Newspaper Page Text
m
THE MACON TELEGRAPH; FRIDAY MORNING,
Supreme Court of fiedrgials&'^SSW'-’*'
■ ° cr< dlting them.
ndered Thursday,
1 h, tool.
have
dla-
I crediting them.
Judgment affirmed. AH concur.
1 Jam oh B. Park. Jr., for plaintiff in
error; If. O. Lewis, solicitor-general,
and James Davison, contra.
602. Cochran (J. A.) v». Bute. Indict-
ment for murder. Before Judge Cand
ler. Campbell superior court.
Lewis, J.—1. A Judge of the superior
court la not disqualified from presiding
at the trial of an indictment merely
because, previously thereto, he held a
court of Inquiry and bound the prison
ers over.
2. Under all the facta appearing,
there was no abuse of discretion in re
fusing to grant a continuance.
3. That the Judge, while a panel of
forty-eight jurors was being made up,
excused for cause Jurors who were not
disqualified, affords no cause for a new
trial, when It appears that the panel,
after being completed, was put upon
the accused, and there was no challenge
to the array or other objection to the
panel, and further that the peremptory
challenges allowed to the accused were
not exhausted.
4. Though ono accused of crime be
Jointly Indicted with others for the
offense of murder, a charge to the ef
fect that If ho, “alone or with others.”
unlawfully shot und killed the deceased
with malice aforethought, he would he
guilty of the crime, is not cause for a
new trial.
6. When testimony is distinctly of
fered for an explicit purpose, and there
Is no contention that It should be con
sidered for any other purpose, u new
trial will not tie granted because tho
court in its charge restricted the Jury
to the consideration of such testimony
with reference to this purpose alone,
although it may have been relevant for
oth6r purposes.
6. When a request to chnrgo thnt
confessions should he received with
caution Is given In the exact language
of the request presented, it Is not cause
for a new trial thnt the court omitted
to use the word ‘'great” between the
word* “with'’ and “caution.”
7. The fact that the Judge in charg
ing the Jury referred to them a* “hon
est, experienced, Intelligent, upright
dtlsens selected to try tho case,” is not
a cause for u new trial.
8. One on trial for crime is not enti
tled as matter of right to make a sec
ond statement to the Jury.
0. Allowing leading questions to bo
asked Is a matter purely within the dis
cretion of the trial ludge. There was
no material error In admitting evi
dence. The evidence fully warranted
the verdict, and there wns no error in
denying a new trial.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices
concur.
Arnold & Arnold. J. F. Oollghtly, C.
C. Smith, 1». D. Watts and J. U. But
tles, for plnlntiff In error. J. M. Ter
rell, attorney-general; W. T. Klmaey,
solicitor-genera), L. H. Bonn and C. H.
Held, contra.
COS. Eaves vs. State, and vice versa.
Indictment for selling liquor without
license. Before Judge Harris. City
court of Cartersvllle.
Simmons, C. J.—1. Where In a crim
inal case the bill of exceptions com
plains of the overruling of a motion
for a new trial, the writ of error will
not be dismissed because the motion
•was made and filed hefpre sentence*
wns pronounced upon thd- nreused, and
sentence having been pronounced prior
to the sulg out of the bill of exceptions,
2. No writ of error lies In favor of
the atute In a criminal case. Where
In such case the accused by bill of cx»
ceptions complains of the overruling
of his motion for a new trial, the court
lh without jurisdiction to consider a
cross-bill of exceptions sued out by
the solicitor genera l In the name of tho
state, and complaining thnt the court
erred in refusing to dismiss the motion
for u new trial died by the accused.
3. Tho Indictment chnrgcd definitely
the state and county Wherein the crime
was alleged to have been committed.
t. Where one In Indicted by the name
of W. 11. Eaves and ho flics a plea in
nbatctn* nt on tho ground of a misno
mer, alleging that his imtno Is and has
always boon Wallace II. Kuves, und
that he is not and never hits boon
called or known by tho uume of W. H.
Knves, It In not error to strike such
plea on demurrer.
6. Where a statute makes penal the
unlicensed sale of spirituous, vinous
or mult liquors, the offense I* commit
ted by one who sells any one or more
of such specified liquor*. Where uu
Indictment charge* the accused with
the sale of all three, It I* sufficient to
support a conviction if the evldtnca
show the sale of any one, of the liquors
charged.
6. Where one Is Indicted under a
statute imiklng penal the unlicensed
sale of mult liquors, the court may
properly charge the Jury that It Is not
essential that the liquor sold should l»e
proved to have been Intoxicating, und
that the Jury need only "consider the
evidence as to whether the lluunr was
Intoxicating, tu determining whether It
was a limit liquor.” Courts cun not
know judicially whether all malt liquor*
are intoxicating.
7. If an Indictment be on It* face
fatally defeetlvu because based on a
statute no longer In force, advantage
of the defect should be taken by the
demurrer or by motion In arrest of
Judgment, In the absence of demurrer,
such defect Is uot ground for asking
the direction of a verdict of acquittal,
or. In n motion for u new trial, for
setting aside a verdict of guilty as con
trary to law.
*. The verdict was authorised by the
evidence.
Judgment ufflrmed. Cross-bill dis
missed. All concur.
J. M. Noel, for plaintiff Iti error; Ram
1. Maddox, solicitor-general, contra.
M4. Smith va. State, lief ore Judge
Adams. City court of Dublin.
Fish. J.—1. While the words "lager
beer," In their ordinary use and accep
tation. may aufflclentty Indicate an In
toxicating liquor to warrant a convic
tion of selling liquor of that character,
when the proof shows a sale of lager
beer and nothing more t Black. Intox.
