Newspaper Page Text
2.
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN,
THE .DAILY SUN.
Wednesday October 4
New State Kosd CattcUim.
Unity in the Democratic Party.
As wc have often said before, we again
repeat, now is eminently “the seed time
of ideas,” touching the policy which
should govern the Democratic Party, in
their next General Convention, both in
relation to 'platform and candidates; in
order to effect that lotily in Council and
unity in Action, which are essential for
the rescue of Public Liberty from the
grasp of those now holding Power, and
whose object is Ceutralized Empire.
On the line of policy we have advo
cated, we take the liberty of giving oar
readers to-day, some extracts, from a
letter just received from a Democrat, of
Maine. We do not know the writer per
sonally, but we know him from reputa
tion, and assure our readers he is a gen
tleman of position in that State, whose
statements may be relied upon, and whose
views and opinions are entitled to high
consideration. In reply to his inquiry
we sav, we believe there is a mode by
which the ‘*COtisentu^honorum omn'em,”
stated by him, can he obtained.
Let there be a free interchange of views
between the leading men of the true De
mocracy, in every State of tlio Union; and
let them see to it, that no delegate be
sent to tho General Convention, who is
not/res to tho “ Jeffersonian creed”—and
who will, under no circumstances or any
temptations, consent to a Departure
therefrom, so far as tho Democratic or
ganization is concerned. A. H. S.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Me., September 28, 1871.
Bon. A. H. Stephens:
Dear Sir: I have just read a recent
communication of yours to The Atlanta
Sun, ou “The great issues involved in
the contest of 1872, and the unity of the
Democratic Party.”
As a Northern Democrat, I thank you
for that article, as well as for that most
admirable and exhaustive work, your
“Constitutional view of the war between
the States.” Were this an ago in which
the masses of tho people, or any consid-
srable number of there, would stop to
examine into the principles of govern
ment in general, or of our government in
. particular, a careful perusal of your vol
umes would lcad,£hem to discard central
ization, and to cling to the “Jeffersonian
vreed.”
“You are quite right, especially so far
as Maine is concerned, in asserting that
the Desolations of her late Democratic
Convention so far as they indorse the
“New Departure,” do not express the
views of the honest masses of the De
mocracy. It would bo difficult to find a
Democrat in Maine, who would maintain
that tho 14th and loth amendments are
just and right.”
«jecr.WiiM li&.l fonmatata
' mi-uri. in mis Congressional District I
linvo conversed with hundreds of Demo
crats since our State Convention, and I
have not yet met with the first one who ap
proves the “ New Departure.” It is univer
sally condemned. Not one of our county
conventions in this District would in
dorse it. Not a single county conven
tion in the State directly accepted the
amendments. Three or four of them
only did go so far in that direction as to
indorse the State platform. So severe
and general was the condemnation of the
State platform among the masses of the
party, after it was promulgated, even
though its acquiescence in the amend
ments was in a very mild form and sugar-
coated with a severe “ condemnation of
the means by which they wore adopted,”
tho few advocates of the “NewDepart
ure" did not dare to ask for an ex
press and independent approval in the
county conventions. What is true of
Maine in this particular, I apprehend, is
true of all tho Northern States, Massa
chusetts excepted.
Policy, and policy alone, secured for
the “[New Departure” its approval in the
State conventions that have been held.
The lato elections in both Maine and
California have demonstrated that that
“ policy” was most imjjolitic. The “ New
Departure” did not give us a single Re
publican vote in either of those States.
It chilled thousands of Democrats so they
could work with no heart or zeal.
My own judgment is, that the “New
Departure” is now dead. I have strong
hopes that we shall not even hear of it
in our National Convention next year.
You mnst have observed that, of late,
even tho New York World has not been
very enthusiastic over the amendments.
I emirely ngreo with you that there
must bo “union in sentiment” before
there can bo “united action.” In order
that there may be this “uuion in senti
ment” in our National Comention next
year, should there not be an exchange
ef views, previous to its assembling, among
leading men ?”
