Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE MACON WEEKLY TELEGRAPH. TUESDAY MARCH 1fi. 18SG.—TWELVE PAGES. SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. Decltdnni Benderrri Tuetday, March Oth 1880. Special Report by Henry C. Peeples. J. W. English vs. Bank of tbe State of Georgia. Complaint, from Fnlton. Be fore Judge Hammond. Principal and agent. Guaranty. Parol promise. Con tracts. Jackson, C. J.—1. Tbe president of a bank cannot make a valid contract between it and a third party, acting in tbe capacity of agent for sack third party as well as for the bank. 2. Where Coker, who was president of a bank, and English agreed with the bonk in writing to bepome guarantors for the safe return of certain jewelry to the hank by Sharpe, and by such return of the jewelry each agreement l>ecame abrogated, it was not subsequently revived as against English by a note of English to Coker authorizing him to make any arrangement with Sharpe for Coke and English by which Sharpe might take tbe goods, which Coker might see proper to make, and an arrangement by which Sharpe was allowed by Cok*-r to take the goods, giving a receipt to Coker and English therefor, and Coker bound himself verbally to the hank to be jointly responsi ble with English for their safe return. (a) A contract to pay the debt ot another must be in writing. b) The note of English gave authority to Coker to arrange with Sharpe, not w’ith the bank, but if it gave authority to enter into • contract of guaranty to the hank for the return of the goods by Skarpe^tkat contract could not be enforced unless in writing. (c) Certainly if the note gave authority to Coker to hind English together with Coke aa co-surety, English could not bo held when Coker binds himself only by oral promise. 3. The first return of the jewelry above mentioned could not have been simply for the purpose of checking under the testi mony, but it was a full surrender of posses sion to the bank. 4. The contract on the part of English seems to have been not a guarrauty for value but for accommodation, and there fore he stands on the footing of an accom modation endorser or surety. Judgment reversed. Hopkins A Glenn for plaintiff; Candler, Thompson A Candler, Julius L. Brown con tra. Holland vs. Withers. Homestead, from Fnl ton. Before Judge Hammond. Exemp tion. Bankruptcy. Homestead. Jackson. C. j. Where the head of family has had nu exemption by theBankrupt Court up to the full value permitted by the constitution of 1868, he may nevertheless have homestead and exemption of person alty set apart for Ins family by virtue of the constitution of 1877. Judgment affirmed. Milledge A Smith, John C. Reid for plain tiff ; B. F. Abbott, L. J. Winn contra. that such a charge should have been given, this opinion being more Rtrongly entertain ed by Justices Hall and Blardford than by myself. 56 Ga. 113. Judgment reversed. W. T. Newnan, 11. C. Glenn, for plaintiff; C. D. Hill, solicitor-general; C. Anderson, attorney general, by J. H. Lumpkin, con tra. Hall, J , and Blandford, J., concurred, wife is close and the acta of the two should 1 are barred by the statute of limitations, be scanned closely, where one bolds himself 15. The indictment does not in a single out as the agent of his wife. I count join more than one offense commit- G. The case must be tried over again as to I ted at different times and of more than one all the parties. Judgment reversed. I kind of property alleged to have been em- W. M. A M. P. Reese, Jno. P. Shannon bezzled at such "times, but it charges a sin- for ptaintiff; W. D. Tutt, J. N. Worley con- gle crime, made up of many acts committed * ra - from time to time and the takiDg of differ- —,—’ : r*-» —* rw i * . . entsumsof money. 18 Ohio State 407, stating that they thought the evidence only Jackson vs. The State. Embezzlement, 51*2, 513; code 4628. Judgment affirmed, made a case of involuntary manslaughter. trow Richmond. Before Judge Roney. j c C. Black Foster A Lamar Twiggs Jurors. Age. Nolle prosequi. Indict- L - - - - - - - • —• - • Hodge vs. Ellis, guardian, ad litem. Equi ty, from Fulton. Before Judge Ham mond. Contracts. Insurance. Wager-1 ing policy. Equity. Jackson, C. J.—1. Where one in March, eurors. Age. JNoue prosequi, indict- Verdery for plaintiff; Boykin Wright ment. Demand for trial. Jury lists. Solicitor-General; J. B. Gumming, John S. Practice- Exceptions. Evidence, Cor- Davidson contra, porations. Character. Proof, Embez zlement. Jury indictment. Hall, J.—l. Persons over sixty years of Parris vs. nightower. Certiorari, from Fulton. Before Judge Hammond. Cer tiorari. Practice. Motions. Account. Jurisdiction. Liquidated demand. Ser vice. Judgment by default. Halt. J.—l. A certiorari lies to any cause whenever either 1 r. Soville et al. vg, Calhoun, ordinary. Re fusal of nmnanmoH, from Fulton, lie- fare Judge Clarke. I.ocnl opition liquor law. Remedy. Legislative ennctiucute. Jurisdiction. Jackson, C. J.