Llq. section 17), yet where In a glv
608. Burgess vs. Slat**. Before Judge
Felton. Houston superior court.
Lewi*, J.—The evidence, though en
tirely circumstantial, was amply suffi
cient to warrant the verdict. This being
so. and it not being alleged that any
error of law was committed In the
county court wherein the rase wan tried
the judgment of the superior court
overruling the certiorari sued out by
the Accused, will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed. All concur.
Duncan & Duncan, for plaintiff in
error; William Brunson, solicitor-gen
eral, contra.
607. Surrels v*. State. Before Judge
Profflt. City court of Elberton.
Fish. J.—The only point presented by
the bill of exceptions In this eaae Is, In
principle, controlled by the derision In
Williams vs. State. 107 Oa. 693 (1). See
also Brown vs. State, 109 Ga. 570 (2).
Judgment affirmed. AH concur.
W. D. Tutt & Son and Samuel L.
Olive, for plaintiff in error; Thomas J.
Brown, solicitor, oentra.
>8. Kendrick vs. elute. Before Judge
Felton. Bibb superior court.
Fish. J.—When on the trial of an In
dictment for assault with intent to
murder, alleged to have been commit
ted by shooting with a pistol, the evi
dence for the Htate, if credible, une
quivocally demanded a general verdict
of guilty, and thi* evidence wan met
only by a statement of the accused
which, if true, established an alibi, a
verdict finding the accused guilty of
the statutory offense of unlawfully
shooting at another was unwarranted,
there being, under such circumstances,
evidence whatever upon which to
base the name.
Judgment reversed. All concur.
John R. Cooper and Herman Brawh,
for plaintiff in error; William Brunson,
solicitor-general, contro.
COfl. Minder vs. state. Before Judge
Felton. Bibb superior court.
Cobb, J.—1. Even if refusing to con
tinue a criminal cnee because of the
ubvenco of material witnesses for the
nccured who reside in another stats is,
under any circumstances, rnuso for a.
new trial, it certainly is not when it
appears that the court unsuccessfully
mployed all the power at lt^command
to procure the attendance of these
itnesse*. It In not within the power
' a court of this riate to send Its of-
•ers beyond the territorial limits of
this rtate, with a view to enforc'ng the
attendance of non-reridsnt witnesses
upon such court. Tne failure of the
law to provide a method of enforcing
the Attendance of mm-resldent Wit
nesses, or for the procuring and recep
tion of their deposition it ! * not, in a
particular rase, a denial to the accused
of the equal protection of tho lawn, or
a deprivation of hi* life or liberty with
out due process of law.
2. The charge of the Judge presented
with sufficient fullness and clearness,
not only the general.rule applicable to
the defense of Insanity at the time of
thc| klllng, but alno the rule relating to
delusional Insanity. It wns j»ot eiwen-
tlal. In charging tho Jury on th**
branch of the law, for the court, to use
the term "paranoia,” but enough if the
616. Graham v. St;
Adams. City coui
Little. J.—No err ,
plained of; the evl
verdict; the newly
is merely cumulmtv
thorize the grant inf
Judgment affirm*
nered evidence
nl d'ies not au-
a new trial.
All concur.
evl-
rue being tried. admiMlbl'
1 3" C An aesignment of a policy of fire
ln.urance nit be in writing.
4. Where a husband conveys prop
erty to hie wife for the purpose of de
frauding his creditors, end ehe subse
quently has the same Insured for her
own benefit, and a loss covered by the
policy occurs, the insurance company.
If In any event liable to the husband
for such loss, certainly Is not liable
If It issued Its policy In Ignorance of
the fraudulent transaction between him
and his wife, and hence cannot. In
such a case, by garnishment be made
liable to his creditors.
Judgment reversed. All concur.
Owens Johnson and A. D, Gale, for
plaintiffs In error; Krauts & Franklin,
contra.
622. Malone v Adams. Before' Judge
Lumpkin. Fulton superior court.
Lumpkin, P. J.-l. It Is. on the trial
of an Issue of devlsavlt vel non. com
petent for a caveatrlx to surport a
1 ‘until um i»i
SKp*!* 5 cro **-blll dismissed.
Pl«
Ilex
curving.
D /..} Ic 9°*' en for plaintiff in errov in
main bill; W. K. Miller and C. H. Co-
616. Lane v. State. Accusation of •ril
ing crop under lien. Before Judge
Adam4> City court of Dublin.
Fieh, J.—The only grounds of the mo
tion for a new trial being that the ver
dict wa« contrary to law and to the
evidence, and the evidence being am
ply sufficient to sustain the verdict,
the Judgment of the court refusing a
new trial is affirmed. All concur.
Howard & Armistead, for plaintiff in
error; F. G. Corker, solicitor, contra.
617. Pyne v. State, Practice In the su
preme court.
Little, J.—l. When one who is dis
satisfied with a judgment rendered in
a trial court Keek* to bring the same
to thi* court for review by a bill of
exceptions in which he does not spe
cify an material any portion of the rec
ord, no part thereof should be sent to
this court* by the clerk of the trial
court; nor will the plnlntiff in error
be allowed in this court to amend his
bill of exceptions by inserting therein
a specification of a portion or oil of the
record, and thus make valid an unau
thorized act already committed by the
clerk of the trial court in sending up
a part or part* of the record. Hardee
v. Lovett. 85 Oa, 620; Alexander v. Wil
liamson, 86 Oa. 13.