“Now in relation to both candidate
and platform, can thero not be some mode
devised, by which men who think alike,
can, through tlicir constituents, secure
an expression of their views and wishes
in our next Convention ? In a word can
there not be a “consensus honorum om
it i um ?' ’ Yours Truly, .
Did any employee of the State Road,
under Foster Blodgett, have one or two
car loads of coal or produce delivered to
him free of charge for freight—the same
coming from Knoxville or elsewhere in
Tennessee—the State Road paying con
necting roads for the freight due on
those lines?
Did atay employee of the road receive
car loads and cargoes of corn, and per
haps other produce, from Nashville, and
perhaps other Western cities, to sell
again and speculate upon, paying no
freight upon the same—thus entering
into illegitimate competition with mer
chants, atfd lining his pockets with the
money thus fleeced from what properly
belonged to the people of Georgia?
Did not a number of employees
of the road receive their coal and wood
and lumber by the car load—receiving
car load after car load among them, free
of all charge for freight ? _
What editor or editors of a newspaper
or newspapers in Atlanta received a car
load or car loads of coal, free of freight ?
Why is it that one or two editors received
such favors, while some editors in the
city did not, if such was the case ? i
What peripotelic gentleman, way
down in Florida, had . his expenses paid
and received a big salary, upon the plea
of drumming for passengers for the State
Road, down in the land of flowers ?
What Democratic member of one of
the white-washing committees of the late
peculating Legislature had $500 or $1,000,
or other sum of money advanced to him
by the State Road Treasurer, taking his
note therefor? Did such a thing take
place ? If so, why was it done, and lias
that money ever been refunded ?
What number of members of the late
peculating Legislature,—either Senate
or House,' or both—was or were en
gaged as a Commission on the part of
the State i Road to . investigate claims
against the same which needed no inves
ligation—receiving high compensation
therefor in addition to their pay as
members of the Legislature ?
Will suspected parties come forward
and answer?^ * I?
Who of the officers of the State Road
had their buildings framed, their furni
ture for their private residences made
and repaired at the State Road shops by
State Road hands? Who had their pri
vate residences and other buildings
painted with State Road paint, by State
Road painters, &c., &c?
We might continue these questions,
but have propounded enough for the
present. Will the class please stand up
and answer their catechism?
Blo'.vjiig the Cotton Crop.
Editors 'Atlanta Sunt After an ex
tended trip through Southwestern Geor
gia, I give you an item, that it would bo
well our people should particularly no
tice at this time. I have seen nothing to
equal the iioorness of the cotton crop
since the war. From Agusta to Colum-
bss I have saw no cotton eighteen inches
high, except graden lots; and, however
Norths m speculators may try to estimate
the present crop to our disadvantage, our
people will have sense enough to hold on;
they :uv in a position this year to com
mand their own price for their cotton.
A. C.
October, 3,1871.
John Pnryear vs. The State, Carrying
Concealed Weapons.
LOCHRANE, C. J.
Where, on the trial of a party, charged
with a violation of the 4454 section of
the Code, the Judges charge to the jury
was in effect that army repeaters having
taken the place of horseman’s pistols,
they were to be regarded within the ex
ceptions of the Statute, while used by
parties on horseback, and the jury found
the defendant guilty, and he made a mo
tion for a new trial, which was overruled.
Held: That the charge of'the Judge
was as favorable to the prisoner as the
construction of the law could warrant.
Horseman’s pistols, excepted in. the
Code, having gone into disuse, and a
pistol, known as the army repeater, or
navy repeater, having taken their place,
if the latter was worn by parties on
horseback, in the same way as the former,
were worn, we do not see bnt that a fair
interpretation of the law would bring
them, while so worn, within the excep
tion of the law', but certainly no farther;
and the evidence, showing lliat it was
worn upon his person concealed, it was
not error in the Court to refuse a new
trial.
Judgment affirmed.
\Y. H. Dabney, for plaintiff ; C. D.
Forsyth, for defendant.
Henry Kerwish vs. James H. Steelman—
Trespass vi et arinis.
