Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY, SUN FOR THE WEEK ENDING JULY 31 1872.
tWE ATLANTA SUN
From the Constitution.]
BKALs 507=3 OF TIIK DKC1S1UNS OF
THE SDPKEMR COURT OF GEORGIA.
Delivered in Atlanta Tuesday, July 23, ’72.
Whorton tind Bell vs. J. W. Josej. Com
plaint, from Webster.
WARNER, C.J. . . ,
The plaintiff brought his notion against
the defendants for persuading, enticing
and decoying off from his employment
on his plantation, two servants, to wit:
Isaac Brown and his wifo Emily. On. the
,rial of the case the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum of $1J100.
The defendants made a motion for a new
trial on the several grounds set forth in
the record, which was overruled and the
defendants excepted. It appears from
the evidence on the record, that on the
4th day of January, 1871, the plaintiff
made a contract with Brown, and em
ployed him as a laborer to work on his
plantation for that year, and moved him
and bis wife there the next day thereaf
ter; did not know that Brown bad been
employed by Whorton; on the 7th Janu
ary the defendants removed Brown and
his wife from plaintiff’s plantation to
Sampson Betts.
It also appears from the evidence, that
Brown, at the time he hired himself to
the plaintiff, was living with Whorton,
one of the defendants, and had been liv
ing with him the previous year, and was
indebted ,to him the sum $24 00; that
Brown had contracted with Whorton to
split rails for him to pay the debt; this
contract had not been complied with
when the defendants removed Brown and
his wife from the plaintiff’s plantation.
This suit was commenced on the 21st of
February, 1871. In our judgment, the
plaintifl had no cause of action against
the defendants until the expiration of
the time for which Whorton had em
ployed the servant to split the rails in
payment of his debt in the exercise of
ordinary labor and diligence for that
purpose. Until the servant had com
pleted his prior contract with Whorton,
the plaintiff had no claim to his services
' under his contract. So far as it is shown
by the record at the time the suit was
commenced, Brown, the servant, was in
the legal employment of Whorton.
The plaintiff’s right to his services un
der his contract did not accrue until af
ter the expiration of the servant’s con
tract with Whorton. If the defendants
had detained the servant for an unrea
sonable time, under the pretext of per
forming his con tract with them, or either
of them, and thereby deprived the plain
tiff of his service under his contract, with
knowledge of the some, then the plain
tiff would have had a cause of action
against them. Let the judgment of the
Court below be reversed.
W. A. Hawkins, Hawkins & Guerry,
Thoma3 H. Pickett, for plaintiffs in er
ror; no appearance for defendant.
John Wood vs. The State. Burglary,
from Sumter.
McCAY, J.
Burglary is the breaking and entering
the dwelling-house of another with an
intent to commit a felony or a larceny,
and the indictment must allege such in
tent. It is not sufficient in an indict
ment for burglary to allege that the de
fendant broke, etc., and having so enter
ed did steal certain goods.
A fatal defect in an indictment cannot
be taken advantage of by directing the
jury to find a verdict of not guilty. The
proper method before which is to demur,
or after verdict, to move in arrest of
judgment.
A motion for a new trial on the ground
that the indictment is fatally defective,
though not strickly proper, will be sus
tained under the practice in this State.
John R. Worrill, Jack Brown, A. R.
Brown, for plaintiff in error. Hawkins
& Guerry, O. F. ‘Crisp, Solicitor Gener
al, represented by Charles B. Hudson,
for the State.
A man guilty of keeping a lewd house
within the meaning of section 4462 of
the Code, if open and notorious lewdness
is practiced therein by Ids wife and
daughters, in his presence, with his con
sent or without his dissent.
It is not an expression of opinion by
the Judge, as to what has been proven
on the triad of an indictment for keeping
a lewd house, to say to the defendant’s
attorney (who is addreasing the Court
upon the law of the case,) in reply to the
claim of the attorney, that there muBt be
proof that the defendant kept the house
for profit. “It makes no difference
whether he keeps it for profit or pleasure,
he is guilty.”
When the State’s counsel in a crimi
nal case, in addressing a jury, is making
statements not in proof, and one of the
defendant’s counsel objects, but another
says let him go on, it is not a ground for
new trial, if the Judge fail to interfere
until the matter is again insisted upon
by the defendant’s counsel; nor will the
verdict be set aside because the Judge in
his charge fails to say to the jury that
they are not to n'otice such statements,
there being no request for such a charge.