2. Where a bill of exceptions contains
!'JaSHii ?! i wrtdbllih k iMtTnMhe execution of the
contention that she warn the next of
kin of the decedent, by proving dec
larations to that effect made by him
while in life. This <yiee is distinguish
able from that of Greene v. Almand,
111 Ga. 735. -
2. The Instructions with respect to
undue influence were not unwarranted,
and the finding of the Jury was suffi
ciently support by testimony.
Judgment affirmed. AH concur.
R. J. Jordan, for plaintiff in error;
Arnold & Arnold and Abbott & Ab
bott, contra.
623. Scott v. Maddox et al. Before
Judge Candler. DeKalb superior
court.
Cobb. J.—l. While In a proceed'ng to
627.—Port wood et al. vs. Huntress, guar
dian. et al. Refusal of injunction. Be
fore Judge Brinson. Taliaferro supe
rior court.
Lumpkin, P. J.—Where one person Is in
terested in maintaining against several
a contention, or contentions, which they
have a community of interest in resisting;
or several persona have a community of
interest in maintaining against one a
contention, or contentions, which he If in
terested in resisting; or there are several
who have a community of interest in
maintaining a contention, or contentions,
against several who have a community
of Interest in resisting the same; and such
contention, or contentions, is or are in
volved in two or more pending suits,
equity will consolidate them and bring
to trial in one action the disputed issue.
But this will not be done as to cases
the consolidation of which would bring
about a promiscuous struggle in wh*ch
parties on one side with no such commu
nity of interest as to one j)o!nt in con
troversy. when only one. or in all the
disputed points, when there are more than
one, would be compelled to litigate with
another or others. The petition In the
present case was not, as against the spe
cial demurrers thereto, maintainable; nnd
consequently there was no error in de
nying the interlocutory injunction.
Judgment affirmed. All concurring.
Cloud & Jennings nnd S. H. Sibley for
plain tiffs in error; A. II. Davis and W.
O. Mitchell contra.
623.—La Pierre vs. Webb et al. Excep
tions to auditor's report. Before Judge
E»te«. Habersham superior court.
Cobb. J.—l. An amendment to a petition
brought by one in his individual
not as an Individual is properly disal
lowed. when there is no offer to amend
the petition by making the same
ka^Iaph.i lam .. . ■ , , t-rinmiPii iubi win uic cacluiuhi ui me
suril copy l" /if fact aftachedto the bin I V? proved by . the thTee ff lb " relier which would be appropriate to tne
Ar C MMMlAM n iS sUnii?.!!..!. witnesses, as in an appllca- plaintiff in a representative capacity but
2* ! #*u and t appear* t|on for the probate 0 ( a w! u Jn BO I- ' — «« .« di.»t.
iT£ rl r,L of the , r . € T*? ,mprop * I emu form, the destruction or loss of
*«nt to thl* court In the manner t the will nnd the farts neressarv to
abote Indicated, and where such bill of
exception* contains no aaslgnment of
error except the overruling of the cer
tiorari, it is fatally defective, and does
not properly present any question for
determination by thi* court.
Writ of error dismissed. All concur.
J. M. Johnson, for plaintiff in error;
W. E. Thomas, solicitor, contra.
principle Involved was plainly stated
to tjie Jury.
3. In order to sustain the independ
ent defense of insanity nt the time of
the cmnnil**'on of an alleged criminal
act. It It* Incumbent upon tho accused
to prove that ho wns Insane at that
time; and an Instruction thnt he must
prove this to n reasonable certainty is
not erroneous, when th* Jury are dis
tinctly Informed that a preponderance
of th«* testimony i* all thnt is requisite
to establish such reasonable certainty.
4. The assignment* of error In the
motion for n new Irlnl not above re
ferred to presented np sufficient reason
for granting a new tilnl. The ctt«c
wns fairly submitted to the jury; the
evidence atittiprlted the verdict: and
the discretion of the trial Judge in re
fusing to grant u new trial will not be
Interfered with.
Judgment affirmed. AH concur.
John ft. Goo per nnd Herman Branch,
for plaint Iff in error; J. M. Terrell, at
torney-general. nnd William Brunson,
rollcltor-general, contra,
610. ltarne* vs. state. Before Judge
FaHlgunt. Chnthnm superior court.
By the Court.-The evidence fully
oustultied the verdict which wo* ren
dered. Then* was no error committed
by the trial Judge in charging the Jury
which requires a reversal of the Ju !g-
ment. The issuer made by the evi
dence was fairly submitted. The newly
discovered evidence, when considers 1
in connection with the testimony of
the witnesses sworn In the caw\ neither
requires nor authorise* the wets'nil nrido
of the verdict of guilty rendered
against the defendant. Tho charge as
a whole was tull and fair, and cor
rectly stated the law governing tho
Isfuies raised by the evidence. There
was no error In refusing to grant i
new trial.
Judmn nt affirmed. All concur, ex
cept Little J.. who !• of opinion that
the charge as to the prisoner's *tnte-
ment was erroneous.
O T. & J. F. On tin and R. L. Cold
Ing, for plaintiff In error; J. M. Terrell,
attorney-general, and W. W. Osborne,
ollcltor-general, contra,
611. Harris v* state* Before Judge
llursell. Clarke superior court
Fish, J,—There was no merit In the
motion for a continuance. The evi
dence warranted the verdict, and It
wa* not erroneous to refuse a* new trial.
Judgment affirmed. All concur.
Shackelford £ Shackelford, for plain
tiff in error; C. II. Brand. solicitor*
general, contra.