LOCHRANE, C. J. \
Where,- ujpon the trial of an action for
trespass vi et arrnis and a plea of the gen
eral issue was.filed, and after the case had
been submitted to the jury, the Judge
charged them that the matters of justifica
tion could not be-considered under a
plea of not guilty, and the jury found for
the plaintiff. The bill 1 of exceptions as
signs error in the Judge’s charge in the
premises, .but fails to; set out the whole
charge, or allege that the charge e&cepted
to was all the charge given;
Held: That this Court will presume
and will believe that the Court charged
the jury upon the law applicable to the
facts, and not being excepted to, that
such charge was correct-.
Held, again: It was no error to charge
the jury that they could not consider the
facts in justification tinder a plea of the
general issue. By the Code, section
3406, and the rulings of this Court, in
the 9th Ga. R. and the 12th, Ga. R., such
facts in justification must have been
specially pleaded. ’ ' • • • *
Judgment affirmed.
J. Milledge, Jr., Marshall J. Clarke,
for plaintiff'.
Farrow & Thomas contra.
Death of Rev. John M. Bonnell, 1). D.
On Saturday night last, at half past 11
o’clock, Dr. Bonnell, of Macon, long the
College, died very suddenly at the Col-”
lege, of paralysis of the heart.
It is seldom we are called upon to re
cord the death of one whose loss will be
more deeply and widely felt. He has
been identified with the educational in
terests of Georgia for the last thirty
years. For fourteen years past lie has
occupied one of the most honorable po
sitions that can be ^conferred upon man
—that of presiding with great ability and
full satisfaction over the “Mother of Fe
male Colleges.”
A long line of accomplished and grief-
stricken daughters now weep over the
new-made grave of their beloved precep
tor. He had a thorough understanding
of female character, and knew how to
combine the delicacy and tenderness of a
woman with the firmness and discipline
of a faithful preceptor—thus at once se
curing affection and obedience.
lie entered the Georgia Conference in
1847, in the' same class with Rev. Armi-
nius Wright,“Pastor of'the First Metho
dist Church in this city, and was a zeal
ous, devoted minister.
The Methodists of Georgia and the
South will feel profound sorrow at the
death of this eminent servant of the
Church.
He came to Georgia in early manhood,
and in 1847 was married to the daughter
of Col. Wm. Morton, of Athens, Ga.,
who survives him.
>-♦-<
Released on Bail.
The friends of the parties who were
lately arrested in Gwinnett county,
brought to this city, and lodged in jail,
in a somewhat mysterious manner—a
notice of which has heretofore appeared
in onr columns—came to this city day be
fore yesterday, gave bond for the prison
ers, who were thereupon released. Among
those thus [summarily arrested aro some
of the best men in the country, who
never did any one. any harm, against
whom no charge of a violation of law or
morals was ever made. The affair has
created much indignation among the peo
ple of Gwinnett, who look upon the
whole precedure as a highhanded out
rage.
"V\ e have, so for, been unable to sift
the matter to the bottom and learn the
whole truth sufficiently to form an opin
ion of the case, or to say who is or is not
to blame. We merely mention the mat
ter as it has been represented to us. We
hope before long to have all the facts and
lay them before the readers of The Sun.
^ c ' to ker4.—'Tha Italin govern- man tnai
ment ha; determined that no professor I army I
ot In v, mtyo f Rome slndi he allowed I aS.”
inue to exercise his function with- °
. —mg the oath of allegir
The oath has been tendered
Butler says: “If I am not sustained in
more cabins by the prayers of the colored
man than any other commander in the
will never appear in public
If Gen. Butler will stand by
this, it is worth while to have a Consrress
out ta,ing the oath of allegiance to Italy! I Commissic n issued to ascertain Lm7muffi
. on this basis. I he is sustained by prayer.
J. M. B. Carlton vs. Annie E. Carlton—
Temporary alimony.
McKAY, J.
