principal, and the recital of facts in the pardon shows that it was not applied for by the accused, who was out of tue State, and the plea failed to show his delivery to him, or acceptance by him, and the Court sustained the demurrer to the plea. Held: Under the facts, that this was not error. Assuming that under the j Constitution of 1S68 the Governor may ' exercise the pardoning power before con viction, this exercise is based upon a confession of guilt by the accused, and before such pardon takes effect, it must be applied for by the accused, and in the plea of pardon, by his sureties, the facts set up must show its acceptance by their principal, or evidence of his application for pardon, or of its delivery to him and a pardon granted without the application of the accused, and no evidence of his acceptance of it, is of no affect. Judgment affirmed. Peck & Boon vs. Conley—Relief Act of 18(0. MgKAY, j. Section 5 of the act of the 13th of Oc tober, 1870, which authorizes the defend ant in fi. fa. to deny under oath the plain tiffs affidavit that the taxes have been , paid, and providing that the issue thus Ways been required to appear ou the rec- made shall he returned and tried as an- |ord. The sanction of a certiorari by the other affidavit of illegality, stands upon the same footing as the first and second sectionff bf the act, and is not unconstitu tional. Judgment reversed. WARNER. J., dissents. W. A. Patrick, et al., vs. Scott, Bondu- rant and Adm’r—Certiorari. McKAY, J. Where suit was brought in Justice’s Court for an amonnt over $50, and a summons of garnishment issued, requir ing the garnishee to appear and answer on the day fixed for the trial of the original suit, and the garnishee failed to appear on that day, and judgment was entered against him on the next day: Held, that by sec. 3228 of the Code, that no judgment until a term subse quent to that at which he was required to answer, it was the duty of the Jus tice to have continued the proceedings by a formal entry ou his docket, to a subse quent day not less remote than the time required by law between the service of the defendant in the original suit and the time of trial. Whei’e a certiorari had been sanctioned and no notice in writing was given ten days before the sitting of the Court to which the same shall be returnable, and it is in writing agreed between the par ties that the decision of the Court upon the points made in the certiorari shall be submitted and determined as in other cases: Held, That this is a substantial waiver of notice and an agreement that the cer tiorari shall be heard upon its merits. Judgment reversed on the first point and affh'med on the second. Hillyer & Bro. for plaintiff, n E. P. Howell for defendant. E. W. Munday vs. JohnG. Martin—Cer tiorari from County Court. McKAY, J. Where there was a certiorari from the County Court, under sec. 297 of the Code, and there was tendered to the Judge of the Superior Court, in vacation, a trav erse of the answer of the County Court Judge, the Judge of the Superior Court, thereupon, directed the papers to be transmitted to the next term of the Su perior Court, and the issue there to be tried by a jury: Held, That this was a judgment that that traverse should be tried by a jury, and while that judgment stands unrevera- ed, it is error to dismiss the traverse on the ground that an affidavit was not made of the truth of the traverse. The Court will presume that the affidavit was pre sented at the time. J udgment reversed. R- Arnold, H. Yan Epps, for plaintiff. Hill & Candler for defendant. A. H. Colquitt vs. Mercer & de Graften- reid. Issuable picas. McKAY, J. The act of 1869 authorizing attorneys to make oath to pleas setting up issuable defences to suits founded on contracts, does not alter the Code, requiring Dleas to the jurisdiction to be pleaded in per son and sworn to by the defendant. A plea to the jurisdiction may be filed at any time before a defence to the mer its, and if a plea to the jurisdiction filed at the first term is stricken subsequently, the defendant may, if he has filed no plea to the merits, still file his plea to the jurisdiction. J udgment affirmed. C. F. ; Acres for plaintiff; L. J. Winn for defendant. Asbury H. Barnes vs. The State. In cestuous fornication. McKAY, J. . . , The offence of incestuous fornication is not a joint offence under section 4459, and one person may he indicted and found guilty thereof. Where, on a trial, for incestuous forni cation with a sister, the sister was in troduced. as a witness, and she denied that she ever