—l. It has been held by this court in reforence to tho local option laws concerning fence or no fence, and special local option laws touching spirituous liquors in particular conntios, that these were police und political matters with which the court hud no jurisdiction to interfere, unless conferred by those acts; bat that the action of tho ordinary concluded every body, and that such was the intention ot the General Assembly in tlioao enactments. In the face of these adjudications of this court and in full view of their effect as law, the General Assembly passed tho geueral local option liquor law, and provided there in the only mode by which the courts could control the action of the Ordinary in re aped* to these elections. No writ of luandnmus or injunction, or prohibition is allowed by the nctor hinted at therein, but the only method for coutest is set out in the 4th section of the act. -J. When the law operates upon tho pri vate property of an individual and that is seized, or destroyed or coudscated.orthe in dividual is arrested and indicted thereunder for its violation, then that portion of the law thns affecting his privute property and per sonul liberty uiay be assailed by him as un constitutional or illegal, and if uny part or all be in such cose found to bo illegal awl unconstitutional it will ho tho duty ot the courts to protect bis rights against such enactments and make such an adjudication na will maintain the integrity of the law as a whole, if possible, sail at tbe sumo time protect the citizen in all bis constitutional and legal rights. Cooley's Con. Liin., pps. 198, 197; U4 Ga., 3(19; 2 brock. 447; Acta of 1885, p. 121; Skrinc vs. Jackson et ah, and Caldwell et al. vs. Harrett et al., coma., Bent, term, 1884, C'J Go., 283. Judgment affirmed. John T. Glenn, J. L. Brown, A. H. Cox, A. C. King, II. 11. Tompkins, for plaintiff Wyatt ,t llowell, T. P. Westmoreland, Mil- ledge A Smith, 1 lay good A Martin, Uall and Hammond contra. 1883, contracted with another, that iu con- age are competent, when they consent, to siderotion of advances already made for tho act as grand jurors. Carter’s case, October purpose of paying assessments on a cer- Term, 1885; Danforth’s case, same term. titicate of insurance in tbe Royal Arcanum, 2. Defendant had no right to except to I I sl , ., and of advances for future assessments, for the entry of a nolle prosequi on the first bill i , ti “j V„'« tbe securing of wbat had been paid and of indictment, unless it had been entered 8 h a ll he dissatisfied with the decision may be so paid in the future, said certifi- without his consent, after the case had been judgment hi telTCauses Code sec cate was assigned and delivered as collateral submitted to the jury, as in that event be ^ ' security for the same, etc., until the party would hove been once in jeopardy and ■1‘Vhonnh bv the 44th rule of the Rune- making the advances shouhl beTally rein, could not have been so placid 70 > S,\l7gm^o?mo?fo^%hoSw burned in the event of the death of tho as- Ga. 134, 142 et seq. , , i ! 0 * ^ Vl . t t i lirt tlnpH not snred before he should repay the advances; | («) The fact that a trial has been do-1 aW ay nil discreUoL ftom the court ii! varying its application so hh to prevent in jooo, uuumtT iiniit'imrut wu» luuue, wucrc-i vary or uuect me ruie. no ne is tried at I inKtice 54 Ga 374 in it was stipulated, that, said second party the term when the demand is made or at J Where an account was made for *112 having guaranteed that ho would the next succeeding term of the court, for I Jj „„ at ?herime bv d?.tin^t agreement thereafter pay the assessments on the first the offense charged in the indictment, he between t £, parties divided into Wur parts mentioned certificate and also on a certain has had all thought grven to him under tbe payable at separate times, when all bad be- Legion of Honor certificate, on the collec- law. Code 4,048. It does not matter *£.. g u „ go ! ma „ v .i;,! not exceed one tion of these policies said second party whether he was tried on tho indictment hundred dollars conld be joined in one suit should reserve for his own use a sum not J pending at the time when tho demand is L a justice s court another suit be sr upon anotlier charging th ° 8ame tion assumed by said second party should 3. It was not error to allow tho jury f ,il The debt was a liunidated one A not exceed in nmount twenty-five hundred lists to be completed by attaching thereto ]t . bt nmv he liunidated or'cliancc.l or act dollars; and said certificate having been nunojpro hmc, the certificate of tho jury i e d “ t ft rnS o WrLd nnon’withou kept alive and the money collected on the commissioners upon the evidence of the Ke t t i’ne out tho*’terms of*tha „rr,r mm ut in death of the assured tor the beneficiary uu- clerk of the Superior Court and the snrviv- “S ‘ 10 8 0t the MIM Ke,ntnt 1 der them, on a bill filed by said second party ing commissioners. 71 Ga., 283; 02 Ga., 4. Where snit was on accounts there was to retain the sum of twenty-five hundred 3(58; 50 Ga„ 403. I dollars, out of the sum so collected by him 4. Except in certain specified cnses,ns tbe f} e f en «e made iudenmut l!v default was enX° a U h h!!n" r ' :d Bnd KU “ rJ ‘ nD f ° r S? r k ttntiu K or rtfusal . ot ?