612. Carroll v. State. Before Judge
Felton. Bibb auperlor court,
Lewis. J.—There being sufficient evl
dettee to authorise the conviction of
the accused, this court will not Inter
618. Western and Atlantic Railroad
Co. vs. I Iyer. Action for damages.
Before Judge Fite. Bartow superior
court.
Lumpkin, P. J.—l, A mere rtatement
In a brief «nf evidence that the plain
tiff “introduced in evidence the mnr-
tal'ty* and annuity tables in the sev
entieth Georgia report" doe* -not au
thorize this court to tnkc Judicial cog
nizance of the content* of the table*
published by the official reporter as
an appendix to that volume.
2. The right of the plnintiff In the
present case to recover of the defend
ant w«* clearly established, and It does
not appear that the verdict was ex
ceed ve.
Judgment affirmed. The other Jus
tice* concur, except
Simmon* C. J. nnd Lewi* J.. dissent
ing.—Courts take Judicial notice of the
standard of mortality and annuity ta
bles, without proof. 1 Gr. Ev. (16th
cd.) section 6, e; 17 Am. and Eng. Enc.
L. (2d od.) 900, and case* cited; Brad*
ner, Ev. ooctlon 19, and Ajn. notes;
Thayer, Ev. 306 et *eq. Where, there
fore, the record disclose* thnt certain
standard mortality nnd nnnulty tfVMe*.
found in 70 Ga. Rep. 844, wore Intro
duced In evidence, nnd the motion for
new trial complain* of a manifest er
ror oommlttted by the trial Judge
against tho plaintiff In error In his
charge to the Jury in reference to the
uso of the tables, but the brief ot evi
dence docs not contain a copy of the
tables ueed on the trial, tn's >ourt
should not, merety because the table*
are not copied In the brief of evidence,
refuse to consider the error, nnd, ns a
result of so doing, affirm the judfttfient.
but should tnkc Judicial notlci* of the
table* and reverse the Judgment deny
ing a new trlnl. according to the de-
cls'on tn Atlanta Railroad Co/ vs.
Hmlth. 91 Ga. J07. Under t%e ruling
of the majority, the plaintiff In error
lose* its cane because it failed to bring
up in the rocord a copy of a n»t of
tables whoso contents the law presume*
tho court to know, nnd an to which,
If it hns forgotten them, It can re
fresh Its memory by reference to them
ns published in Its own reports.
Payne A Tye and J. M. Neel, for
plaintiff In error; Burton Smith and'Al-
bert H. Johnson, contra.
9. City of Barnesville et al. va Mur-
phey et ul., and vice versa. Injunc
tion. Before Judge Reagan. Pike su
perior court.
Lumpkin. P. J.—l. Under a legisla
tive provision declaring that the mu
nicipal authorities of a named city
“shall have the power nnd authority
to regulate nnd control the sale (there
in) of spirituous and malt liquors, wine,
and ciders, for medicinal, mechanical,
and sacramental purpose* only,” such
authorities have no power to embark
the city upon it* own account tn the
buxines* of buying and selling spiritu
ous or other liquors.
2. When any daclsloq, rendered by a
trial court I* under review here nnd
1* to be paused upon by *the court as
n whole, and the six Justice* are evenly
divided in opinion, such decision
stand* affirmed by operatfem of law.
Judgment on both bills of exceptions
affirmed. All concur.
W W. Lamhdin. J. F. Redding, nnd
Estes A Jones, for the city et al.; A.
A. Murphey and C. J. Lester, contra.
the name of the plaintiff in a representa
tive capacity. o
2. A Judgment overruling a demurrer to
a foreclosure proceeding filed against a
person in both an individual and repre
sentative capacity, and which, raises the
question thnt the mortgagor in his repre
sentative capacity had no right to create
the lien, is conclusive upon the mortgagor
rebut the presumption of revocation by
the teatator may be proved by other
evidence.
2. “When a will can not be found af
ter the death of the testator, there is
a strong presumption that it was de
stroyed or revoked by the testator him
self; nnd thl* presumption stands in
the place of positive proof. He who
seek* to establish a lost or destroyed Judgment affirmed. All concurring,
will assume*) the burden of overcom- W. T. Crane. T. S. Bean and Hebert
t. hl » preemption by .dequate. MeMH:.an for te <«i
■ 3. On the trial of an application for J ' :Bowd<m con,ra ^
the probate of a copy of an alleged lost J 629.-Adams et al vs. Adams, adminlstra-
will, tho declaration of an heir of the' tor . Equitable petition. Bniore Judge
decedent, to the effect that an orig- Estes. White superior court.
Inal will had existed and that she had I Cobb. J.—l. An order for the sale of
destroyed the same, 1* not, unless the land, duly granted by the ordinary, can
declarant be a party to the proceeding, ^, ol w be frilaterally attackril )n the sups*
oroMuicor. 1 " nnl?/. n fn h" *«»tSd ?p«£* InroffJGSt •vSilco.
propounders. Under such clrcumstanc a 2. Where such an order was tho sale
the declaration is mere hearsay. Were of a reversion in realty after the cxplru-
the heir a party. It might he admlrtsl- tlon of a widow's dower, und before tho
ble as an admission binding upon her.: sal® took place the widow died, the order
4. An exception to a refusal to al- ! coMtltutrf aut^rity to roll the f«.
low fi witnniu ,/, nnatvir o tnApiflnri 3. It is not ground of objection to an
008,1 * nn8W<!r n specified anflWer b y an administrator to an
question presents no assignment of or- i equitable petition which waived dlscov-
ror with which this court can deal, I cry and prayed for an accounting and
when it does not appear what answer. settlement, that the answer did not have
was expected. Thl* I* essential in or-I attached thereto a schedule of the re-
der that the relevancy nnd material- j tu , rn VJ, f *an ^nitohin
U JmLmoni Ue m" n T y Jf, 1>a “*? r up0n - poilt'on Hn odmim,tf«tor Q for nn
Judgment affirmed. All concur. I account and settlement, the plaintiffs by
J. N. Glenn, H. C. Jones nnd Green affirmative proof charged him with tho
LOW RATE
ROUND TRIP
TICKETS VIA
CttllUilHl Uiaiiu itmio'-i * , ...
plars of America. Birmingham, Ala
July 30-August 4th. One fare for the
round trip; tickets on sale July 28-23-
30th, with final limit returning August
MONTE A OLE. TEN If.
