Newspaper Page Text
^STcaskof lusacy.
Storr »f *'■" c ““" Th,t M “ d “ “
LailV .
, n ii v built man walked into
tall- P 0 ”?" it Brown'd Hotel, yester-
raiding f°°“, wt down in n rocking
Tit.* HU (Ires suggested n
near the gr • bjg coat (lid n „tbut-
^ lie had in UU hand a
'; f 'tnbie E a'reporter was busy with his
Kexpanding some notes. He
' h ‘ .n a hurried glance as he settled
!,1 f in't£ rocking chair, and thonght
Y °Li','nwenty minutes the reporter
,U :.h on his shoulder. Glancing up,
‘ red the man standing over him.
there^ a lunatic asylum in thia city?”
J^reporter 1 * dropped his pencil and
•^e l 'si‘r'.-' b he' said, feeling rather
; r -, , v Mr ,l that the Georgia lunatic
' was at Macon," and, as I am con-
’?-itb »n asylum in Now York State,
“at that I would visit it.
rd <ieorgia lunatic asylum, the re-
1 : l ‘ns near Milledgeville, n town
'.Vfrl.m Macon about thirty miles.”
Well, 1 alii sorry. 1 am re-
• . from Florida, where, during the
P, s i have had charge of a lady whose
Vi, slightly clouded. I stopped off
' ., f the ’impression that the lunatic
I ”, was in the city. My namo is lloss.”
reporter joined Mr. lions at the grate
urviewretl him. . ..
Wh .' is your position in tho asylum
hick you aro connected?' he in-
„ beeper; the oldest at the asylum.
tc.n connected with the institution
_ years."
Von
THE MACON WEEKLY TELEGRAPH: TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 188G.-TWELVE PAGES.
most have hud some singular cx-
jQce < within that period.”
Jt i. ve indeed. Tho truth is, I have
that I find it difficult to keep
irp&nited when I think of them.”
at there is one question that you can
* pr no doubt, without getting things
,.,1 What do you consider the most re-
kible case of insanity, as to the cause,
l you remember?”
Yes that is a question I can easily an-
' 1 remember a case—the patient is
deal - which occurred about two years
. liecfttuea keeper. It was tho most
Lrkable I ever heard of. A lady who
ed in New York city had a very pretty
pirl. The child was about six years
nod between her and her mother tho
est affection existed. The child died,
mother was, of,, course, greatly dis-
„ ; d, but, in the course of time, regained
composure and, finally, her good spir-
Abont three years after the death of
child it became necessary to remove the
nim from the cemetery in which they
[been interred to another. The mother
ized with an unaccountable desire to
the coffin opened, in order
Nhe might view what was
r.f ht-r child. Her desire was opposed
her husband, hut she so strenuously
fated that ho yielded. When the coffin
or*ned and she looked in, tho mother
idd nothing hut a few hones. She said
[hir& mid returned to her home appar-
Ijr in her usual state of mind. The next
, her actious showed that she was vio*
t’y insane. At the dinner table, she
I a piece of beef bone, and shrieked
that htr child was being eaten. Nothing
Jil Ihj done to quiet her, and, when the
era risen from her, she attempted to
W. In or ler to prevent her from
milting sni -ide, the hone was returned
ter. She was sent to the asylum, where
i ftaaintd six years. During all that
e, she never once relaxed her grasp of
bone."
ht reporter made a noto of the story,
some further conversation with Mr.
and then bade hiru a goodbye, and
titend out into tho office.
That’s a tpinr fellow in the reading
m, that preacher-looking fellow,” ho said
fue of the clerks.
Y’» s.” the clerk replied, “he is a queer
(»*. That’s ., a Cincinnati
Inner. ”
h*- reporter pulled his hat down over his
! are «l “bout, and marched ont of tho
1 in starch of u truthful man.
SOLID MKN OF MACON.
Complete the Organliatlon of the
•Nfw Iiuumnce Company.
organizktion of the Macon Fire In-
Acd Company was completed yesterday
flog.
he stockholders met in the directors
m tho Kxelmnge llank at 10 o'clock.
. h. 8. Wilson announced that one hun-
aml thirteen thousand dollars of the
h ul been taken, thirteen thousand
i’ H m °re th in was necessary to permit
or^aniz ition of tho company as pro-
tor under its charter, lie stated that
ttd * cured the amount he numed in
ten hours wotk. The list of stock*
h as follows:
b K. K. Dark, Messrs. Cobb, Wilson
aniss, Messrs. H. T. Coleman k Co.,
Harper. Mr. A. II. Small, Mr.