“ iujuncOon and the . r ,. ^ Code provfso to section said beneficiary, held, like, no cause can be brought to this court I .Vim « 1. The transaction was not void under upon bill of exceptions so long us the same the law as to wagering policies. There was is pending in tho lower court, unless the I CO ntra' a valid past indebtedness uh a consideration I decision or judgment complained of, if it for the first contract, qh well as the consul- had been rendered os claimed by the plain- East Tennessee, Virginnia and Georgia erAtion of advances to be made. Nor was tiff in error would have been a final dispo-1 Railroad vs. Wright A Co. Case, from there an assignment of either policy; under I sition of the case. Code 4250. I Glynn. Before Judge Mershon. Com- the contracts they were either, os in the (<i) Had the questions made by the pro- mon Crrrics. Loss. Perils of the Sea. first instance, transferred as collateral se- liminary proceedings in this case been do- Witness. curity on a meritorious consideration, or, termined as the plaintiff iu error insists Hall, J.—l. For loss after delivery of as iu the last, not assigned at all. but a cer- they should have been, the result would the goods to the carrier sued, such carrier tain amount from them when collected was have been a postponement, rather than a I was liable. to be paid for reimbursements, etc. The final disposition ot the cuuse. 2. The other loss sued for occurred on said second party at the time of the second 5. The verdict was imperatively demand-1 their passage by sea from Baltimore to conrtact lmd an insurable intereat-indeb- cd by law and evidence. I Savannah, and was clearly caused by tedness to him by the assured. 6. "The indictment having charged the wetting from sea water, although they wen 2. Under a proper construction of the embezzlement as from “tho Enterprise properly stowed and cared for. This lost second coutmet, it was not tho agreement Manufacturing Company,” it was not error was, therefore, from “Perils of the Sen.” that tbe sum of twenty-five hundred dollars to admit in support thereof the charter of There was a direct exemption from such was to he paid absolutely, but that not ex- the corporation by which its name was loss in the contract of affreightment, auo ceeding that amount should be paid out by shown to be “Enterprise Manufacturing such a contract tho Steamship Company the said second party or received by him; Company.” had the right to moke. Agnell on Carriers, and the proper measure of his couipensa- The indictment sufficiently identifies the I Sec. ICO and notes 1 and [a). tion is reimbursement, | artificial person it mentions, as the same | 3. Opinions of witnesses, offered as ex Judgment affirmed. J. A. Gray for plaintiff; R. J. Jordan He violated several rules of the railroad company; reasonable and proper rules which he was hound to obey, and by the observance of which, in all probability, the accident could have been prevented. The wife, therefore, cannot recover. Code 3036; 35 Ga. 105, 107, 108; 51 Ga. 212; 59 Ga. 73; G3 Ga. 181, 182. Judgment re versed. Chisolm A Erwin for plaintiff; John C. McDonald, Lester A Ravenel contra. Blalock, Solicitor County Court, vs. Pills- bury, Judge County Court. Mandamus, from Sumter. Before Judge Fort. County Courts. Costs. County Solicitor. So licitor General. Hall, J. 1. Both under the general law, and the special statutes applicable to the County Court of Sumter, we see no reason for interfering with the power and duty of the County Solicitor, in prosecuting cases thus transferred, merely because they are transferred cases. 2. The Solicitor General, in cases of mis demeanor, is entitled to a fee for each per son prosecuted to trial or who pleads guilty, and tor euch hill of indictment he draws, whether it is found true or ignored by th grand jury. Cotie, Sec. 1646, sub Sec. 1. Neither the State nor the accused can he taxed with double costs and as the rights ot the Solicitor Geueral to this cost was coni pltte before the case was transferred to the County Court, he is under this law to be prefemd to tho county solicitor; 61 Ga. 70. (a) This rule is not changed by the acts the General Assembly us to Sumter County Court. Acts 1882-3 p. 530; Ibid p ). 3. Prioi t« the passage of these acts the provision had been made, code 200 (f) for quitable division of costa between the Solicitor General and County Solicitor by the judge ot the Superior Court in traas ferret! cases. If this rule is to obtain, then it is clear the judge of the County Court had no ju risdiction in tho matter before us. (o). llow far thut rule was modified as to Sumter county bo the local acts mentioned, has not been passed on by the judge of the Superior Court and hence ia not before us for review. Judgment affirmed. Guerry A Son, for plaintiff; C. B. Hud son, solicitor-general, contra. Refusal of Injunction, from Gilmer. Leak vs. Smith et. al. Hall, J.—l. The discretion of the court below was not abused, and proper care was taken of the rights of the parties until the final hearing. Judgment affirmed. Miller, Akin and Harris, for plaintiff; Geo. U. Brown, B. F. Abbott, P. I*. Du- Pree, contra. THE TOWNS AROUND US. A MACON NEGRO FIGURES I\ . LYNCHING BEE. Tile Sandersville Arson Caw— Burg)..,., Hmitlivllls— Savannah’. Pavenirnta- Murder Near WaycTo..