Monteagle Assembly, Sunday School
Institute. Monteagle. Tenn., August
12-23. J?oi. One flrst-clasB fare for tna
round trip; tickets to be sold August
10-11-12. with final limit returning Au
gust 25th.
XtOIVTREAT, X. c.
Christian Workers' Assembly Mon
treat. N. C., July 21-August 4th, 1901.
For this occasion following rates are
authorized to Black Mountain, N. C.,
and return: One and one-third first-
class fares for the round trip. Tickets
on sale July 19-20-22d, with final return
limit August 8th.
CHICAGO, I Isis.
International Convention B. T. P. U.
of America. July 25-28th. 1901. One fare
for the round trip to Chicago and re
turn. tickets to be sold July 2-. 23. 2 it lx
with final limit returning July 3lst.
By depositing ticket with Joint agent,
Jt may be extended until August 24th.
ISrFR'ALO. N.
Pan-American Exposition. May 1st to
November 1st. 1901. Tickets to be sold
dally April 30th to September 30th In
clusive, with final limit November
2d. restricted to continuous passage In
each direction. 838.60. Also, tickets to
be sold daily, commencing April 30th,
CHICAGO. ILL.
International Convention. B. T. P. U.
of America. Chicago, III., July 25th-
28th. Rate of one fare for the round
trip. Tickets on sale July 22d. 23d and
24th. final limit returning July 31st.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.
Annual Meeting Grand Lodge B. P.
O. Eiks. Milwaukee. WlS., July 23d-
25th. 1901. Rate of one first-class far©
for the round trip plus 82.00 Tickets
on sale July 20th. 21st and 22d, limited
returning July 28th. By depositing
■with Joint agent an extension until
August 8 will be granted •
J. C. HAILE, General Passenger
Agent, Savannah, Ga.
J. M. MALLORY, Traveling PanNciiKer
Agent, 411 Fourth St., Mncou, Gn.
JOHN W. DLOU1TT, Passenger Agent.
E. I*. HON M2II, Union Ticket Agent,
re(v|p» of asset*, the mere fact that the
ovldence offered by them showed that bo
had previously obtained an order for the
sale of realty for the purpose of paying
debts did not entitle him to the grant
of a nonsuit. On such a state of plead
ings and evidence the plaintiffs would
havo been entitled to recover.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices con
curring.
C. S. Kytle and II. II. Dean for plaint
iffs In error; I. L. Oakes contra.
620. Lamar, administrator, va Gard
ner et al. Equitable petition. Be
fore Judge Spence. Decatur superior
court.
Simmons; C J.—l. A motion to dis
miss a writ of error upon the ground
that all of the evidence was not
brought up in full to this court will
not be sustained where It appears that
the Judgment complained or in the bill
of exceptions was the direction of a
verdict base*! on the plaintiffs failure
to Introduce certain specified evidence.
| 2. Blnet* the act of 1828, which re-
- - i quires *n executor to administer the
fere with the discretion of the trial j unfcVtswd a* well as the devised es-
ourt in overruling the motion for a; tat* of the testator, and the enlarge
624. Planters and Peoples’ Mutual Fire
Association of Georgia vs. DeLoach,
and vice versa. Before Judge Evans.
Tattnall superior court.
Cobb, J.—l. When a bill of except
ions properly certified purports to set
forth evidence mntcrln! to the consid
eration of the errors complained of, the
arsignments of error therein contnined
will be determined solely with reference
to the evidence therein, set forth, un
less additional evidence incorporated in
a brief thereof and made ft part of the
record is duly brought up in the man
ner nrovided hv law The fnreirnlnff tn I eiecuon.oy neirs. auiy mnac, io set ino
fi. , rg,nK 18 **1® aside; nnd the right to exercise such
U’ue, notwithstanding that In a cross- . nn election enn not bo defeated because
bill of exceptions in the case there is of tho insolvency of the estate, or because
an uverment in effect that certain nia- I on a resale the property would bring lefts
terlal evidence ha* been omitted from ! 'ban the first sale, or because the nd-
tho main bill ot exception!., anJ the j
nllpffpd nmitfnd •viiinni'o i« ant I tbe sale to himself would be allowed to
t,m e nl 1 fo lh «*"nd. used his own money in discharging
in the cross-bill of exceptions. I indebtedngsi duo by tho estate.
2. A writing in the form of ft policy 2. That nn administrator procured a
of fire Insurance Will not constitute a 1 creditor of his intentnrr, secured by a
valid contract of insurance, when it la deed tnjnnd. to allow tho same to he sold
not. at the time the contract therein | b >’ administrator free from the In-
Sne^uthoriJS ^‘"ex/eutIn > SSS5Sim«t 0 y5Sitld^ the
£5* ?, uth ,°fi xed ll to 2?“!? contracts in of thr he ,„ bul not . that of thp ndmln-
. * be alleged insurer. Istrntor; nor could surh a transaction de-.