Where, in a libel for divorce, the
Judge, having examined into the cause
and circumstances of the separation and
the ability and the unwillingness of the
husband to pay, grants temporary alimo
ny, this Court will not control his dis
cretiorf. *
In determining the amount of alimony
the Court will look into the property con
trolled by the husband, and his ability to
earn wages, and determine what is a rea
sonable sum.
An attachment for contempt foi* refus
ing to. obey an order of the Judge, re
quiring the defendant to pay temporary
stitution; and where” aJfidge lias fully
examined the ability of a party to pay,
and has reason to expect his disobedience
to the order, he may direct that if he
does not pay it, an attachment for con
tempt shall issue.
Judgment affirmed.
Gartrell & Stephens and Thrasher &
Thrasher for plaintiff.
MynaTf & Dell contra.
N. W. Paine, administrator, vs. James
Ormond <$r Wm. McNaugbt and John
Lee. Ejectment.
McKAY, J.
Where an action of ejectmentloT a lot
of land, by its number in.the original
State servey.had been pending for several
years before, the new rule of Court re
quiring tenants in possession to admit
themselves in possession, and if they did
not, they, would not be permitted to de
fend, and the plaintiffs insisted on the
rule, and two of the defendants disclaimed
title to the west half of the lot, and ad
mitted themselves in possession of the
other half,-
Held: That it was no error in the court
to refuse to continue the cause, on a mo
tion of plaintiffs, for the reason that the
other defendant was dead, and they de
sired time to make his representatives
parties. It was too late to make the
motion, unless the knowledge of the
death had just come to .the plaintiffs.—
The case should continue as to the east
half, and the rights of the deceased de
fendant would not he affected by the
verdict.
„ Where, on the trial of an action of
ejectment, a certain deed from the State’s
grantee had been lost or destroyed, and
interrogatories were offered of a witness
who'swore that he had seen the deed, it
was passed to him on his purchase of the
land between 1826 and 1830, from the
brother-in-law of the assumed maker;
that he did not remember the subscribing
witnesses; that he thought he had sent
the deed to DeKalb county for ]
cord, though he could rot 'say
that it was recorded; and there was proof
that the grant from the State had been
m the possession of the supposed maker
of the deed, shortly after the granting of
the land and afterwards; that the grantee
had said lt was burnt with the house he
flved in; xhat the supposed maker
of the lost deed had given the land in for
taxes, hut at about the time of the alleged
date of the lost deed, the supposed maker
of Lie lost deed had ceased to give the
land in _ for taxes, though he continued
to give in his other lands, and it was also
in proof that both the maker and grantee
were dead, and t tliat the court house of
DeKalb county had been destroyed bv
fire, with all the records:
Held, thattliese circumstances were pro
per to go to the jury as evidence worthy
of consideration, to show the genuineness
of the deed and justify the charge of the
Court, treating them as evidence, upon
that point.
Under the act of the Legislature, when
adverse possession of lands has commenc
ed to ran against a person before his
death, they do not cease to run against
him at his death in favor of his estate,
unless the administration is taken out
within five years.
Section 2690 of the Code requiring the
Court, upon an issue of the forgery of a
deed, to have the issue tried separately,
applies only to registered deeds, and
floes not cover a case, wheiff. the*e is no
registry, and the party gfesenfing the
deed takes it upon himseff to prove the
execution thereof.
Judgment affirmed.
T. W. J. Hill, R H. Clark, Collyer &
Hoyt and J. D. Pope, for plaintiff; J. M.
Calhoun &,Son, contra.
• ■’
Carhart & Bro. vs. M. E. Paramore—Re
lief Act of 1870.
McKAY, J. ....
The judgment of the Court in this case
is reversed on the ground that it appears
that the plaintiff in the suit had resided
out of this State at the making of the
contract, and continuously ever since, and
no legal taxes being due, the affidavit
was unnecessry; that all legal taxes had
been paid.
Judgment reversed.
Alexander & Wright for plaintiff; Un
derwood & Royal and Smith & Branham,
contra.
A. C. Wyly & Co. vs. Burnett & Rixey—
Confederate Currency.