H. Campbell, Mr. H. T. Jolmaon,
». K. Jaqnes, Capt 8. H. Dunlap, Ma-
L 1. Uwton, Mr. M. Nussbanm, Mr
OibuQ, Mr. s. Waxdbanm, Mr. I. C.
|i Hr. It. H. Plant, Mr. H. J. Lamar,
l “'fs. Lyons A Cline, Messrs. J. W.
r “*v°- MrM * M - A - Van Hyckel, Mr.
» Ndoiuon, Mr. N. M. Solomon, Hon.
-birtltt, Messrs. Delian A Bartlett,
; , L li. j. Lamar.
aitr the charter, the first business in
“w;w the election of nine officers.
,)U> resulted in the election of Mr. 8.
‘ Mr. U II. Plant, Mr. M. Nuss-'
W. Cabaniss, Mr. W. II. Bur-
Hr. II. J, Lamar, dr., Mr. \Y. V.
r ^r,Cqu. s.s. Dunlap, and Mr. 8. T.
? llU ‘ ^ r * H. 8. Wilson was elected
■irv and treasurer.
V'*} *’£ observed that tho board is corn-
j . «« representative business men
capitalists of Macon. They are ‘*tlie
«, n !? a ° f ^icon," and in their hands
u^css of m e ompany is assured.
“u interview with Mr. E. 8. Wilson
^ *..iy ufunioou he informed a Tux-
h reporter that a meeting of the board
• ictun* would be held in a few dajs,
* u the elation of a president would
*, • He said, also, that the license
■ lOameaa would bo obtained from the
*• * an ‘l H*«t nil necessary sup
uni'l be ordered, ho that the company
jl husinesa without delay
,.V W y<-*t been definitely determine«l
* ‘l ong the company will lease for ita
, r d ofhcM, but it is probable that a
' one, now in course of erec-
„ h 7 r y street, will be aecnre<l.
fi liog * ’ the com PW»y >aUl erect its own
l^/'rganizvtion of the Macon Fire losur*
mipany was characteristic of Mac *n's
. _ * uen ; They will not touch a wild-
Lnt will promptly put their
rJZr'tf-ty ' nto an enterprise based
JUU d leniuctw principles.
Hif r Tl1 * WWarenea.
,, soiue money, please. I
*!S*® tu ^ » loaf of cake, and I shall
lu-r tM »'‘ a c i* D B e h> buy some of the iu-
w ... Ho^wid-^Half a doll r
t, 2 .’ don’t know. I am
Li i l! aecording to the recipe in
Husband—“H’m! Well,
a difference. Here’s a $10 bill.”
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGI A. ^!,
Decisions Rendered Tuesday, March 23d
1886.
Special Report by H«nry G. Peeples.
Central Railroad and Ranking Company vs
Hams. Case, from City Couit of Atlanta.
Btifore Judge Clarke. Railroads. Neizli-
gence. Charge of the Court. *
Jacxhoii, C J.—1. It wh8 error to instruct
the jury that the omission of the employes
of the plaintiff in error to ring the bell on
ite engine as it left the depot wns negli.
gence, without further instructing them
that it was not negligence which could af
fect the husband of defendant in error if
his death wns caused solely by his own neg
ligence in jumping off the train while f n
motiou, notwithstanding an iron rail barrier
was in his way over which he leaped, and
thereby fell between two cars and was thus
killed ; the railroad company insisting on
the defense mentioned and there being some
evidence to sustain it.
(u) The railroad company could set up
either that plaintiff’s husband caused his
death by his own negligence, or that he
could have avoided it by the exercise of
ordinary care. These defenses are distinct
—Code, sections 3034, 2072.
2. It is the duty of tho judge in his charge
to the jury to cover substantially the issues
made iu the case, and this lie must do,
whether he ho specially requested so to do
or his attentiou be called thermo, or not.
If, after ho has done so, more specific in
struction is desired than it must bo re
quested by counsel. 64 Ga., 582; 63 Go.,
664, etc.
3. No other error appears. Judgment re
versed.
Jackson A King for plaintiff, Hoke A
Burton Smith contra.