3. The mere acceptance by the person ' feat nn election toy heirs to Qnnul a sale
described In such n writing aa the in- ' ‘ ' ' ’ *
surer, of a sum of money us an assess
ment or premium, will neither have the
effect of rendering valid the unexecu
ted writing, nor of estopping the al
leged Insurer from making the defense
that the writing was not executed by
any one nuthorlzed to act in its behalf,
when It appears that the assessment or
premium was accepted in Ignorance of
the fact that the writing wa* not exe
cuted by one authorized nt the time ot
its delivery to act in behalf of the in
surer, and thnt upon the discovery of
this fact the insurer promptly repudia
ted the art of thr person who hud de
livered the writing, nnd returned to the
person claiming to be Insured nl! of the
money which the Insurer or Its author
ized agent had received from him.
4. Although the rules of an associa
tion provide that litlgntlon shall be
conducted for the association by the
president, together with a majority of
the directors, on® who is the plaintiff
in an action against the association
which is defended by a duly licensed
nttorney at law will not be allowed to
raise the question as to whether th®
defense is conducted by the officer re
quired by the ruitos, otherwise than by
calilng tn question the right of the at
torney at law to appear In behalf of the
association. The presumption is that
Schedule Effective July 1st, 1901.
Trains arrlvo at and depart from Union
Station, corner Fourth and Plum streets.
Leave Arrive
Macon. (90th Meridian Time.) Macon.
superior court.
Lumpkin, P. J.—l. An administrator who
purchases property at his own sale must
take all the legitimate consequences of an
election .by heirs, duly made, to set the
3. A general averment that "heirs” nr
members of the family" of an intestate
contented to a given arrangement doe*
not amount to a clear and unequivocal
allegation that the plaintiff* in n partic
ular action who sro such heirs so con
sented.
4. It 1* not erroneous to reject n* ir-
Savannah, Mlllen, Au- 1
gust* and Intermediate |
points )* 3 35am
Tybee,
tig 25am
Savannah, Mlllen. Au- 1
gust*. Mllledgeville, 1
Katonton, Covington, 1
and Intermediate points i
via Gordon .......1* 3
Mllledgeville, Ha ton ton
and intermediate points
vU Gordon t 7 45am
Athens, Madison. Mon-
* 4 20pm
•U.OOnm
......... points I 1
Blrm'ngham, Coiumous j
and Intermediate points f
* 3 Kam also Montgomery via
Columbus
r».c airimmm-, t„(in«.ny to i.t* trial on th.' ground that «h« x-rr-lnir-nt of that alt by the adoption of
th, enact that a I hi Uhl which contain.-.! i .Hot wa, contrary to the evidence. The I (he code ■> a* to extend It, protrlliona
ihol ! Charge ot the court, taken aa a whole. \ 0 nI , administrator with the wilt an-
hot exceeding 2 per cent, of
vnuld nut intoxicate, and that th* I vtt a full and fair presentation of th*
Identical bottle of liquid which the ae» j law hearing upon the ca*e; and the
eused sold and upon the *uU* of .which i request to ^charge which was insisted
tin' 'mention of hi* guilt or Innnnonc* ] upon was properly refuted,
turnevl. did not contain more than 2 Judgment afflrcd. All concur.
per c
there
that this Id
ilrohot.
noxed. It Is not heceetary. In an ac
tion by such executor or administra
tor to recover land as a part of the
testator** estate, for the plaintiff to
introduce the will In evidence in order
it was. although W. J. Grace and R. L. 'Anderson, for 1 1 0 show hie right to recover, or to
ther testimony to the effect 1 plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attor- show that the land sued for war de-
tlcal liquid will lager j ney-general, and William Brutwmn. so-j vised tn the will. The case* of floriwll
barge generally that | llcltor-gencral, contra. v*. Ham. 8 Ga. 66. Mays vs. Kilim, «•
— Ga. 617 .and Horn va Johnson, 67 Ga.
te. Before Judge >448. reviewed and overruled,
upertor court. j 3. It not appearing that the plaintiff
Lewis, J.—No error of law is assigned . in the present *uit or those under
t tHi* tlill it? SKPSnlinitl. Th* M'lalvltitlt - h < /-l.ti... w.r.k *h.
all lager beer la Intoxicating.
2. It was In such a case erroneous to I <13. Ayers v.
admit hearsay testimony to the effect | Evan*. Johm
that lager beer contains from 2 to €
pec rent, of alcohol, but In view of the 1 In the bill of exception*. The evident... p | §1
ruling above announced. It would seem {although circumstantial, wa* sufficient, j farmer Viit Tn regard to"th® land tn-
ttiat admitting such testimony was not when taken el! together, to warrant' volved. It was not error to refuse to
harmful to the accused. th® conviction of the accused; and the .admit evidence a* to what issues wer*
Judgment reversed. /** 1 •** * *- * ■ - * ^ ‘ ‘ j —
Howard A Armistead
la error: F. G. Corker, a
mericus, Bmlthvtlle. Al-
nny. Arlington, Dothan,
Hartford, Eufauia, Un-
1 Ion Springs, Mont-
3 62amJ gomcry and inter-
♦11 35am| mediate point* ....
nerlcus and
• 7 40pmlffin teamed late ^points '
I Columbia, HeTIeravIlle.
35ami and intermediate point* , Wf ,„.
Dally, t—Dally except Sunday, t—
. i whom he claims were parties to the
tne conviction ot tne sccuseo; ana tne j admit evidence a* to what issues t
II concur. trial judge being satisfied with the ver- j pas**d upon In such former suit,
for plaintlnff diet, this «>urt will not control h'«. Judgment reversed. All concur
•llcltor. contra, j discretion in overruling the mot'on for cept Cobb J.. who i* dlequal.fted.