—Bro ken Anns—Firemen. Clayton va. Calhoun, Ordinary. Refusal of injunction, from Fulton. Before Jmlge Clarke. Jacasox, C. J.—l. This caae is governed bjr tbe decision in tbe case of Bcoville et al. va. Calhoun. Urdinary, just reported. 2. U would be a stretch of power in the judiciary to restrain by ita process, lucsue or final, a law enacted by tuo General A»- aembly iu a formative state and stage, and before it became operative by tbe vote of the people to be affected thereby, which vote alone canid coiunuuate ita validity by ita terma. Par. 23, bill of righta, con. ot 1877. Judgment affirmed. John T. Glenn, J. L. Brown, A. H. Cox, A C. King, U. B. Tompkins for plaintiff Hynalt A Howell, T. P. Westmoreland, MlUnlge A Smith, llaygood A Martin, Hall A Hammond contra. Dock Jackson vs. The State. Harder, from Fnlton. BeforeJudgeUammond. Crim inal law. Convict Guard. Escape. Homicide. Involuntary manslaughter. Jacasox, C. J.—l. If the convict was try ing to escape, or if the circumstances were anch as to lead the accused, the gnaid, ss s reasonable man to condole in his own mind that the convict was trying to escape and that the necessity was upon him shoot and kill in order to prevent, and urged by this necessity pressing npon him in the discharge of official doty as guard he did shoot and kill to prevent the escape, then the homicide ia justifiable. 67 Ga. 183. 2. If there be proof ot malice of any sort satisfactory to tho jury, beyond a reasona ble doubt, on tbe part of the guard toward his prisoner, then that abonld be weighed aa a motive of the guard, and from it the jury might conclude that the malicious in< tent, and not the intent to discharge his duty and prevent an escape, predominated in the guard's breast ana made a caae of murder. («) Whether tbe gnard halted the con. vict, or commanded him to atop or n-tntn, would be a circumstance for tbe jnry to be weighed with all the other facta and cir. enmstanrea attending the transaction. Whar. on Horn. 214 et aeq.; 2 Amer. trim Rep. r,24; 1 East’s P. C, 238; 1 Hale's P. C. 4M, 48n, etc., etc. 3. There can be no involuntary man slaughter where the intent ia kill. 4. There may 1 e some alight evidence warrant a charge of invetantary manslangh. ter, or a hasia therefor may be'found in the statement of the defendant, and it ia held 3. However, it was error to hold that being as that which is created by the char- perta that tbe damage was occasioned by snob compensation should be limited to the ter. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 082; 10 Mass, the negligence of the Steamship Company, amount actually advanced with interest; it 147, 148; 70 Ga. 752. which was a conclusion to be drawn by the should also include reimbursement for I 7. Tbe indictment contains but a single jury from tbe facta in oroof, should not time, labor etc. count and the court conld not compel the have been admitted. Wylly et. al., vs. The matter is in a court of equity and an State to elect which of the variona acts Gozan. equitable decree should be made. specified therein, and which together with 4. Where tho evidence leaves it in doubt 4. Under the power given to this court a others went to make up tho offense charged, whether the damage was caused by the final disposition of the caso is made by it wonld try the defendant. Member's case, perils at sen or tbe negligence of the corn- awarding to the complainant in tho bill the last term. 26 Ga. 611; 58 Ga. 577. pany, and there is an exemption in the bill sum of one thousand dollars, leaving to the 8. It was pertinent to show that the I of lading from liability as above mentioned court below to fix the compensation of the books of tile company had been falsified by I it seems the plaintiff cannot recover, guardian ml litem and counsel for defend-1 fraudulent entries made with a view to Ga. 437,441. ant. conceal the embezzlement, whether thoy («). If plaintiffs wuold protect themselves (a) No intimation is made os to the qttes-1 were mado at the time of tho act or after- they should have obtained a marine policy tion of allowing fees ont of tho fund to I wards, it is sufficient that they were made of insurance. 55 Go. 203. complainant's counsel. Judgment reversed. I at the defendant's instance and with his) See nlson 12 Hon. (U. 8.) 272; 17 Wall. It. 11. Clark, R. P. Tripps it Safi for I knowledge; nor was evidence of other nets I 657. Judgment reversed, plaintiff; W. D. Ellis contra. of embezzlement of like character imul-1 Goodyear ,t Kay, for plaintiff; Ira E, missible, though they may not havo hi eu Smith, contra. City of Atlanta vs. Buchanan. Case, from set out in the indictment, they were com-1 — „ , City Court of Atlanta. Before Judge potent to fix his guilt if they tended to show I Miller vs. W allace and wife. Habeas cor- Clarke. Municipal corporations. Bridges, tho criminuf intent with wliicK the acts I P ni J ,' ur .* °* , , n .VV ,, , m: Damages. Charge of tho court. charged wero committed, 10 Ga. 47; Ml Judge Clarke. Father und child. Habeas Jackson, C. J.