Judgment affirmed.
C. T. Goode, Fort & Hollis, John D.
Carter, for plaintiff in error; C. F. Crisp,
Solicitor General, represented by Chas.
B. Hudson, for the State.
D.,G. Patterson vs. J. H. Wallace. Ille
gality, from Sumter.
MONTGOMERY, J.
Where an execution, issued on a judg
ment obtained upon a contract made be
fore June, 1865, is levied on land, and
defendant makes an affidavit of illegality
on the ground that no tax affidavit is at
tached to the fi. fa., which is met by a
counter affidavit that the purchase of the
land levied on by the defendant, from
plaintiff was the foundation of the debt,
and that defendant is still in possession
of the 'and; an amendment of the de
fendant’s affidavit, stating that the land
has been set aside to him as a homestead,
and that the plain tiff appeared before the
Ordinary and objected to the granting of
the homestead on the same ground now
presented as an excuse for not filing the
tax affidavit, which objection was over
ruled, and that the question is therefore
res adjudioata between them, raises an is
sue as to whether the question was adju
dicated or not, which snould have been
regularly tried. Judgment reversed.
W. A. Hawkins, represented by R. F.
Lyon, for plaintiff in error; N. A. Smith,
M. R. Stausell, for defendant.
Gilbert M. Stokes vs. the State of Geor
gia and county, of Lee. Claim from
Lee.
MONTGOMERY, J.
A sale of* the land by the assignee of a
bankrupt does not divest tbe lien of the
State upon the land for taxes due on it
even though sold by the assignee free of
incumbrance.
2. An execution issued by the Tax Col
lector for the unpaid taxes against the
land, which has not been returned by
any one, describing it as the property of
the persons who last returned it, is valid
against the land although such persons
may no longer be the owners of it and
may not have owned it at the time the
law fixes the liability for taxes, to-wit:
the first day of April. Judgment affirm
ed.
Hines & Hobbs, G. J. Wright for plain
tiff’ in error; Lyon & Irwin for defendant.
Sarah Erambert vs. Jas. J. Scarborough.
Motion to set aside judgment, from
Sumter,
MONTGOMERY, J.
A judgment rendered by the Judge of
the Superior Court, without the verdict
of a jury in a civil case founded on con
tract, when an issuable defense is filed
on oath, should be set aside. Judgment
reversed.
John R. Worrill, for plaintiff in error;
N. A. Smith, A. R. Brown, represented
by i>. P. Hollis, for defendant.
J. P. West vs. J. A. Kendrick. In
junction, from Sumter.
McCAY, J.
In a suit on a promissory note due to
A, a sett off duo to the (defendant by a
partnership of which A is a member,
cannot be pleaded either at law or equity
unless there be special circumstances also
pleaded, to avoid the want of mutuality
between the two debts. ‘Judgment af
firmed.
VLanier & Anderson, for plaintiff in er
ror. J. A. Ansley, represented by B. P.
Hollis, for defendant.
B. J. Hart, Receiver, et al., vs. M. Laz-
aron. Injunction, from Sumter.
McCAY, J.
An injunction will not be granted to
restrain the enforcement of a judgment
when it appears by the bill that the Court
in which the judgment was obtained had
no jurisdiction. The remedy at law is
complete either by an affidavit of ille
gality or by action of trespass. Judg
ment reversed.
Hawkins & Guerry, represented by
Clark and Goss, W. A. Hawkins, for
plaintiffs in error; C. T. Goode, for de
fendant.
Samuel M. Smith vs. E. D Eason—Com
plaint, from Schley.
McCAY, J.
A deed, or bond for titles to a tract
of land, by its number in the State sur
vey, binds the possessor to moke title to
the land within the boundaries of suoh
survey, and if a part be sold off before
the date of the deed, this is a breach of
the bond, nor is this breach excused by
the fact that the quantity sold off is small,
and the bond describes the number con
taining 2021 acres, more or less.
■ Proof that the obligee in a bond lor
titles, knew that the obligor was not the
owner of the whole of the land described
in the bond; is no reply to a plea of a
breach, unless it appear that tnere was a
mistake in the description.