Russell, administrator,vs. Hubbard. Com.
plnioant from city court of Atlnntn. Be
fore Judge Clark. Pleading. Default.
Practice. Defences. Administration. Ver
dict. Judgment. Newly discovered evi
dence.
Hall, J.—1. Tho motion to strike de
fendant's pleas and have judgment entered
in plaintiff's favor by default was properly
overruled. In almost every case tho
allowance of such motions is in the discre
tion of the court, and we will not interfere
unless that discretion lias been grossly
abused. 57 Ga. 25; Code p. 1,348, 23
Rules; Code section, 3,458, 3,482.
2. statutory requirements of the State of
Alabama, in reference to the presentation
of claims against the estates of deceased
persons and of notice thereof to their rep
resentatives, were properly held inapplica
ble to defences set up to suits brought by
such TcpresentativcH in the courts of this
State. 13 Ga. 140; 5 Ga. 537.
3. In this case there was no suggestion
that the estate of plaintiff s intestate was in
solvent, and therefore there was no reason
for such verdict or judgment as would have
been proper hud plene adminlslraril or plene
adminislraril praetcr been replied to the set
off pleaded by defendant.
(a) The verdict conformed to the plead
ings, and if the judgment does not follow
the verdict can he amended. There is no
exception here hn this ground.
4. The newly discovered evidence was
merely cumulative and could have been had
at the triul with proper diligence. Judg
ment affirmed.
C. B. Barnes for plaintiff, Mynatt A
Howell, contra.
-earned that Wimpey bought from Ander
son, as agent of Frick & Co., with tho un-
d^r.itanding that title was to remain in them
till fully paid for; that Wimpey failed to
pay; that Anderson, the agent of plaintiff,
without making auy effort to collect tfie
purchase money from Wimpey or out of the
property, agreed with Wimpey that he
might sell the canine and tbeveUy raise tho
money to pay for the same, provided he
would pay him, the said Anderson, five
thousand dollars out of money which
Wimpey expected to receive from ft
certain trade about to be made, and
filling to consummate the trade
Wimpey could not carry out the contract
with Anderson, but in the meantime had
sold to defendant, who bought without no
tice of any encumbrance upon the proper-
tv, and without notice from said agent that
Wimpey had no title, or that he and Wim
pey had made the agreement; and that this
contract operated os a fraud upon defend
ant by plaintiffs through their agent, and
estops them from recovering. This plea
was stricken and all evi lence thereunder
was ruled out, including the notes which
Ezzard gave Wimpey, containing an ex
pressed guarauto of light to pass title by
Wimpey.
This was error. The plea set up facts
which constituted a fraud on Ezzurd by
plaintiff’s agent and by which they would
ho hound. 23 Ga. 201).
(a) Although there is some evidence that
the agency of Anderson was a restricted
one, yet he seems to have represented
J hiintiffs throughout this transaction,
udgmeut reversed.
II. B. Tompkins for plaintiff; Mynatt A
liowell contru.
Pittman vs. Elder et al. Complaint, from
City Court of Allunta. Statute of limita
tions. Revival of debt. New promise.
Consideration.
Hall, J -1 A debt coming within the
limitation act of M irch 16th, 1863 (acts p.
133), which not ouly bars the right of action
hut extinguishes the debt, can be revived
by a new promise in w.iting made after the
lapse of the period which the net prescribes
for the bringing of the suit, without addi
tional consideration for the promise. 68
Ga. 532; 62 Ga. 238; 1 Whar. on Con. Sec.
513; 2 Ex. Rep. 90; l Add. on Con. Sec. 13
7IL I. 472-474; 3 Bos. A Pull. 243. Sec. 243
11 Ad. A Ells. 447; Cowper's ltop. 544,
547-543.
(a) The provisions of our law, (Code 1950
par. 6, 2542, 2931) requiring a promise to
revive a debt buried by the statute of limi
tations to be in writing are neither inappli
cable nor repugnant to anything containe*
in tbe act of 1869, nor does that act inter
fere with, or in any manner affect such re
quirements.
(It) All that the statute does is to open the
c.mrts to the debtor and invite him to enter
nd protect himself from his obligation by
pleading its provisions in bar of a recovery.
It does not compel him to do this, hut he
may w’sive or renounce it. Code 10 and
Cit itions; 72 Ga., 331, 337, 338. Judgment
affirmed.