, _ „ . trial.
906. Davis va State. Before Judge Judgment affirmed. All concur.
Hart. Greene superior court. A. L. Hatcher and J. L. Kent, for
l^wis. J.—Where one on trial for j plaintiff In error; i. M. Terrell, attor-
carrying a concealed pistol stated to | ney-general. and B. T. Itawiin* so-
Jury In hi* defense
not own a pistol, and m
one In his life." and a wT
ebhalf undertook tn testify
effect, evident-** that th® u
on an occasion previous to
Inreatigatkm. openly carri
was Irrelevant, for It rrlKir
ter not germane to the is*
mitt Ing such evident ■»* will
mure for a new trial, wh
of the accused wa* distiml
by sye-vltn-csm, and It
from tt record th,»t the
rested upon the fact that
liend these witness*-* in 1
others whose testimony r
Jhi*IH fact, and t-t etldc
■*t carried I
ncs* in his
o the same
cased had.
that under
d a pistol.
"did | lid tor-general, contra.
€14. Williams v. State. Before Judge
Harris. Carroll superior court.
H.mraons, O, J.*—The evidence against
ths accused was entirely circumstan
tial. and. while It cal'*'.I n »u*p|rinn
of his guilt, was not m*it*
given It* * t'tngvst
against him :«» .•xc’u.V-
reasonabb* b . ,*o»h \
tie mgh
Judgment
«*r«d.
rial
Townsend & Westmoreland, for plain
tiff: Bower * Bower, for defendant*
€21. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Co. et at v. Brunswick Grocery Co.
Garnishment. Before Judge Sparks.
City court of Brunswick.
FUh. J.—l. One who filed a claim to
a fund in the hands of a garnishee and
who dissolved the garnishment wa* a
party to the issue formed by the plain
tiff’* traverse of the garnishee'a ans
wer; and upon the trial of such an Is
sue It wss erronr*Hi# tor the court. In
acting upon a motion of the plaintiff
to separate the garnishee'* witnesses,
♦o exclude the claimant, over her ob
jection. from the court room daring
the trial.
t. Admue^as made by a party to a
case n trial, in pleadings filed by such
party In pcevl at litigation with others.
«~-c. if rcvriint to the muu in ihc
the attorney at law has the authority
of the proper officers of the associa
tion to appear, and this presumption
can be overcome only In the manner
provided In Civil Code, section 4421.
Judgment on main bill of exceptions
reversed; on cross- bill affirmed. All
the justices concurring.
E. J. Giles nnd J. K. Hines, fot plain
tiff In error; Burkhalter & Morgan,
contra.
€25. Brigham et al. vs. Brigham. Tear's
support. Before Judge Henry. Burke
superior court.
Simmon*. C. J.—Upon the application
of the h*lr* at law*, the lands of a de
ceased Intestate were appraised and
divided under section 2480 of. the Civil
Code. By the Judgment of the court
th® heir drawing a certain lot was re
quired, before taking possession, to pay
a named amount of money to the oth
er h®lr» to make them equal. Th® heir
was already In possession of the lot set
apart to him. and was allowed to re
main In possession upon giving notes
to the others for this amount, secured
by mortgage upon his lot. Subsequently
he died, leaving the notee unpaid. His
widow applied for a year's support, and
all of the lot was set apart for her;
whereupon all the mortgagees filed a
caveat to the return of the appraisers
setting aside the year's support. Held,
that the mortgage having been given
upon the whole lot for the purchase-
money of an Undivided Interest tn It.
was a purchase-money mortgage; and
that the right of the widow to a yeat's
support In the lot was Inferior to the
lien of the mortgage and to the cavea
tor*' lien for owtlty of partition.
Judgment reversed. All concurring.
Johnston 4k Fulbrtght. for plaintiffs
In error; S. H. Jones and Lawson A
Scales, contra.
C2C. Roney va. Tutt et al, and vice
versa. Ejectment. Before Judge
Brinson. Richmond superior court.
Simmons. C. J.—l. If a defendant's
! property Is sold under a void Judgment
I and execution, gad she. with legal no
tice of all the material facts, receive
from the sheriff an 1 re* tin a portion
of t**~ Proc-- of the ... ihU nr- sr.ts
In law to a ratification, and ahe U
1 hy the fcaJu
Ins* in the rase on trial
6. When an administrator's rale to hlm-
eelf I* »et aside by a court, the annul
ment ran not be partial. It must be com
plete; but those only are affected by the
Judgment nnd it* conaequcnce* who are
before the court when It I* rendered.
Judgment affirmed. All concurring
F. M. Johnson nnd W. R. Hammond
for plalnttff* In error; Dean & Hobbs,
contra.
63!.—Pfnltentlary Comnsny No. 2 v*.
Rountree et *i. Complaint. Before
Judge Evans. Emanuel superior coyrt.
Lumpkin. P. J.—In view of the provis
ion* of the act of February 26. 1876. “to
regulate the teasing out of penitentiary
convicts." etc., n contract entered Into
while that statute was of foroe. and con
templating that convict* should be em
ployed in conducting s saw mill owned
by a private citizen and onerated on hi*
premlves. must bo treated a* contrary to
public policy, and therefore not enforce
able.
Judrment affirmed. AU concurring.
Williams A william* for plaintiff in er
ror* F. H. Saffoid. contra.