Warner, J. jgnmKMIWMMi
Thiswas an action brought against the de
fendants,as commission merchants, to re
cover the value of several hundred pounds
of Scotch. Macaboy snuff, consigned to
defendants for sale during the years 1863
and 1864, and which was sold by them
for Confederate money. It appears that
the defendants did not keep the money
received by them for the snuff separate
and apart from their own money, but used
it themselves; however, they always had
and kept on hand enough to pay all out
standing demands against the firm; and
when-the war closed they had Confeder
ate-money more than enough to pay the
plaintiffs’demand, which died on their
hands; that the plaintiffs never de
manded the money of. them until after
the war. The court charged the jury
that if defendants sold part of the snuff
for Confederate treasury notes, and used
them for their own purposes, or mixed
them with their own, or with notes of a
lilt© character that-were received from
sales of the property of their consignees,
and used the notes thus mixed'for their
own purposes, that they then became
liable to pay the plaintiffs the value of
the notes thus used, at the.time they were
used. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiffs for the sum of $211.68. The
defendants made a motion for a new
trial,..on the ground that the court erred
in its cbarge.to the jury, , and on other
grounds, which were overruled by the
court, and defendants excepted. The
only ground of error insisted on in the
argument here was the alleged error iu
the charge of the court before recited.—
In view of the evidence, there was no
error in the charge of the court to the
jury as to the liability of the defendants
for the value of the Confederate money
for which they sold the plaintiffs’ snuff
and used for their own purposes. If the
defendants had deposited the Confederate
money for which they sold the snuff in
hank to plaintiffs’ credit, or had kept it
separately from their own. money for
them,- and had given the plaintiffs rea
sonable notice thereof, then if the plain
tiffs had failed to call for it, and the money
became worthless, it would have been the
plaintiffs’ loss;,but as the defendants
used the money as their own, without
giving the plaintiffs any notice that they
had the moneyfarising from the sale of
their snuff, they were liable for its value
at the time it was so used by them.
Judgment affirmed. '
Marcellus O. Markham vs. C. W. ilun-
nicutt. In Equity.
WARNER, J.
Court, wfren approved and signed by the lie was a good bookkeeper, but has
presiding judge as chancellor, and entered
on the nunotes of theCourt. Under our
system of equity practice, when any ques
tion of fact is involved the same shall be
decided by a special jury. Code 4147.
In this case the question of fact involved
was whether the conduct of the defend
ant at the sale of the lot was such a fraud
upon the complainant as would, accord
ing to the principles of justice and equity,
estop the defendant from enforcing his
mortgage lieu against the property, and
whether, under the evidence in the case,
He should be perpetually enjoined from
doing so. That was a question for the
jury to decide, and if the jury had
found a special verdict that the defend
ant should be perpetually enjoin
ed from enforcing his mortgage lien
against the lot purchased by the com
plainant, the legal presumption then
would be that the condilct of the de
fendant at the sale was a fraud on tlic
complainant, otherwise they would not
have found a verdict in favor of a per
petual injunction. But the jury have not
by their verdict found and decreed that
the defendant should be perpetually en
joined from enforcing bis mortgage lien
against the property which was their duty
to have clone, if they believed from the
evidence that the conduct of the defend
ant at the time-of the sale was a fraud
upon the complainant. All that the jury
have found by their verdict is that the
defendant was present at the sale and
that he was then and there present ancl
assenting to said -sale. Whether these
facts were or were not sufficient in the
opinion of the jury to establish a fraud
on the part of the' defendant, the verdict
is- silent. The‘legal presumption is that
inasmuch as they did not find and decree
a perpetual - injunction by their verdict
that they were not satisfied in relation to
.that material fact in the case, and until
the-jury had so found by their verdict it
was error in. the .Court to have entered a
decree for a perpetual injunction upon
that verdict.- The material issue in the case
was fraud or no fraud on the part of the
dedefendant, and the jury have not, by
their verdict, found for or against that
issue, and they not having done so, the
Court could not assume that they had,
and enter a decree pf estoppel thereon,
for nothing can be presumed to have been
found by the jury .other than those which
appear in their special verdict. If there
was fraud proved sufficient under the
law; to estop him, then tho jury should
have decreed a perpetual injunction; and
if not, then they should have found-a
verdict for the defendant. As there is
to be a new trial in the case, wo express
no opinion in regard to the merits.