Hopkins A Glenn for plaintiff; Speairs A
Simmons, Hillyer A Bro., Hulsey A Bate
man, contra.
S ound that they resided out of the State of ]
eorgia, and levied by serving a summons
of garni bment on a party indebted to them.
They appeared and dissolved the garnish
ment by giving bond and security. On the
hearing plaintiff failed to prove that the
firm composed of the individuals above
named were indebted to him, but did prove
that a firm composed of It. A. Patterson,
T. C. Williams aud James Thomas, Jr.,
were his debtors. He then moved to strike
from his declaration the names of Ruther
ford and It. F. Patterson aud insert in lien
tlieieof the names of Williams and Thomas.
The court allowed the names to be stricken,
but refused to allow the insertion asked.
Plaintiff then moved tor judgment against
It. A. Patterson alone, but the court denied
this and refused either a judgment on the
bond given, or a general Judgment against
R. A. Patterson. Held, the action of the
court was correct throughout.
1. The insertion of other names than
those stricken, would have amounted to the
addition of new and distinct parties. Code
3180.
Section 3181 of the Code only provides
for the addition of the names of parties
omitted in suits by or ngAinst partners, and
no omission was shown here.
2. A suit against a partnership can
scarcely he turned into one against one of
the members of the firm, aud especially is
this true, where foundation of the suit is an
attachment, which has been so far turned
into a common law suit as to givo tho
plaintiff a right to enter both a spec al
judgment on the bond and a general judg
ment against the defendants.
The sureties became bound for the firm
and not for any individual member thereof,
and hence tho court could not givo judg
ment against them on their obligation.
3. As to the general judgment against the
only party retained by the amendment
made, that could hardly be rendered against
him, unless it was shown that he and not
tho firm of which he was a member, had by
his bond consented that the suit might pro
ceed against him asau individual.
(a) la a suit oguiusl a partnership, all its
members must be in the action, unless
there is some sufficient legal reason to tho
contrary, and that reason should appear in
the pleadings or otherwise on tho face of
the proceedings. •Judgment nffinnod.
Hoke A Burton Smith for plaintiff, Hop
kins A Glenn contra.
Bernhard vs, tho State. Simple larceny,
from Clayton. Bi-foro Jndge Hammond.
Verdict. Charge of the Court. Accom
plice. Indictment. Evidence. Dtunkcn-
ness.
Jackson, C. J.—1. Bernhard being the
only, defendant on trial a verdict of guilty
meant him, and could not mean either of
the others indicted with him bat not on
trial. 55 Ga., 599.
2. The verdict is sustained by evidence
and law.
# 3. The court need not givo written re
quest* when the law of the case, applicable
ami neorssary, has been given in tho gen
eral charge.
4. It was not error to charge that if s
witness sworn in the case is an accomplice,
his tespmony without more cannot convict,
bnt if the jury believo from the evidence
that the witness was not an accomplice,
then his evidence alone rnav convict; and
this would be true though he was charged
in tbe indictment with the crime, and his
own testimony alone showed he was not an
accomplice, and though be was present, if
that presence was constrained, or ho was
enticed to bo there by a false claim of de
fendant and another to the property in the
cotton uml an anticipated lawsuit about it.
5. Where the cotton was alleged to belong
to a man whoso first initial W’os “I” and the
proof showed it was “J,” or vice versa,
there was no error to instruct the jury that
it the initial waa written wrong by mistake
in the indictment, the proof of ownership
in the person bearing the true namo would
be sufficiently made.
Moreover, ownership was alleged to he iu
one Banks and this man, wh ho initial
makes the point under consideration sml
whose surname was Lindb r and the initial
letter of the middle name was all right.
6. It was not error to refuse to charge.
“While drunkenness is no excuse f.»r
crime, yet if you believe from the evidence
that the defendant was drunk at the time
of the alleged offense, then >ou may look
to this as a circumstance going to show auy
intention on his part to commit an offense.”
(1.) Because it is confused and difficult to
be understood.
(2.) Because while there is evidence tb it
detenduut wns drinking, there is none that
he was drunk.
(3.) Because it a man steal when ho is
drunk, he is just as guilty under our statute
ns if he were sober. Oode43Ul. Judgment
affirmed.
J. T. Rpence, C. W. Hodnett by Harrison
A Feeplts for pluintiff;0. D. Hill contra.