When the defendant, in a suit of law,
sets up a legal defense, and the plaintiff
desires to reply some equitable matter,
he may do so, but he must amend his
declaration so as to plainly and distinct
ly set forth such equitable reply. Judg
ment reversed.
W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
Hudson & Wall, for defendant.
Malta Scarborough vs. The State. Keep
ing a lewd house, from Sumter.
McCAY, J.
On the trial of an inditement for keep
ing a lewd house, under section 4462 of
the Code, it is not necessary to show
that the master of the house kept the
same for profit. It is efficient if it ap
pear that the lewdness carried on
with his permission or in bis presenoe
l without his dissent. g
Camp and Kemp, et al., vs. S. Mayer,
assignee, et al. Equity, from Dough
erty.
MONTGOMERY, J.
1. An analysis of sections 3042, 3082,
3083, 4143 and 4144 of Irwin’s Revised
Code shows that when an auditor or
master in chancery makes a report upon
matters of account referred to him, the
party against whom the report operates,
may file two classes pf exceptions; first,
for alleged errors of law on the part of
the referee; secondly, for alleged errors
in his report as to the facts found. The
first is for the exclusive consideration of
the Court under section 3083. The facts
found by the report are for the consid
eration of the Court in the first instance,
after which, if proved by him, the report
becomes prima facie evidence of their
truth, subject to be overthrown by tes
timony before the jury.
2. On the trial of issues raised by ex
ceptions to an Auditor’s report, which
has been approved by the Judge,the facts
reported will be taken as true,unless rebut
ted by evidence, or unless the record
shows that evidence to rebut them was
offered and illegally rejected by the
Court.
3. An assignment for the benefit of
creditors by an insolvent debtor, the
terms of which contemplate that it is to
be signed by all the creditors, is binding
on none unless all sign.
4. Where such an assignment has been
agreed to by a portion of the creditors,
who file a bill to enjoin other creditors,
(whose claims are in judgment, and who
are proceeding to levy on the property
assigned,) and compel them to come in
under the assignment, an assent by the
latter to an order granting the injunc
tion, appointing a receiver, and also an
auditor to audit the accounts and report
upon their amounts and priorities will
not amount to an assent by the levying
creditors to the assignment, even though
they may not have filed any plea, demur
rer or answer to the bill.
5. If the Judge holds, erroneonsly,
that an assignment partially executed,
as above indicated, is the law of the case,
but that by its provisions the assets
were to be divided aocording to legal
priorities, and the judgment of the Court
(to whom both the law and the facte were
by agreement submitted without a jury),
so divides them, this Court will not grant
a new trial, even though the construc
tion of the terms of the assignment by
the Judge was incorrect, and there was
no exception taken by the opposite party
to his ruling that the assignment was the
law of the case.
6. Laborers* lien% under the Consti
tution, attach from the time of the per
formance of the labor. Their inception
is not postponed until foreclosure.
7. Partnership assets must first satisfy
partnership debts before individual debts,
or debts of a former partnership, of
which one of the present firm was a mem
ber, can be paid.
8. Where an exception to an auditor’s
report directly contradicts the report,
the former should be supported by
proof.
9. It is not necessary, under ouz prac
tice, that an auditor should append to
his report the evidence on which it is
based. Judgment affirmed.
D. H. Pope, Btines & Hobbs, for
plaintiffs in error. Clark & Goss, Yason
& Davis, G. J. Wright, L. P. D. War
ren, F. M. Harper, for defendants.
McCay, J., concurred, but furnished
no written opinion.
WARNER, C. J., dissenting.
This was a bill filed by the complain
ants against the defendants praying an
injunction, and for the appointment of a
receiver to take charge of the property
and effects specified in a deed of assign
ment, executed on the 31st day of Octo
ber, 1871, by Schaub & Lawton to Sam
uel Mayer, in trust for the payment of
all their creditors. The allegations in
the bill are that the creditors are numer.
ous, the property scattered along the
line of a railroad in different counties,
and that some of the creditors were pro
ceeding to enforce their respective liens
upon the property, whereby great dam
age would result to the property convey
ed, as well as loss to the creditors of
Schrub & Lawton, who are insolvent.