Judgment reversed and new trial or
dered.
Pope & Brown, for plaintiff.; Collyer
& Hoyt and P. L. J. Mynatt, contra
Delilah M. Tenable vs. James W. Craig,
Sale of Property by Husband when
Separated front Wife.
McKAY, J. .
Where, a libel for divorce was filed in
1863, in Jackson county, and with it a
schedule.of the property owned by the
husband, at the time of the separation,,
in which-was included a city lot, in the
city of-Atlanta; and the husband, in 1866,
before the final verdict, sold the lot to a
purchaser, .who had no actual notice of
the libel, and the jury granted a divorce
on the final trial, and decreed the real
estate mentioned in the schedule, should
go to the wife, during her lifetime.
Hefcfi^iuat under section .1120.of the
Code, the sale by the husband, after the
filing of the'libel, the 1 said payment not
being in payment of pre-existing debts,
been informed he is not. One reason f !
his discharge was that ho wanted to -
move the books to another place, yf^
ness and A. L. Harris had spoken tc
getlier of McCalla’s unfitness for the 0 f
fice before he was removed.
Judge Hammock testified that McCh!
Ia objected to their taking possession c -'
his books, only on account of some
private letters which were among thenT
otherwise he invited a strict investiw’
tion.
Here the testimony closed. The de
fence offered no witness or evidence
whatever. Col. Farrow made a few re
marks. Oapt. John Milledge made an
argument of some length, and the case
was closed by Major Hargrove for the de
fence in a speech of one hour, in which
he handled the robbers of the public
with gloves off. As soon as the argu
ments closed, Judge Butt resumed the
case, remarking that thero was no ev‘
deuce to justify holding Major McCalla
to bail, and that liis reasons for this need
not be given, the ease being too plain.
ANOTHER HORRIBLE TRAG*
EJDY IN TENNESSEE.
Jit. John A. Simpson Cat to Plccna
Doswl and his Son. Wm. D. Simpler
Mortally Wounded. p 0,! '
llns was a bill filed for an injunction did not vest title in the purchaser. The
" 1 41 ' '' " purchaser bought subject.to said Verdict,
and his want of actual notice'does not
proteefchim. ; V.
Agreements pending a libel for divorce,
in. relation to alimony, are presumed to
be merged in the final verdict, and a
purchaser from the husband, pending
the divorce suit, is bound by the verdict,
as,is the' husband, unless the purchaser
can show.fraud in the judgment; and to
do this, he must attach..the judgment in
the Court where it was rendered. -
A schedule, filed in a pending divorce
suit, had the item, “one city lot iu At
lanta, worth $5,000.” c
Held: That .as such a schedule, pur
ports to be of the property of the hus
band, the description is sufficient to put
all the parties upon notice, if there be in
fact but one such lot. .[■
Judgment reversed. *
Warner, Jl, concurring; Lochrane, C.
J., dissenting.
Hillyer & Bro., for plaintiff; Robert
Bough, B. H. Thrasher, and Collyer &
Hoyt, contra. . ; .