Robinson vs. The 8tate. Gaming, from
City Court of Atluuta. Ik-fore Jud^e
Clarke. Criminal law. Verdict Evi
dence. Limitations.
Jackson, C. J.~ 1. The evidence required
conviction. Defendant played at a game in
which cbiim were staked which ha I been
paid for, though it seems he got his stack of
chips on credit.
2. The State may prove that he gambled
at any time within two years of the indict
ment
3. The charge of tho Court was the law
of the caw, aud if it had uot !**n the evi
dence required the verdict Judgment af-
A. A. Manning for plaintiff ; IL C. Glenn,
contra. ____
Ezzanl vs. Frick A Company. Trover,
from Fulton. Before Judge Hammon t
Trover. Conversion. Flooding. Fraud.
Principal and Agent
Jackson, C. J.—1. Conversion was proved.
The engine was demanded and »ta restora
tion denied. Moreover, the purchase of it
from Wimpey, to whom plaintiffs below
sold, reserving the title* by Ezzird, and it*
appropriation to Ezz ird a use is conversion.
The sale by Wimpey to Ezaurd ia conver
sion in thelatter. 65 Ga- 260.
2. There was no error in the instruction
that the plaintiff having elected to take
damagea in the place of property could re
cover the value of tbe engine with hire.
Code 3057; 67 Oa. GC6; Wood* tU aL Lxrs.
ve. McCall. ... * .. .
3. Defendant pb*d that he bought and
Thomas, administrator, vs. Morris»eH, ex
ecutor. Appeal, from Muscogee. Ht-foro
Judge Wiliis. Administration. Wills.
Personalty. Domicil. Foreign judg
ments, Foreign executor.
Hai.i., J.—1. The personal property of a
dccc'ised person is t > ho administered ac
cording to tlie la.' of his domicil. The law
of the country of which he is a subject reg
ulates the hucccssiou. 71 Go. -l-i, 2J7 and
citations. This law applies to mortgages
on land as well as to olln-r personalty.
‘2. Judgments of tho courts of other
States shall have such fuith uadcredit given
them here ns they have by law or usage in
tho courts of the Stale whore they are rco-
dered. Codo 3930.
(o) Issues passed upon by aprobnte court
of Alabaiuu cannot be opened and inquired
into again by a proceeding in our courts
substantially between the same parties and
involving the same issue.
(fc) Then is nothing in the question of
domicil to take it out of the general rale,
ind that question was passed by the Ala
bama prohate court. Loud vs. Cunnon,
October term, 1H95.
3. No general administration should be
granted when there is a will in existence,
hich is afterwards proven and admitted to
record.
And where a will has been proven nfter
such a grunt the grant would ho revoked,
except as to such portions of the estate as
had been fully admiuisterud prior toils nro-
duet on and probate. Field et al vs. Carl
ton et al, Octotior term 1895, 8 Crouch -J;
Wms. F.xrs. 813, bid et seq.; 38 Ala. dill; 33
A'n. 571).
(u) These principles arc not varied by the
fact that the probate of tue will wus in un-
another State, provided tbe testator was
domiciled there at the time of his death,
undo fordure, where tho jurisdiction has
been coutested there by tbe heirs at law on
the ground of dotnted and that question has
been adjudged ng iiu-1 them.
()>) lu this respect it isimtrortaut to distin
guish between general and limited udtuihU-
trations, such as administrations mi culli-
r/uerfirm, penilrnle lilt, etc.
4. Iu this nine there wus no necessity for any
of these limited administrations. This up-
plication was made pending proceedings to
prove tbe wiU in another Suite, of which
the parties at whose instance it was taken
had full knowledge, as they were parties to
those proceedings.
It is plain that they songht to obviate the
force of any judgment that might he ren
dered against them .u Alabama. Guerrard
vs. Guerrard, Brown va. Brown. Sept,
term, 1884.
The purpose of this administration was
in raifestly collusive, and for that reason it
was void. Schoule va. exrs. and ailmra.
see. 31 and citations.
5. A foreign executor could manage the
portion of this estate in Georgia, an well as
an ttOiiiin'strutor hero, uml no resident of
Georgia ia mterested in the estate, either ok
rcdllor, legatee or di-tributee. Code, sees.
2014 to 2618, ho b in lilsive.