The prayer of the bill is that the cred
itors may be restrained by injunction
from enforcing a sale of the property un
der their respective leins, and that a re
ceiver be appointed to collect the prop
erty together, specified in the deed of as
signment, until the further order of court.
This bill was no- filed for the purpose
of setting aside the deed of assignment,
but to enforce the execution of it for the
benefit of all the creditors of Schaub &
Lawton, as specified in the deed. The
Judge granted a temporary injunction
on the 8th November, 1871. On the 18th
cf November, 1871, the presiding Judge
granted the injunction as prayed for in
the bill, and in the order it is recited
that upon a meeting of the parties in
this case, and upon their agreement, it
is ordered that the injunction prayed for
in said bill be and is hereby granted. It
is further ordered that Samuel Mayer be
appointed Receiver, to take charge of all
the property mentioned and included in
said deed of assignment, and that he ad
vertise said property and sell the same to
the highest bidder at Albany on the 2d
day of December next for cash.
It was further ordered that Wm. E.
Smith be appointed Auditor, to hear
proof of the amount, and the priority of
each claim on said fund, and that his re
port shall include the amount of the
funds which the Receiver’s sale shall
show subject to distribution, and the
amount that may be due each creditor,
according to the evidence and the law.—
The property of Schaub & Lawton spe
cified in the deed of assignment was sold
by the Receiver under the order of .the
Court The Auditor made his report of
the amount of the sale of the property
and of the amount and priority of each
claim on the fund, giving to the claim
ants, who were mechanics and laborers a
priority of lien on the fund, and report
ed in favor of the payment of their
claims in preference to the ether credi
tors of Schaub & Lawton. Exceptions
were filed to the Auditor’s report.
When the case came before the Court
for trial it was agreed by the coun
sel representing the parties before it
that the presiding Judge should act both
as Judge and jury, reserving all right of
exceptions they might have, as if the
case had been submitted to a jury, and
not in any manner to be bound by the
arbitration laws. There were several
exceptions filed to the Auditor’s report,
one of which was—“Because said fund,
coming into court under a deed of as
signment, all creditors clqim pro rata
under that deed, and after paying court
costs and Auditor’s fees, and attorney’s
fees, there are no preferences or priorities
in favor of any creditors, but they must
all come in pro rata, and so much of
said report as gives any preference, is
illegal.” The court overruled this ex
ception to the Auditor’s report, as well
as all the others, holding that the words
“equally divide the proceeds between
said creditors,” in said assignment,
meant equally divide according to the
priorities created by law. The Court
rendered a decree confirming the Audi
tor’s report and this is assigned as error.
The main question in this case is
whether the decree rendered upon the
bill filed to enforce the execution'of the
trust in the deed of assignment, as set
forth in the bill, was made iu accordance
with the terms and provisions of that
deed; in other words, whether the law,
as applicable to the evidence furnished
by that deed as a part of the record of the
case, authorized the decree. The deed
of assignment recites that Schaub &
Lawton being unable to pay their debts,
and to prevent a waste of their valuable
property by useless litigation, conveyed
the same to Mayer, to have and to hold
said property upon trust, to advertise
thirty days for all claims against Schaub
& Lawton, and upon ten days’ notice to
sell said property at public or private
sale as said Mayer may determine to be
best, and upon such sale to equally divide
the proceeds thereof between the creditors of
Schaub <£ Lawton. Mayer is one of the
complainants in the bill, praying the aid
ot the Court, to enable him to carry into
effect this deed of assignment according
to the true intent and meaning thereof.