—l. A request to charge I et Seq; 18 Ohio 497. corpus. Discretion, should ho good as n whole. I 9. Tho defendant, by Ills own statement, I,, “ A,J v A father, under the law, liss 2. If the city constructed tbe bridge in I put his character in issne; it was not done I “ ntr0 ! “ f J* 1 " minor child, and this can question of loose planks, or when tho city j by the evidence. The statement itself is a I h® relinquished or forfeited only in one reconstructed it, such planks were left un- virtual confession of gnilt and may be t® i ■irSt 8 fastened by ita employes, notice to them I likened to a plea of guilty and an offer of I tion* 1733,1793, 1794, 1795. is notice to the city. I exculpatory evidence to mitigate tho pnn- An “U wnts of habeas corpus sued out (a) Closer inspection of the bridges of the isbment, rather as if addressed to the judge on account of tho detention of a child, tilt- city ia necessary to protect it from daraa-1 than to '.he jnry. I court, an hearing nil the facte, may cxer- ges than only to discover that which is no-1 The charge on tho subject is, however, I U18e discretion ns to whom the custody torioas to the whole public. sustained by law and the decisions of this HUC l* child shall be given, and shall have 3. The newly discovered evidence could 1 court, See 19 Ga. 102, 103, 119, 120; Hop-1 power to give such custody to u third per- not change the verdict. kins. Tonal Laws section 515. I son. Code, 4024. ... . 4. It being in proof that pedestrians gen- 10. The State was not bound ns n general ^ ll0 discretion to bo exercisod in such orally and daily need tho bridge, thongh I rule to prove separately each several act of I cases is not an armtrarv and unlimited ilis- over the street,and uot the sidewalk, it was embezzlement charged in order to convict 1 cretion, bnt a aonnd discretion guided by not error to refuse tho charge, thut a pe- the defendant, no more than it would have I It must be governed by rnle, Dot by ilestrian cannot for mere convenience or to prove where an indictment for laiceny I humor; it must not be arbitrary, vagne nut pleasure deviu'c from tho line of sidewulk charged the taking of various items ot hut legal anil regular. 5 Rep. and go on the bridge, etc. property or money that the defendant took i' .J ’J,'. - > 3J , : , Gokcs lust. 41 Besides these is no proof that the bridge each thing mentioned. I - 1 SS*??.* ^ axuaii was used for pleasure. 11. It makes no difference whether the de-1 * e< J- 7 ■* C ' '}* *• . , 5. Tho city is bound to keep ita streets, fendaut took the money directly when it I *: The (lower of the court ought to be ex sidewalks and bridges in a reasonably safe I came into bis hands, or drew it from banks I f rcll j e ‘| '{* °* *“® party having the condition. where ho had deposited it subject to his l*K»l nght, unless the circumstances of the The damage was alleged to have occurred own check. He conld in no sense be aaid 1 ? UHe ' ttu ’} precedents established, wonld from a faulty construction of the bridge, to have embezzled checks. The checks I l“5*fy it, acting for the welfare of the and it waa not error to charge that such were drawn by him anil nsed as a uunns of I child, m refusing its old. The court will faulty construction must be proved and to getting the money, and the money was in I “° inference to the disadvantage of charge in conneetion the geueral principle 1 his control whether in bunk or the coffers I thefather.bnt will act from positive proof, above stated. (<i) Beside* the words “to of the company. R. M. Charlton a Rep., 493; 34 Ga., 2M. keep," m this connection might rcasonab.y I (n) These facts were proved as charged. | GO A clear and strong casemust be made include the idea expresaed by "to con-1 Whether he took the money before it I mn objection to the Mberatfgnt struct," “to make.” reached theeorapany, or while it was in his I {J* *3ck., 20u; 40 N. H., 2i4, 2To; 33 Ga 6. The evidence supports tho verdict. I hands und under his control as president of I *'’'V J* 13 ; .... ........ ... , Judgment affirmed. | the company, or utter it was in the custody | (') Where it is insisted that the father lias Swift Specific Company vs. Davis, adminis tratrix. Libel, from Fulton. Before Judge Hammond. Libel. Survivorship. Torts. Benefit. lti-ANDFonn, J.—l. Actions for libel are not favored by tho law. They must be brought within twelve months, and no more costs than damages can be recovered. 2. It is very doubtful if section 2967 ot the code, which provides for survivorship of action foi tort, though it is very broad, was ever intended to cover actions for libel r.nd slander. (n) But admitting that the section will cover such actions, the wrongdoer must have received a benefit from tbe tort. It mnst bo a benefit flowing from and out of the tort complained of, it must not be a benefit derived from others not connected with the tort, but it must be a benefit flow ing immediately. 