had sued the defendant in her name, and the court permitted evi dence that the suit was brought, but re fused to permit the declaration to be read to the jury: Held, This was no error, as the con tents of the paper was not material to the issue, which was simply whether the suit had been brought. Where a written request was made by defendant’s counsel for the court'to charge the jury, which request covered the whole case, and the judge in his charge failed to follow the language of the request, but charged the law prop erly and the defendant was found guilty: Held, That section 3664 of the Code, which provides that a new trial may be granted on the refusal of the judge to give a pertinent legal charge in the lan guage requested, when the charge so re quested is submitted in writing, is not mandatory but permissive only, and when the Judge has in fact charged the law correctly on tlie points covered by the request and upon the whole case, and has refused a new trial, this Court will not, for that reason only, grant a new trial. No precise rule can be laid down how for the evidence of an accomplice must be corroborated, but a defendant cannot complain of a Judge on this point who tells the jury that the evidence of the other witness or corroborating circum stances must be sufficient to satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner. While we are not entirely satisfied with the verdict in this case, still, as the jury or the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and as the Court below has refused a new trial, we do not think it our duty to interfere with his discretion. Judgment affirmed. Hill & Candler for plaintiff; E. P. How ell for defendant. William C. Sherrer, Prin., and William Sherrer, garn., vs. L. J. Glenn & Son —Certiorari. WARNER, J. On the hearing of the certiorari it was dismissed, but on what ground does not appear. On looking into the record it. appears that the certiorari was sanctioned on the 5th day of March, 1869. There is no evidence in the record of any writ ten notice having been given of the sanc tion of the writ of certiorari, as required by Sec. 3987 of the Code, and therefore the certiorari was properly dismissed on that ground. In Turner vs. Collins, 8 Ga. R., 252, this Court held that it was the uni form determination of the Court never to look out of the papers to inquire into any fact, but whatever fact there appears will be taken to be true, and if it does not appear in writing, it does not exist. The certificate of the Judge to the bill of exceptions is the writ of error to bring np cases from the Superior Court to this Court, and the ten days’ notice of the signing and certifying the same has al presiding Judge, is the writ of ^ which brings up the case from the T ^° r ces’ Court to the Superior Court the written notice of such sanction *£8 appear on the record, otherwise it •, be presumed not to have been srn-m, * li; Judgment affirmed. g en Fred A. Williams vs. Adolph G , Relief act ot 1868 and 1870 ldel WARNER, J. This was an affidavit of illeoalitv fii .•> by the defendant, to the plaintiffs p cution, claiming the benefit of tlm act of 1868, for losses sustained bv tif f war and on the ground that the rdaint;^ had not filed an affidavit of the p£S5 of taxes due on the debt as reauirli u the act of 1870. The affidavit did 2 show that the plaintiff was in any vT connected with the defendant’s loss ■ property by the war. It also appeal in the record, that tho plaintiff resided in New York at the time the judgment was obtained, and has resided there eve" since that time. The Court dismiss^ the affidavit of illegality, and the defcm dent excepted: eu ' Held that there was no error in Court below in dismissing the affidavit I illegality, on the statement of facts the record. Judgment affirmed. Farrow and Thomas for plaintiff. L, Glenn & Son for defendant. Daniel Pittman, vs. Rebecca E. Chisolm I Adin’x, and W. P. Chisolm, adm’r : WARNER, J. This was an action brought againsfi defendants on a note indorsed by°theid intestate. The note was made by R. r* Can ton and payable to Taylor and Lewis or bearer, for $413,15, dated Aug. 20 1861, due Dec. 1st., after date and in dorsed by defendants’ intestate in th following words and figures: “I indors; this note, liable only in the second in stance, this 10th of March, 1867.” Tin plaintiff moved tho Court to dismiss tin defendants’ plea, which motion the Com! over ruled and the plaintiff excepted, When the plaintiff offered the note i evidence, the defendants objected theret. on the ground that the