The property specified in the deed of
assignment, was the property of Schaub
& Lawton, and they had the legal right
to convey it to Mayer in trust, for the
payment of all their creditors, in the
manner therein stipulated, provided
their creditors were willing to accept it
upon the terms specified in the deed,
and when the court ordered the sale of
the property in the hands of Mayer, the
trustee, under the deed of assignment,
as the property of Schaub & Lawton,the
proceeds of the sale thereof should have
been equally divided between their cred
itors, claiming under that deed, and not
equally divided between them, accord
ing to the priorities created by law. Such
were not the terms of the deed convey
ing the properly, and if the creditors of
Schaub & Lawton claim the proceeds of
the sale of the property under that deed
of assignment, as they undoubtedly do,
they must claim it in accordance with
the terms nnd provisions of that deed,
and not otherwise. *
When this bill was filed by the com
plainants to enforce the execution of the
trust created by the deed of assignment,
and it was served on the creditors of
Schaub & Lawton, wlio were attemptin_
to enforce their laborers’ and mechanics’
lieus, enjoining them from proseonting
the same, if they mteuded to attack and
repudiate tbe deed of assignment set
forth in the bill, they should have made
their defense thereto, have filed their
answers, and moved the Court to dissolve
the injunction, and have insisted on the
priority of their respective liens. They did
not do so, but on the contrary, consented
that the injunction prayed for should be
granted, the property included in the
deed of assignment sold, and the funds
arising therefrom be distributed accord
ing to the evidence and the law. That
the bill was filed to enforce the execu
tion of the trust created by the deed of
assignment for the benefit of Schaub
& Lawton’s creditors as therein specified,
there can.be no doubt, and all the pro
ceedings in the case were had under that
bill and the exhibits attached thereto,
that was the evidence before the Chan
cellor as to the manner in which the
fund was to be distributed between their
creditors.
If a judgment creditor of Schaub &
Lawton had filed a bill against Mayer,
the trustee, to enforce the trust for the
benefit of their creditors generally, it
would have been a waiver of his judg
ment lien upon the} fund. Jones, vs.
Dougherty, 10th Georgia Report, 274.
So if their creditors who had prior liens
upon their property as laborers, or me
chanics, consented that the property con
veyed to the trustee by the deed of as
signment should be sold and that they
would claim the proceeds of the sale
thereof, it was a waiver of tbe priority
of their liens, and they cannot assert
them in the distribution of the fund.
There is no consent in the record that
the fund should be distributed according
to the priointy of the respective creditors'
liens, and Schaub & Lawton most cer
tainly have not consented that the pro
ceeds of the sale of their property
should be distributed in that manner be
tween their creditors, when they had ex
pressly provided in their deed of assign
ment that it should be equally divided
between them. By consenting to come
in and claim the proceeds of the sale of
the property as the creditors of Schaub
& Lawton under the deed of assign
ment, they adopt and affirms, its provis
ions. There is no attempt to set aside
the deed of assignment by any of the
creditors of Schaub & Lawton, and they
are not parties before the court, but on
the contrary the sole object of the bill
under which the entire proceedings were
had, was to enforce the execution of the
trust as specified in the deed created by
them lor the benefit of all their credi
tors.
But it is insisted that, inasmuch as the
order of the Judge granting the injunc
tion and appointing the receiver recites
that it was done by the consent of the par
ties; that that alters and changes the status
of the claims of the creditors as specified
in the deed of assignment, in regard to
the manner in which the same should be
paid out of the fund arising from the
sale of the property conveyed by the deed.
The order appointing the auditor direct
ed him to hear proof of the amount, and
priority of each claim on said fund; that
is to say, the fund arising from the sale
of the property included in the deed of
assignment which the Judge in the same
order directed to be sold. To ascertain
the amount and priority of each credi
tor’s claim is one thing; to order thepay
ment of such claims out of the fund aris
ing from the sale of the property con
yeyed by the deed of assignment, accord
ing to the legal priority of such claims, is
another, and quite a different thing, and
much the most important question, in
view of the express words of the deed
conveying the property.
It will be noticed that the Auditor is
not only required by the order to hear
proof of the amount, and priority of each
claim, but he is also required by the
order to report the amount of the funds ;
which the Receiver’s sale shall show sub
ject to distribution, and the amount that
maybe due each creditor according to
the evidence and the law. Although some
of the creditors of Schaub & Lawton may
have had prior liens upon their property,
independent of the deed of assignment
conveying their property in trust for the
benefit of all their creditors; still, when
they claim, under that deed of assign
ment, the law is, that they must take in
accordance with its terms; they cannot
claim under the deed of assignmet, and
repudiate any essential part of it. The
order of the Judge directing the Auditor
to hear proof of the amount and priority
of each claim, did hot necessarily require
him to report in favor of the payment of
any particular class of claims in preference
to others out of the fund in the hands of
the Receiver; but he was required to re
pert the amount that may be due each
creditor, according to the evidence and
the law, and if the evidence showed that
he was a creditor of Schaub & Lawton
then, under the law as appliable to this
deed of assignment, he was to be paid in
accordance with its terms and provisions,
not otherwise.