56 Ga 159. (6) In this case the benefit of the wrong doer is alleged to bo profits derived from the sale of a certain medicine by reason of tlie publication of tho libel, nnd tbe bene fit is consequential and remote. So tbe section it applicable to cases of libel and slander or not, did not prevent this caso from abating by tbo death of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed. lteid, Reinhardt A'CVNcilt, Haygood A Martin, for plaintiff; R. Arnold, contra 8u|irriue Court of Georgia* Atlanta, March 11.—No. 13 (continued) Atlanta. Argument concluded. No. 2 Atlanta. Erskine A Co. vs. Duffy Argued. Wyatt A Howell for plaintiff; King A Spnliling eontrn. No. 3 Atlanta. Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway Company va. Holcombe. Ar gued. Hopkins A Glenn, for plaintiff Hoke A Burton Smith, contra. Pending tbe argument ot this case, the court uiljourned to 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. Savannah, March 11.—On the afternn,- of February 11, 1884, Joseph Masters, seta 13, son ot Paul E. Masteis, plumber, killed by a negro called Henry Gregory . boy about the same sgo. The negro b 0 » was flying a kite on New Houston strert near Masters's residence. Young Hasten was on the stoop looking at him; the nests accused Joseph of wanting the kite ai„| replied that he conld get a better kite than it if he wanted one. He then cursed vonnr Masters, who could not repeat bis language The negro then picked up a piece of brick and threw at Joseph, him on the head, a little back of tbe ear. Mrs. Masters on hearini. the dispute ran out nnd gathered her bo> in her arms. He cried “Oh. mamma!" nr.'i died within ten minutes after being curried in the bouse. Tbe negro boy ran down Montgomery street; chased by a gentleman in a buggy, and escaped by running into j . ide gate. Tbe inquest was held the nut day and (he verdict voluntary and nnani- tnous was rendered against the negro bov who was not arrested, having been sheb teved out of the eitv the night before 1 by parents. Gregory's people came hem I from Macon, and it was thought he returned to that city to his grandmother, hut b e could not he found there, ft is supposed he changed his name to Gharlesuf ter leaving Savannah. ' 1 A negro boy named Charles was lynched last night at Hardceville, S. C., for robbing I and almost murdering Mrs. Gideon Sauls! It is supposed that he came from Mama I originally. He confessed to killing a white I boy in Savannah with a brick two yean I ago. ACQUITTED OF ARSON, rhe Verdict Itecclved with a liemomtn-1 tion lu the Conrt-Jtootn Sandkksviixe, March 11.—It will be re-1 memkered that a short while ego two of onr I citizens discovered one night in the store I of E. W. McCarthy an oyster can filled with I kerosene oil, in which was a lighted candle. I 1'ho nr est of McCarthy followed, and to-1 Jay his case came up in the Superior I Court. f In the absence of Solicitor-General 0.- R I Rogers, who waa quite sick, the State wail represented by J. N. Gilbert and F. E f Suffold. I Tho prisoner was represented by J. K. I Hines and R. I. Harris, of the local bar, I and H. D. D. Twiggs, of Augusta. I Considerable difficulty was experienredl in securing a jury, many disqmdifjmgl themselves up u the question ot bias or I prejudice. I This afternoon the case went to the jnry, ■ and within live minutes they brought mil verdict ot not guilty. Upon the annoimccl ment of the verdict there was considenblel demonstration in the conrt room, vtiti | was promptly checked. A BATTLE WITH BURGLARS. John B. Goodwin, J. T. Pendleton for I of the company: in either event he kaii relinquished his right to the custody of plaintiffs; Hoke A Burton Smith contra. 1 charge of it iu trust for the company, and I to 0 third person, by contract, which 1 who, white thus entrusted with it, 4mbez-1 Smith vs Hightower, f Johnson. Before Judge issory Notes. Pleading. aide-ration. (5) False entries on the hooks and false Jackson C. J.—Though the note was given statements by defendant to tbe board of tower. Complaint, from zles, secretes and fraudulently takes and I contract to have the effect of depriving Inin ore Judge Carswell. Prom- carries it away, offends sgainst the provis- of ltH . control should be clear, definite and 1'leading. Failure of Con-1 ions of sec. 4121 of tbo code. 1 certain. 4i Iowa 4.lo, 4Ji; ■>! Indiana ll>8. (fc) Falst entries on Ibe books and UUe Rt bur no «ucb contract u •Mamin xy. m.—Though the note wat given statcuu nU by defendant to the board of I ^ ,H more ( J ou btful ^betber for tbe right to Hell a certain patent right, directors of the tiuancnil condition of tbe I father ever consented to relinquish the yet a plea that the naebine* were worthless company, so ns to conceal from them bis I COI jtrol of his child, or whether be was only was a good plea of failure of consideration. I conversion of their money to bis own use, I an arrangement in the cxigeucy in Judgment affirmed. are facts from which the jnry are antbor* I w ^ lc ^ Wl * e H death placed him for its Jno. M. Stubbs, A. F. Daley for plaintiff; ized to infer a fraudulent inteut in thus I nL ‘* ®S , % J. E. Hightower contra. converting tbe money. I He supplieil the necessities of the child Jones, trustee vs. Bond ct. al. Complaint 12. There was no error in sending to the I w *iile it was in the care of defeiuUnts in from Oglethorpe. Before Judge Lump-1 jury room at the request of tbe jury, while I ?f ror ’ either wholly, or for the ruust patt. kih. Arbitration. Guardian and wrarde. I they wire deliberating on the case, the I applied to by tbem to Ltlp e.ire for Auditor. Husband and wife. j books and papers of tbe corporation, which I **e neverr consented bj act or word that Jackson, C. J.