defendants wen liable only in tho second instance, and tlieie was no evidence that the plaintiff had sole the maker of the note to insolvency!) which objection was sustained by tb< Court, and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff then offered in evidence the an swers of Turnipseed, to prove that the maker of the noto was and had been hope lessly insolvent, since the fall of the yea: 1866, which evidence was objected to In defendants and the objection sustained by the court, and the plaintiff excepted, The defendants were not liable on this indorsement until the maker of the not< had been sued to insolvency, or some le gal excuse alleged for not having done so, If the evidence offered had shown that the maker of the note was entirely insoll vent at the time of the indorsement, wc think that would have been a good legal excuse for not sueing the maker merelj to ascertain that fact. Why require the plaintiff to do an unnecessary and useles act to ascertain the. insolvency of tin maker of the note, by sueing him, wliei the fact of his insolvency is notorious ant can be established by other competen evidence ? The evidence of the inso! veney of the maker of the note should b<K confined to the time of the indorsement|| so as to exclude any presumpition of aj want of diligence on the part of the ini dorsee in failing to collect the note fron the maker. If the note could not hav< been collected in the first instance, atanj lime after indorsement by suit agains* the maker, why go through that unnec essaiy and useless ceremony in order t( make the indorser liable in the secom instance ? Tho evidence offered in tbii case to prove the insolvency of the maker of the note iu 1866, more than four year; after the date of the indorsement, properly ruled out by the Court. Judgment affirmed George S. Rutledge and Benj. J. Hardir vs. R. B. Bullock, Governor. WARNER, J. This was a case that came before tk Court below on an affidavit of illegality to an execution issued on a judgment oi forfeited recognizance against defendants at the March term, 1870, of DeKalb Sn perior Court. The main ground of i! legality was, that there was no judge in the Atlanta Circuit, and that theCouri was held by Judge Parrott, a Judge oi another circuit, who had no legal right or authority to hold the court and render the judgment, under the following agreed state of facts: That Judge Pope, the Judge of .the Atlanta Circuit, resigned on lire 3d of January, 1870, and. the At lanta Circuit was without any Judge un til August, 1870, when Judge Lochrace was appointed to fill the vacancy. That the March term of DeKalb Court of 1870 was held by Judge Parrott, without re quest or invitation of Judge Parrott, bat on the request of Gov. Bullock, and that judgment in the case was rendered on the 7th of March, 1870, when the court was held by Judge Parrott, the Judge of the Cherokee Circuit, the Atlanta Circuit being without a Judge. The Constitution declares that there shall be a Judge of the Superior Court for each judicial circuit, who may act i: other circuits when authorized by lav The 232d section of the Code declare; the jurisdiction of the Judges of the Su perior Courts is coextensive with tin limits of this State, but they are no compelled to alternate unless required bj law. Section 233 declares that each o said Judges shall discharge all the dutie required of him by the Constitution an the law for the circuit f< >r which he wr elected or appointed, although he mu hold courts in other circuits and ma also exercise other judicial functions fc them when permitted by law. That is the Judge of one circuit may hold cour in other circuits in the State, and ma also exercise other judicial functions fc other circuits, when permitted by law,: to grant writs of injunction, certiora and other writs, whenever the residei Judge of the circuit is absent or inte ested, &c., or as provided by section 23. We are, therefore, of the opinion th: the J udge of one circuit may rightful! hold the court in another and dilierei circuit than that for which he was a; pointed. It is said if the Govern* shall fail or refuse to appoii a Judge for the circuit, when vacancy occurs, he can compel the pe pie of a circuit to have their legal rigk determined by any Judge in the Stat whom he may think proper to force ujx them. That may be so, but the failn of the Governor to perform his constit tional duty in making an appointment one thing for which he is responsible the proper tribunal. The legal pov and authority of a Judge of one circo [Continued on Page 7.J