It would be an unreasonable and forced
construction to hold that the words in
the deed of assignment to equally divide
the proceeds of the sale of the property
conveyed thereby between said creditors
of Schaub & Lawton meant to be equally
divided according to the priorities creat
ed by law. The exceptions*-to the Audi
tor’s report, and the assignment of er
rors thereon to the rulings of the court
are all specially and distinctly set forth
in the bill of exceptions presented to the
Judge for his signature, and he has cer
tified that the same are true; one ol
which is “that the court, after holding
that the deed of assignment from Schaub
& Lawton to Samuel Mayer, was the law
of the case as to priority, and-in constru
ing the words equally divide the pro
ceeds between said creditors in said deed
of assignment to mean equally divide
according to the priorities created by
law, and then holding that Vogt & Co.
had no lein on the fund.”
Now, if the Judge did not distribute
the fund arising from the sale cf Schaub
& Law;on's property under the deed'of
assignment, and according to his con
struction of the words of that deed, then
his certificate that he did so is niA true.
But I take the certificate of the presiding
Judge to be true, and that he decided
as he has certified that he did, in con
struing the words contained in the deed
of assignment, which construction was
error, in my judgment. I am therefore
of the opinion that the judgment of the
Court below should be reversed.
Eloquent Trijbutc* to the Memory nnd
Service, Purity, Patriotism nnd Integ
rity ot Hon. liinton Stephens.
Immediately upon the permanent or-
gadization of the Convention on Wednes-
day; Hon. George F. Pierce, of Hancock,
offered resolutions memorial of the death
of Hon. Linton Stephens. After sub
mitting the resolutions, which we pub
lished yesterday, Mr. Pierce arose, and
in a touching manner and trembling
voice, eloquent with sorrow for the de
ceased, and sympathy for the surviving
family and friends, spoke as follows :
Mr. Chairman and GeriUemen of the Con
vention:
For myself and associate delegates
from the county of Hancock, and for the
stricken and bereaved county which we
have the honor to represent in this con
vention, I move the adoption of the reso
lutions which have just been read. ’ I
conceive it to be eminently proper that
the Democratic party of Georgia should
deplore. the untimely death of the
distinguished gentleman to whom the
resolutions relate, for in all the
length and breadth of the land none
could be found more steadfastly attached
to its principles, and none more vali
ant always to battle for their defense.—
think it extremely becoming that
Georgia should mourn the loss of her
illustrious son, for amoDg all her chil
dren, those who yet live to do her honor,
and those whose dust is now mingling
with his in her honored soil, there was
none whose heart pulsated to the com
mon mother with stronger and more earn
est love. It is well that the voice of an
gry contention should be hushed to silence
to-day, and that all the lovers of consti
tutional liberty, who are assembled here
should join in common love to do him
honor, for, since the days when Hamp
den and Sydney died, none have lived
who loved liberty more dearly than did
he.
The negro, Dick Delvin who killed
his father-in-law at Marsuallville, last
week, is now in Perry ja.i, awaiting his
trial.
Bishop Wightiuau preached three ser
mons in Oartersville last week during the
! meeting »<f tu.e District Conference.
I do not propose to-day,Mr. Chairman,
to undertake to pronounce any eulogium
upon the illustrious dead. Let this be
done—not by those who loved him more,
for there were none, but by those abler
to do it well, for, sir, only a master’s
hands should strike the chords which
make the music to sing his praise. It is
my purpose, in the name of my county,
simply to submit the resolutions which
have been read, and to commit to Geor
gia’s keeping the priceless memories of
his public life.
When this duty shall have been dis-
chargad, Hancock’s delegation will re
turn to their people and his—to those
who knew him best and loved him most
—and joined together we shall keep in
hallowed remembrance his local service
and his private worth.
And standing here to-day, sir, in the
midst of Georgia’s distinguished living,
andiu presence of her honored dead, re
membering all the glories which cluster
along the line of her history, it is my
privilege for my county to say that we
proudly feel that if we have contributed
nothing more to the greatness of our
mother State, the gift of the distin
guished ability and distinguished virtue
of Linton Stephens makes as bright a
jewel as sparkles in the gathered treas
ures of her glorious past.