6. The will in qnestiou contains other be
quests nod appoints an executor, and
whc'.her the chaiilahle requests therein be
invalid or uot, that fact do-ft not interfere
with the admiuiatraiion at tho estate under
tbe will CD Gt. 1M; 37 Go. 293.
The entire estate passes into the bands of
the executor, and lie is to administer it
nuder the direction of the court haring ju
risdiction of the matter.
7. Tho act of 1893 (ocU, pps. 100, 101),
the act of 1978 (acta, p 140), of which it ia
amendatory, and preceding acts on the
Kama subject, Co lo 2431 (a), 2435, 2135(a),
2435 (li), do n t COUL-UU any expression
contravening tbi* view. On tbe contrary,
they are iu eutire accord with it. Judgment
affirmed.
G. £. Thomas, McNeil A Bevy, h. F.
Garrard, E U. Orr, Harrison A l’ecplcr for
p'aintilf; Smith A llus-ell contra.
Ulaudtonl, J., concurred.
Jackson, C. J., dissented, bat furnished
no written opinion.
Williams vs. Suiter. Certiorari, from Chat
ham. Before Judge Adams. Justices’
Courts. Jurisdiction. Malicious abuse
of process. Judgment. Illegality. Cer
tiorari.
Hall, J.—1. An action for suing ont n
garnishment maliciously and without prob
able cause is not cognizabto in a Justice's
Court, though the amount of damages
claimed does not exceed one hnndred dol
lars. Code 5153, 4130.
2. Judgment iu tho Justice’s Court in
favor of the plaintiff in such a esse is utter
ly void, and tins properly arrested nail set
aside, either on affidavit of illegality or mo
tion to vacate for want of jurisdiction.
Code 3531.
3. The case brought up by certiorari was
only tint made upon tho affidavit of ille
gality to tlie execution issuing from this
void judgment, and when tlie applicant for
the writ had paid all cost accruing in that
case, and given tho bond and security re
quired by law. she had complied with the
conditions entitling hor to it. Code 1051.
Judgment affirmed.
P. M. A It. tV, Russell, Levy A Lozoran,
for pluinlitl; J. J. Abrams, contra.
not’bouml under the law to fence in or place
guards around and along a out through
which its track runs, when there is a street
or road running parallel with the railroad.
Code 7(9), 7D7. Judgment affirmed.
L. J. Winn by Harrison A Peeples for
plaintiff; llillyer A Bro. contra.
Foster vs. Collier et ftl. Award, from Ful
ton. Before Judge Hammond. Arbitra
tion and Award. Evidence. Continuance.
Practice. Arbitrators.
BniNorohD, J.—1. Tho arbitration in this
case was held under sections 4225, 4226 et
seq. of the Code. When plaintiff iu error
filed hit exceptions to tho award there
under he should have also, filed a brief
of the evidence heard by the arbitrators;
except ns to his suggestion that tbe arbitra
tors were uot sworn, but as this was not
under oath it was properly not considered.
The court did right to refuse to continue
tbe case to allow time to file a brief of evi
dence. Tlie award was made in February
and the exceptions filed in July thereafter.
50 Ga. 641; 44 Ga. 095; 47 Ga. 10; 48 Go.
421; Cod i see. 4243.
to.) It may he questioned if an exception
that tbo arbitrators were not sworn can be
taken after the award. Judgment affirmed.
Martin A Hobbs for plaintiff; Jno. Collier
contra.
Banner vs. Shivers. Certiorari, from Ful
ton. Judge Hammond. Wages. Gar
nishment. Locomotive engineer.
Biammmi), J.—1. The monthly wages of
n locomotive engineer in the employment
of n railroad company arc not subject to
garnishment, although they exceed the sum
of live bundled dollars per year. Code 3554.
(a) He is not an officer of the corpora
tion, but a servant thereof. Judgment
affirmed.
Thomas Finley for plaintiff, It. J. Jordan
contra.
Hr.il ct al. vs. Huff et al. Equity, from
Fulton. Before Judge Hammond. De-
cree. Bill of Review. Rea Adjudicata.
Practice.
Blandfoud, J.—1, \Vhen nnexception has
beeu taken to a decree, on the ground that
tho same is erroneous, and error on said ex
ception has been assigned and tlie ease was
brought before this court whore the writ of
error was dismissed on the groand that the
error assigned did not specify nnd point out
wherein tlie decree was erroneous, a bill of
review will not lie for tee errors iu said de-
Brower vs. Cothran, last term.