—1. A submission to arbi-1 hud been udmitted in evidence, under I ^should have exclusive control of the tration may be either to three arbitrators, proper instructions that they should con- »lways when the issue was raised under Code section 4227; or to one or more line themselves to those portions given iu I denied this. under the old common law rule, Code 4278; I evidence, it not appearing Uiat objection I He is shown to be njuight, moral and of 31 Ga., p. 3; 61 Ga., 162-4 was made by defendant. 8°^ bab l lt , H; w i tb % *52*P°5 tionand aaUr > (#i.) In either caae a guardian may make 13. The statement in the indictment that nnd capable of auorduig it a home and the submission. Code 4225, 2X84. defendant was president of the corporation, I l >r J?l ) ^ q®!}? r 2. Under the common law mode there having tho general management of its hnsi- *LIfi V*V;; 1»,.'.i*^* need he no order to make the award the 1 ness and the control of iu funds, and bnv- ** J ‘ “* " judgment of the court; it is binding with-1 ing in bis trust, custody and control large out this, unless attacked for fraud in the sums of money belonging to it, etc., is a arbitrators or parties, or a palpable mistake sufficient allegation by wh<ou the property of law, or reference to chance of lot—61 embezzled was intrusted to the defendant. Ga., 162-4. From it iv legitimately inferable thut he re- 3. It is not incumbent on the conrt to | ceived tbu money by virtue of his office os send the case back to the auditor when pmddetn. that officer has erred on points of law, es- 14. There ia such an offense as the pecially where no error hurt the movant crime of embezzlement under the law of therefor. I Georgia, and the facta charged in the indict- 4. The jury muy differ from the decision mem do constitute it. of the auditor ou "facts, where they are re- j (a) To specify particularly what money ported by him, just as the court may over- j was received nnd embezzled would be im- rule him on legal questions. 71 Ga. Gt'J; possible, and snch a requirement would j code section 3IJV7. give iiupu. ity to the crime When a case is tried on a misapnre* l ib) The material allegations in tbe hension of the controlling rule of law wfiieh I pleading ure direct and positive; they are governs what evidence is necessary to over-1 not in the alternative and are not bad on come mjrrimn fori* bar of the rights of n*r- account of repugnancy, and do not vary ties, it m well to try it over, especially when from the terms of the code, or fail to state the verdict is permitted to be general, by the offense so plainly tbst it may be easily consent it is true, when the law is explicit understood. that each exception to an auditor's report (r) Thera is nothing iu the objection that most ii - passed upon seriatim. ) some of tbe acts chAr^cdinthe indictment 68 Ga., 65o cited and distinguished. 6. That the father resorted to a stratagem to get iMihst-Hsion of his child and place it uudiruU own roof, to avoid a scene and painful controversy, so far from being dis creditable to him should place his conduct in a more favoialdo light. At all events, os explained by his letter to delendant in error, it could not he con strued into an acknowledgment that he was asserting by indirection an authority that he was conscious he did not possees. J udg ment reversed. King it Spalding for plain tiff; llillyct A Bro. contra. Biivannali, Florida and Western Railway Company vs. Susan A. Folks. Caae, from Pistes. Before Judge Mershon. Railroads. Engineer. Contributory neg ligence. Hall, J. —From the evidence in this caso it clearly appears that the engineer, for wh<M« death in a r.ulroad cotlisifK. Us wife brings suit, was him»»-lf at fault, and that hU nrgligence contributed to if it was not A Clang of llurglars Kutrappeil In a Store —They Fight Their Way Out. Chattanooga Times. Tho little city of Dayton, on the Cincin nati Southern, whs thrown into a furore of i-xcitement Monday night by u bold and during attempt to burglarize the large jewelry store of J. J. Abel. About u week ago two or three well- dressed men came to Dayton nud ut once began to cultivuto the hum and rowdy ele ment of the place. They seemed to huve plenty of cash, and for a few d^ys spent it lavishly. They were closely watched, hut nothing crooked was discovered. Early last week a man went to Deputy Sheriff Holb and imparted to him the information that the men hail laid a plan to rub Abel’s jewelry store and the Ciuciuuuti Southern depot T)>e informant stated that tho burglars would tirst enter the store und then rob the depot. It was intended to carry their nlau into execution Saturday night, but for some reason they did uot make tho uttempt. Sheriff Thompson and Detective Tom Griffin, of the Cincinnati Southern railway, lmd in the meantime been summoned, and