Mr. Pierce was immediately followed
by
HON. JULIAN HARTKEDGE,
who in his peculiarly impressive manner
and spirited words, spoke in substance:
Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the
Convention:
I beg leave to second the gentleman’s
motion. While I recognize the ability
of the gentleman to do justice to his
honored and illustrious colleague, now,
alas! numbered with the dead, I ask the
privilege to render my tribute to the
memory of the noble deceased. True,
he was the honored citizen of a single
county, yet he belonged to the whole
State, which aside from the ties of fami
ly and relations, he loved better than all
the world—better than the emoluments
of wealth, honors, distinction, and power
combined. Wherever the State’s interest,
principles, honor, and integrity were
concerned, there his heart beat, and beat
warmly!
I beg the privilege of seconding the
resolution of the gentleman from Han
cock the home of the distinguished dead.
Though he lived in a community remote
from my portion of the State, yet in
spirit he was ever near, and our hearts
ever beat in true accord in the desire to
improve, uphold and maintain the honor
and integrity of our common State, and
promote the welfare of the noble old
Commonwealth that gave us birtb, and
therefore we feel that he belonged to us
as well as to others.
For as it is in a private family when a
loved child dies, a chord is touched, a
sympathy is excited and a tear is to he
shed over the last and lamented remains.
So it is when a man distinguished by
virtue, intellect and devotion to State,
a champion of her honor and liberties,
is cut off by an all-wise Providence, then
every citizen feels as if one of his family
has died.
Therefore, I lay the humble tribute to
the memory of an honored and beloved
fellow-citizen, and to the dead brother of
one whose hearthstone is draped in sor
row and desolation. And, though one
brother is mouldering in the grave—sa
cred sepulchre of a departed patriot—
there is another still left who has, is now,
and will ever be dear to Georgia, whose
heart, clothed in sackcloth, is bowed in
humility to his God, and whose head,
venerable with wisdom and age, is cov
ered with ashes.
HON. WARREN ATKIN
then arose, and in a touching tone of
voice, modulated, as it seemed, by a sor
rowful heart, spoke substantially:
Mr. Chairman I beg to bring some
tribute to the memory of the noble and
distinguished dead. The gentleman
from Hancock, when he spoke of his
stricken and bereaved community, would
have been more correct to state that
Georgia had been stricken and bereaved.
I have known tbe deceased long and
well. I have seen him at the Bar of
Justice, in the Forum, in the Assembly,
on the Bench—everywhere; and I have
ever found him a man of truth, honor
and principle, and, of ah, the ennobliDg
virtues becoming a man and patriot—;al-
ways reliable, honest and avowed, in
everything that pertained to his associa
tion with his fellow-man, and his doc
trines regarding National or State policy.
If opposed, he was ever Honorable and
liberal. He JLved the truth and desisedp
all that was low and mean. Ever ready
to cooperate with the good aud patriotic
he made no compro mise with the wick
ed. He was a hero among the fearless,
and a terror to the dishonest and evil
doer.
I hope the resolution of the gentleman
from Hancock will be adopted bv a rising
vote. Linton Stephens, that loved name 1
He sleeps the sleep of death. Yet, while
Georgia has patriots, though she should
lie groveling in the dust under a con
queror’s heel, subdued to despair with
the melancholy music of the victor’s
clanking chains, or should she mount
higher aud assert triumphantly her liber
ties and honor, while there are women who
love free government, and thank God •
they do love it with the warmest pulsa
tions of their patriotic hearts, there will •
be a hallowed remembrance of Linton
Stephens, the champion of his State’s
aud country’s honor, and the valiant de
fender of his beloved people.”
HON. ALBERT R. LAMAR
then arose, and with that beautiful dic
tion so peculiar to his finished and charm
ing elocution, spoke as follows:
Mr. President: I trust I shall not weary
the patience of this Convention if I ask
a moment in which to lay an offering
upon the grave of my friend; a friend
whose devotion and fidelity outlived po
litical vicissitudes, and yielded only to a
common conqueror. It is meet that
Georgia should pay funeral rites to one
of her noblest sons.
It is proper that we, his friends and
companions, should send words of con
dolence and sympathy to his stricken
household. «
And I may safely say, that there is not
a heart in this assembly that does not
cherish a tender feeling for him; whose
hearthstone, has been made dark and des
olate by this terrible affliction. *
The time and the occasion will not
permit me to pass an euloginm upon the
character and services of Linton Ste
phens; but the future historian may find
in his name and fame much withwmch to
adorn and ennoblo the annals of these
troublous times.