Supremo Court of Georgia.
Atlanta, March 24.--No. 12. Eastern cir
cuit. Argument concluded.
No. 13 Eastern circuit. Leggett A Co.
vs. Van Horn ct nl. Argned. C, N. West
by King A Spalding contra.
iiidduc oiBcnrr.
No. 1. Middle circuit Kolly vs. Mo-
Whortor. Argned. A. F. Daly for plain
tiff; 8. A. McWhorter, Cain A Polhill contra.
No. 2. Middle circuit. McWatly vs. Jef
ferson county. Argned. W. L. Phillips for
plaintiff; Gamble A Hunter contra.
No. 3. Middle circuit. Marchman vs.
Robertson, Tsylor A Co. Argned. F. H.
Haffold for plaintiff; W. L. Phillips contra.
Court then adjourned to 9 o’clock a. in.
to-morrow.
Atlanta, Mirch 25.—No. 3. Middle cir
cuit. Argument concluded.
No. 4. Middle circuit Central Railroad
vs. Matthews. Lawtou A Cunningham, A.
R. Lawton for plaintiff; Hook A Montgom
ery, Hobby A Matthews contra.
The court then adjourned to 9 o'olock a. .
m. to-morrow.
A LEGEND OF BUKMAH
Atlanta ■■ nd Charlotte Air Line Railroad vs
Holcombe. Case, trim City Court of
Atlanta Before Judge Clarke. Dnmages,
Railroads. Transportation. Evideuce.
BLANnronn, J —The issue between the
parties was whclhet tho railway company
had anfficient means at their command to
transport certain wood of plaintiff below,
which had been placed upon their line of
road to Atlanta, conveniently, without in
terfering with the general business of the
road. The jnry found f >r plaintiff and there
was evidence t o support tlieir verdict. Judg
incut affirmed.
Hopkins A Glenn for plaintiff; Hoke aud
Burton Smith con'ra.
lh hi ison vs Woodinausce et al. Contempt,
from Fulton. Before Jndge Hammond.
Contempt. Evidence.
Ham, J—The proof was ample to show
that defendant below had participated in a
contempt of theorder appointing a receiver
fir his assets and commanding him to pay
r turn over oil of aaid assets to the receiver,
lie evidently participated in if he did uot
contrive and direct tbe misappropriation of
funds complained of, and aiaeil in placing
them beyond the reach of the court. Jadg.
went affirmed.
A. A. Maiming for plaintiff; Ilarriaon A
Peeples, W. U. Brown, C. II. A R. B.
Barnes, Candler, Thompson A Candler, L.
J. Glcun A Bon contra.
2. Even if this case wore uot governed by
the cuse lust cited, still when the writ of
error in this case was dismissed the deoree
excepted to was nfllrmed, and this is res
adjudicata.
Judgment affirmed.
James A. Gray, T. 1’. Westmoreland for
plaintiff; King A Spalding, Hillyer A Bro.,
Candler, Thompson A Candler, Hopkins at
Olenny, E. N. Broyles contra.
Georgia Kailrond Company vs. Cole and
wife. Case, from DcKalb. Before Judge
Clark. Jury, Conduct of the couit.
l'ractico.
Blandforu, J.—After tho jury were
charged anil hod been out some time, the
court had them brought back and suiil ho
understood they were not likely to agree,
aiol inquired «a to the trouble. A juror
id it was on the question of amount. The
court said, I cannot aid you in tlint, that I
know of, further than npon that matter the
jury ought to luske a very earnest effort to
agreo upon the amount, of course a juror
ought not to give up his convictions if they
ure so strong, but there ought to he an effort
to come to an agreement. Y’ou can retire
nnd see if you cannot agree on tbo amount.
The jury found for the plaintiff below.
This instruction was error. Tlie case was
a close ono on a suit for personal injuries
and the jury may have been misled. Judg
ment reversed.
J. B. Cumming, Hillyer it Bro, Candler,
Thompson >V Candler for plaintiff; Hoke A
That Applies to Kverr-I>ay Life In America-
Good Words.
In ono of tlie stories the King is march
ing nt tlie head of his army, and encamps at
night near a cucumber garden. He gives
strict orders that no one shall enter tbo
gate, and dcuth is to ho the penalty of any
man who disoboys his injunctions. Aftor
dark he goes outiu disguise to see that his
commands are carried out, and ia caught by
the owuer us Boon ns he enters the gate.