A POOR MILLIONAIRE
Lately starved In London because h®
could not digest his food. Early use
of Dr. King's New Life Pill* would
have saved him. They strengthen the
rtnmach. aid digestion, promote assim
ilation. Improve appetite. Price 25c.
Money back If not satisfied. Sold by
all druggists.
4 06pm
♦12 40anr
7 40am
1* 3 65pm
Special,
nah and
ami on Tybee Seashore
Through sleeper* between Savanna!.
hrmtngham via Macon and Columbus,
Direct connection I* made at Birmingham
for llomplil;. Kamu City and all point,
west and Northwest; Pullman Drawing
Connection Is made at Savannah with
the magnificent steamship* of the Ocean
8teamship Company and Merchants' and
Miners'Transportation Company for Now
York, . Boston, Baltimore nnd Phlladel-
Por detailed Information, rates, sched
ules. etc., apply to
J M. MALLORY. Trav. Pass. Agt..
JNO. W. BLOUNT, Pass A*t.. 6
411 Fourth St. '
E. P. BONNER, Union Ticket Agent,
Macon, Ga.
J C. RATLf. General Passenger Agent.
E. H. HINTON. Traffic Manager.
THEO. D. KLINE, Gen. Superintendent,
J 1 i t . Savannah, Ga.
GEORGIA. Bibb County.—Under and by
virtue of a power of sale contained tn a
deed executed by Clarissa Heard to
the Union Savings Bank and Trust Com
pany. dated the fourteenth day of Sep
tember. 1S», and recorder tn the office of
the clerk of the superior court of said
county, on the nineteenth day of Septem
ber. ISTb. In book 62. folio 22f. the under
signed will sell, at public outcry, at the
courthouse doer. In said county, during
the legal hour* of rale, to the hlghe-t
bidder for cash, on Tuesday, the 6th day
of Aiicurt .1NU. the following described
property.to-wtt:
All that tract or parcel of land rltuats.
lying and being in the city of Macon, said
fiate nnl county, and being part of lot
number two <?> in block number ten (10)
•n the Northwest Common* of said city,
fronting on Madison street twenty-two
and one-half U22H> feet .and extending
b»®k between parallel lines, one hundred
and five feet, and at that point widen*
to a width of fifty-two and one-half <52U)
feet and extend* track that width one
hundred and five (106) feet to an alley*
also encroachment of ten feet on
Madison street, and being the same place
formerly owned by Charley Cross.
For the mirror* of paying the amounts
due on fifty-five (55) certain promissory
f « r th * * l,m of 13.50 each, executed
snd delivered by the raid Clarissa H.
to the Unton Savings Bank and
Trust Company, on the fourteenth day of
September. 1S4. and under the terms
of said execution and delivery now due
and unpaid, stipulating for interest from
maturity r»t the rate of eight per cent,
per arnum. the full amount due on tab!
notes being four hundred and twenty-*;*
dollars and ftffe- n ^ n t* tfOM'u principal
snd Interest: for the further purpose
or paying Mxty-three dollars and twenty-
nine <*nt» Vp So taxes upon said property
psiJ by 1 rion San nr* Bank and Trust
Comps nr. together with all costs of
*1* b* said deed, a i *-« ■ - v:ij[«n>. mm m* aame no
Purchaser will be made by I appears of file in said clerk's office Wi
rfVSSrSr *• day —-
e 3J&USI to.
APPLICATION FOR CHARTER.
GEORGIA. Bibb County.—To ths Superior
Court of said County:
The petition of Willis B. Sparks. Julian
?n l tfr atvA'eiv O. Bacon,
shows fct * te AntJ county, respectfully
l. That they desire, for themselves,
lelr associates, successors and assigns.
1 become Incorporated under the namn
and style of The North Highlands Land
company.
, *• t*™> which petitioner, »»tc
•* twenty yeen, with
t!me PrlVl *** ot renewal at ,ha * nd of that
A T he capital flock of tho corporation
is to be twenty-five thousand (S25 Cm) GO)
divided Into shares VoneTuni
Jr»j diw.OO) dollars each. Petitioner*.
ho ,!i ev 5£'.a*?k th . e privilege of increasing
capital stock from time to time not
thousand (JjAym W,"° hund ” d
4. Th« whole of sold capital stock of
twentv-fire thousand (123,000.00) dollars
h « ■ireadr been actually paid in.
6. Tb* object of the proposed corpora
tion Is the holding, buying, sriilng, rent-
»&K* nd development*of real estate In
SSJcoonty, and elsewhere, and with this
djrign. petitioners ask to be Invested with
tu.corporate powers necessary for the ac-
compll-hment of said purposes, including
the rights and powers to purchase, boM.
improve and convey real estate and prop
erty appurtenant thereto, and to pledge
its property, real or personal, to secure
the debts contracted by tt. to make all
contracts, and to do alt things proper and
necessary In legitimately carrying Into ef-
snssstti-
C The principal office snd place of bu*l
Inesa of the proposed corporation will
Georgia^* county of Bibb, and stale of
Wherefore, petitioners pray to be made
a body corporate under ths name and
•trie afore‘■old, entitled to all the rights
privileges, powers and immunitie- and
subject to the liabilities fixed by law
This June 2tth. not.
Attorney fo. .
Filed 1* office June 23th. Wt\.
ROBT. A. NI8BET nerk.
GEORGIA. • Bibb County—I. Roht A
NUbet. clerk of the superior court of
said county, do certify that the above and
foregoing ts n true copy of the original
C tti-^n for charter of'Tbs North High-
ds Land Company." ns th- %xtat now
I office, 1
21th day of June l»i
SQBXm. -v- yjjiss, c.sik.