He was a Spartan in all the sterner
virtues of manhood; a Bayard in cour
age, integrity and accomplishments. We
who have seen him fac9 fearful odds in
vindication and defense of the rights of
his people, have had cause to say,
“ How high a pitch his resolution soars."
I can recall a recent incident which il
lustrates the salient point in his charac
ter. At the late Convention which pre
ceded this, he stood almost unaided
and alone in a contest, upon the other
side of which were arrayed many of the
most cherished friends of his life.
There are gentlemen here who can bear
testimony as to how ho bore himself in
that contest.
You and I, Mr. President, will remem
ber how a gentleman returning from the
room of the Committee on Business,
with voice and face aglow with admira
tion, remarked to me: “Is not Linton
Stephens a man of iron soul ?”
He was indeed sir; and if mortals are
permitted to take into another world,
the temperaments of this, we may feel
assured that our departed friend is steer
ing his barque on Eternity’s ocean, with,
a sublime and unfaltering faith, that he
will reach a haven of rest in the sun-light
of Mercy and Love on the other shore.
Mi 1 , President, the mute faces that
look down upon ns from these walls to
day, are fitting reminders that broad
acres, crowded marts, beautiful temples,
and hoarded millions, are the least of
the great elements which constitute a.
State. They tell us that brave and vir
tuous men are the greatest glories of the
Commonwealth.
And in the heroic mould in which
these men were cast, was cast Linton
Stephens, body and soul.
But one moon has waxed since he sat
here in the prime and plenitude of vig
orous health and intellectual prowess.
In the night that shall follow this day,
that same moon will shed her waning
sheen upon the spot where he sleeps in
the embrace of Ins honored Mother.
In time we too, sir, shall cease our •
strifes, and our pride, our ambition, and
our hopes, will follow us to the grave.
In view then, of this sudden and start
ling blow, which has fallen in our midst,
may we not, with bowed heads and bur
dened hearts, exclaim:
“ What shadows wo are—
What shadows we pursue 1”
Tricks of the
Greeley Party in Clay.
County.
Fort Gaines, Ga., July 21, 1872.
Editors Sun: A few Democrats, togeth
er with a small number of ‘Democratic Be-
publicans,” (there are not many of the
latter in the county,) held a meeting in
Fort Gaines on Saturday last, to send
delegates to the Convention in Atlanta,
to nominate candidates for Governor and
Electors. There being no division in
sentiment upon the Gubernatorial ques
tion, and as there is no Democratic can
didate for President, the Democrats felt
but little interest in the meeting, and',
did not attend. The “ Democratic Re
publicans” (would “oily water” be a cor
rect expression ?) seeing the advantage
they bad, passed resolutions indorsing
the action of the Baltimore Convention.
It will thus be published to the world,'
that notwithstanding the strong opposi- -
tion to Greeley among Democrats in -
Clay county before his nomination, they ■
have now consented to be driven like ■
sheep, and obey the mandates of their
would-be masters of the Baltimore-Cin-
cinnati-Liberal-Demoeratic -Republican,
“any thing to beat Grant” party.
It is not true. We have not bowed the -
Knee to. Baal and thank God, I believe,
we never will.
There were just twenty eight persons
in the meeting on Saturday of whom ten
or twelve were true Democrats, as shown
by the vote upon the passage of the reso
lutions above mentioned, leaving only
about fifteen mongrels. It was not an ex
pression of the sentiments of the Clay
county Democracy. We would not at
tend the meeting for the purpose ofsend-
ing delegates to nominate Greeley elec
tors, thus partially, or seemingly, endors
ing his nomination; and the few Gree-
leyites had it their own way. I have
written, that the people may know the
facts in the case, and not be deluded with
the idea that we of Clay county are “en
thusiastic for Greeley.”
Aud are not we in sympathy with the
people of every county in the State ?
* O. G. W.
A young man named Washington -
Martin, while working in a field about
eight miles from Perry, last Friday, was-
struck by lightning aud instantly killed.
He was originally from Crawford county,,
where his remains were carried for
burial. I
. e%u
, of the