to restrain the • defendant from sellin^
certain, described city lot in Atlanta, 'by
virtue of a mortgage fi. fa. in favor of the
mortgagee against one Holmes Sells. It
appears from the records that Sells exe
cuted a mortgage to the defendant for the
lot in controversy on the 19th .day of
July, 1866, which was duly recorded on
the 20th day of July, 1866, that after
wards an agreement was entered into be
tween the defendant and the mortgager;
that the lot should be sold by Sells and
the proceeds of the sale be applied to the
payment of defendant’s mortgage debt;
that on or about the 21st day of March,
1867, the lot was sold by Sells at public
auction by his agent, Adair, and pur
chased by complainant Hunnicntt for
the sum of $1,457, Sells making him a
deed to the lot as such purchaser. The
complainant alleges that he had no actual
notice of defendant’s mortgage; that the
defendant was present at the sale of the
lot when it was announced by the auc
tioneer; that the title to the lot was good
and the purchaser thereto would obtain a
clear title, &c.; that when complainant
had bid for the lot nearly its full value,
the defendant said to him that it was
good property and worth more than was
being bid for it. The complainant con
tinued to bid for the lot until it was
knocked off to him as the purchaser
thereof. The defendant gave no notice
of Lis mortgage lien, nor said anything
about his having a lien on the lot It
was insisted on the trial that the presence
of the defendant at the sale of the lot, his
silence in regard to his mortgage lien on
the property and his encouraging the de
fendant to bid for it, by saying to him it
was good property and was worth more
than was being bid fur it, when taken in
connection with the fact that the proper
ty was being sold by tho consent of the
defendant as mortgagee and the pro
ceeds of the sale were to be ap
plied iu payment of his mortgage
deed, was such a fraud upon
the complainant as the purchaser
as will now estop the defendant from set
tling up and enforcing his mortgage lien
against the complainant. On the trial the
jury returned the following special ver
dict: “We, -the jury, find that. Marcellu'
O. Markham was present at the sale made
by Geo. W. Adair, auctioneer, of the
property of Holmes Sells, on the 13tli
September, 1866, at which G. W. Hun-
nicuft became the purchaser of the lot
described in exhibit C, attached to
the within and foregoing bill, and
that said M. O. Markham was then
and there .present and assenting to said
sale.” On this special verdict, the pre
siding judge entered a decree that the
defendant be estopped from enforcin
THE ItIeCAL.IiA.,TRIAL,
Second Day's Proceedings—TJic Prisoner
Discharged.
At 81 o’clock yesterday morning the
trial of C. P. McCalla was resumed before
Justice Batt.
GoL Farrow proposed to introduce
witnesses to prove that defendant had
received monies of the W. and Atlantic
Railroad unlawfully} &c.
Major Hargrove for the defence, and
in order to save time, was willing to ad
mit tlio reception of any money which
the prosecution proposed to prove—or
any thing else.
Among other admissions by the de
fence was one, that a check in favor of
O. O. Johnson & Co., was drawn on
McCalla’s funds in bank, and that said
C. O. Johnson & Go., were merchants
doing business in the city, and that the
defendant was one of that firm.
G. F. Shillings testified that of his
own knowledge he knew nothing cf Mc
Calla’s receiving the $175; that he heard
McCalla say that Burnett got his portion
ox the $525, and Chamberlin got his, and
he (McCalla) received $175 for his servi
ces.
Foster Blodgett said lie appointed Mc-
Tlie Knoxville Press and Ilerahl gives
the following account of a terrible homi
cide, which occurred in Hawkins countv
fifty-six miles from Knoxville: *'
The circumstances, as we learn them,
are as follows:
Some time in August last, William D.
Simpson loaned a coat to-the younger
Patton, (the Pattons were tenants of Mr.
Simpson, and lived on his farm,) to wear
to church,- and instead. of returning it,
Patton wore it to Lee county, Virginia,
from whence he returned this week.—
Yesterday forenoon Simpson charged
young Patton with having stolen °his
coat, and received some abusive lan
guage in return, when a fight en
sued, in ' which young Patton was
worsted. Patton ran to his father’s house,
and he and his father returned, armed
with bowie knives, and attacked Mr.
John A. Simpson and his son. Mr.
Jolm A. Simpson was cut'ia the t)6Wels,
and only lived a sufficient length of time
to walk about twenty yards, when he fell
in the corner of a fence and expired.—
Mv. William D. Simpson received a cut
in the groin, and lay upon the ground
uutil carried to the house by the farm
hands.
' After accomplishing their fiendish pur
pose, thePattons returned to their homes,
where the old man mounted a horse,
wliiie the son walked, and started to
wards the mountains. ThoPattonshave
borne a bad reputation for some years.