Monday morning they learned thut the rob bora were to act that night The officers concealed themselves in the store and quietly await d the attempt, having first stationed Mr. Abel and Nathan Reed on the outside, at u sufe distance from the build ing. The men were all armed to the teeth. About midnight the burglars, three in numlcr approached tho store and soon effected an entrance from the rear. Once in the building they began groping their way in the darkness to the safe, which contained considerable money and vul nuliles. Sudd' tdy the officers made their presence known, and eidled out to the burglars to surrend* r, saying they had be* n trapped ahd every avenue of escape had ls»en rut off. The crooks, however, were of a different opinion und exclaimed that they would not submit to arrest. They made a dash for liberty through the w iudowr, where they hod entered. The officers opened fire ou tnem, shooting at random in the darkness. The fleeing rob bers robbers retirn*-d the fire as they broke down the door, running over the two men who were guarding it. The burglars made good their estvpe bowavir and tied to the river, w*here they stole a skiff and started down the stream. A large posse was organ ized and went in puraait, bnt did not sac- cetd in overtaking the men. lully thirty or forty shots were firtd in tbe store and ii i» a miiacle that no one was killed in the fmilade. The bullets played havoo with show cases and other glassware. INDUSTRIOUS BURGLARS. They Take In Three Stores in One Mlilni|1 Visit. Smituville, March 11.—On the night d tbe Dth the stores of Johnson Bros., Evai »V Paul and W. L. Clarke, ut this place, entered by burglars and quite n large uuaa lity of merchandise stolen therefrom. Job son Bros, estimate their loss ut from D' to $250, all of fine jewelry, consisting < watches, chains, rings, cuff buttons, 6 Evans *V Paul cannot put any estimate their loss, it being principally of clotbis:! hats nnd shoes, the burglars being so dtliM crate as to try for a fit of numerous artici« p of clothing. W. L. Clark's loss is 1 small, amounting probably to $10, $1.2 which was of srnull change left in the a So cluo has been found «s to the guilty p ties, although every effort is being msJ that direction. Grinin Failure. Gumv. March 11— 1 'The stock of F. Springer, harness maker, waa sold ut tion by the sheriff this morning, un< mortgage held by Mrs. Hattie Sj»rinj Brought $281.70. Liabilities $7h5.i- ruled as follows: Mrs. lluttie Sprin. Griffin, $228; MantieA Gowun, Loui«n Ky., $56; Mayor A Christian, Loimfl Ky., $43; D. Morgan, Atlanta, $55 inun Manufacturing Company, Bui $09.65; Clark A Co., Rochester, S. $67.95; Columbia City Manufacturing 1 I may, Columbia, lnd., $30 12; Gro»i (lourian A Co., Cincinnati, $68; Yaoj 1 Michael A Co., Knoxville, Teun., American Whip Company, New York, Mr. Springer has outstanding claim* him of about $100, making totul r«-hoa: $381.70. He will resume business ut old Htuud, and hopes soon to be able to in full ail claims against hint. limKrl L* Ml d:i4 5. The relation between husband and I aa constituting the otteme of emtnzzlement the sole reuse of the accident. Ix Siam, it is aaid, a wif* who rtdeema her husband after he baa sold himself at gambling owns him thereafter as a chattel. One Victory for the AntU* Gainesville, March 10. —The electiot J Hall County on prohibition pew** f quietly to-day and rennlted in fo?«* wet side by 275 majority, and two prr<i» to hear from, which will not m“ t,w _ chauge the result. Gainesville gRrij wet majority, out of a vote of 811 sides worked diligently. The negroes* Hlmost solid for whisky. Tne Guiitcsvdlc gnve a free prohibition a fed hundreds of men and did all - power to banish the bar rooms. Tb* a are jabitunt to-night. Gainesville vm 11 have whisky and to spare. A Butchery at WaycroM. Waycbohs, March II.—At Naha#** this morning, Mr. Jordan, a wooto 1 *. Lary A Co., entered the shanty of Ward, colore*!, to ascertain why he b* gone to work. As he entered the Ward struck him with a turpentine killing him rlniost instantly. escaped through tho door ovtr the b*' his victim, and is still at large. A l” iu pursuit and everything is being capture him. Mhootlng a Hinging School TfF^J Hamilton, March9.—Mr. Janies A-yT hers, a famous singing school tesenc j hlpit in the abdomen and thighs witn shot by a negro boy, instigated by • woman, last ^uturday. No patb c J cause for shooting. The wounds • daijgtrous. Ducomy of a Paint M®*' Mahikita, Alurcb 9.—Mr. G. J* living at tbe foot of Kennesaw M* has discovered a valuable paint nun place, which promises to turn e There are three different colors, which se*-m to be of the best las only gone down about *»* 1 thinks from indications that in* • almost iucxhaahUble. It will be ly tested. _ llurpcc’s Farm AM"* 1 For ISM. advcrtiMd slMWkcre. laa 'ejj auti compute rautogue of oanteo. * x s««U, built*. FUnt* Tuoroorkbordni’ # fancy Poultry. It contain* W pa**J*. ^,1 plaits. hundiM* of UlaatnOUn*. a»a *• bound la an illumlaat*d cover. 1*^* . :ti formation of value to every And will be tent free on apphta^, d Horpee k Co . the teU knewn i dtljhia. Pa.