The old man is between sixty and
seventy years pf age, and partially para
lysed. His son. is about eighteen years
old, and well grown for his age. Mr.
John A. Simpson was about fifty, and
his son William about eighteen years of
age. As soon as possible a party was or
ganized and started in ‘pursuit of tho
murderers, and, as they took but one
horse, and that a very o"d one, it is quite
possible that they will be captured.
— ivir. ooim-^A., Simpson is one of the
oldest and ’most influential citizens of
the county, well known as a merchant
and business mau throughout the South,
NEW YORK.
What tlie Gothamites arc Do*
his mortgage lien upon the lot purchased ! Calla General Bookkeeper in 1870; kisser
by complainant, and perpetually enjoin- vices commence on the first day of August.
ing him from doing so. The defendant
made a motion to set aside the verdict
and decree, and for a new trial, which
His wages were at the rate of $2,000 per
annum till the first of December, when
was overruled by the Court, and the de-1 the same was increased to $2,500 per an-
fendant excepted,
It is true that the jury in equity causes
may find a special vea-dict, decreeing the
performance of a specific duty by the de
fendant, and unless that decree is found
by the jury upon the facts ascertained bv
them, it is made the judgment of the
The Bookkeeper has no authority to
pay himself; but his account must pass
throsigh the regular channel. Ha-known
McCalla for fifteen or twenty years.
Thought at the ;ime he appointed him
Correspondence of the Atlanta Sun'..
New York, September 30, 1S71:
Editors. Sun: Tho great excitement
here at present, that absorbs everything
else,_ is the alleged framies by tjie city
officials, but as we see all through the
medium of the New York press, I will
not attempt to give my impressions. Of
course, those papers that get the city ad
vertising, sustain the administration, and
those which are slighted, abuse it. As
the slang phrase goes, “You know how it
is yourself ” so'how can an outsider ar
rive at the truth ? One thing is quite
certain, and that is, that the city
never had a more efficient Mayor,
nor one who seemed so much alive to"ker
interests, and to beautifying and improv
ing her condition. New streets are being
opened; all the old squares aro being torn
up and modernized, while “Central
Park” is even more beautiful than the
far-famed “Bois de Boulogne.”
There was quite a demonstration a few
days since by the eight-hour working
men, mostly composed of foreigners, ancl
calling themselves - “the Internationals.”
The spirit which actuates them is the
same which prompted the Commu
nists of Paris to such horrible deeds, and
every conservative man, whether he be
Republican or Democrat, must regard
such demonstrations with fear and trem
bling for the future.
The theaters are all in full blast, but it
is not yet the season for the “stars.”
The fashionables are rapidly returning
to the city, and all the world is on tip
toe in anticipation of the expected arri
val of the Grand Duke Alexis. A grand
ball is to he given him, and the “ dear
creatures” are all in a flutter as to wheth
er they will be invited, and as to what
they shall wear, if so fortunate.
Amongst tho literary ladies from the
South, I have had the pleasure of meet
ing Mis3 Brock, the Virginia poetess;
Mrs. Battey, the saucy, piquante repor
ter, and Mrs. Tucker, who 13 well and
favorably known in Georgia.
In every avenue of business, and in
every profession here, one finds South
erners, and I am happy to report that
they are all doing well. A day, or two
since I paid a visit to the “Foundling
Asylum of the Sisters of Charity,” and I
have rarely seen a more interesting sight.
It was established about two years since,
and in that short period nearly three
thousand little ones have beau cared for.
Of course there is much said about it, pro
and con; some contending that it prevents
crime, while others insist that it increases
it. Tv ell, each one to his taste, it is impos
sible to please all. This is a great big,
busy, rushing world of itself, and the
few Ku-Klux outrages in the South,
which have been magnified through Rad
ical feurs, sink into insignificance,
when compared to the crimes that here
stalk at midnight and do. not cower be
neath even the noonday sun. Fearing I
have already tresspassed too Fug upon
your patience, ancl promising to vrite
again soon. Yours, &c., W.
XNDtSTlWCT PRINT