He declares that he is the King, ’’That ia
S uite impossible,” answers the man; “ths
mg never would he such a fool oh to diso
bey bis own orders," and he kuuvkshim on
tho bead and kills him. Tlie next morning
tho dead body is discovered, and the gener
als and the courts are in great straits; if tho
King is found out to be dead, ntter confus
ion will take place, nnd tbe whole army
will melt nway. “You mnst oat King,
they say to tlie gardener, and they put tho
kingly crown uml robes upon him. He he
lm ves with all the dignity nnd decorum of an
Eastern, nnd particularly knows how to
hold his tongue. The battle is fought and.
won, ami afterward his head is turned; ho
behaves insolently to everybody, nnd par
ticularly to the priests of tho groat temple.
Then followa a long digression into another
story. Tlioro is a wind-up, however, a good
way further on, showing how, after tho
;arilener’s death, his son snccocded, but
laving become quito intolerable in his gran
deurs aud absurdities, tho son of the right
ful King wns brought forward and put upon
his father's throne.
Died by Ills Own liana.
Bi-oominoton, III., Mirch 25.—Hon.
William H. Smith of Lexington, HI, com
mitted suicide at 7 o'clock this morning.
He left bis house in good spirits, and a few 1
minutes Inter was found in a barn dead,
with a bullet hale through his head, Ho
wns a general merchant and n large farmer
and stock dealer, aud was worth 6800,000. 1
Ho was formerly a member of tbe Illinotis ..
Railroad aud Warehouse Oommissiou. )Io .
wus several times iu the State Legislature,
and was Speaker of tbe House, nnd for a
quarter of a century a representative Illinois '
Republican, lie was 57 years old, und a
native of Kentucky.
Ths Madasascsr Sensation Exploded.
London, March 24.—Report of serious
engagments ia Madagascar late in Feb
ruary, in whieb tlie French were said to he
disastrously detested, proves to have been
without foundation. The accounts of the
battles brought by the African mnil steamer
were of buttles which took place in Beutem- ,
tier last, a short time bolero tho uossaion of
hostilities. There has been no outburst of
hostilities. t
Burton Bmith contra.
Howes vs Patterson A Co. Attachment,
from Fulton. Before Jndge Hammond
Pleadings. Amendment. Partnership.
Practice.
Hall, J.— lttochment was sued ont
against K. A PaUeraon, T. U. Rutherford
’the
Tucker vs Atlanta Street Railroad. Case,
from City Court of Atlanta. Before Judge
Clarke
Dlandford, J.—The part of the charge
excepted to, when taken in connection with
the whole charge, ia not erroneous.
The verdict is sustained by law and evi
deuce und tbe court charged the law as
favorably ok plaintiff in error was entitled to.
Judgment affirmed.
W. M. Bray, Hulsey A Bateman for
plaintiff ; Ilopxms A Glenn contra.
Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railroad vs.
Harrison A Brother. Cuse, from Fulton,
before Judge Hummoml. Railroads.
Service. Mututory coustuction. Con
tinuance.
Hl-ANuroitn, J. 1. It was net error to held
that the words: •• Such Leasing Compauy
iu section 3369 (a) of the Code, mean the
Lessor Company.
The words ns used in the statute mean
the company winch has let, farmed out or
rented iu pnqierty to uuother.
2. Tbe Court committed no error ia con
tinuing tbe case uud allowing the plaintiff
below further time to perfect service, as has
been frequently decided by this Court.
Judgment uffiruied to Hopkins A Glenn for
plaintiff; Geo. T. Fry, Hoke Bmith contra,
Clark A Nonmdly vs. Cumming A Co.
Complaint from l'ullon. Before Judge
Hammond. Broker. Principal andugtnt,
I Detractions Custom.
llLANDronu, J.—1. A broker is a special
agent and derives his authority to bind hi*
piiueipd from the instructions given to
him by his principal. Cods 8194, 2196,
2181; Btory on Agency p. 32: 1 Esp.
111,113; 32 Md. 169; CD Ill. 237.
2. When definite instructions are given
by the principal to the broker Pi sell goods
for him at a certain spccifi d price
for a certain time and day only, this
will not authorize the broker to contract
and sell tbe same kind of goods for his
prin ips] st a different aodsnbseqneuttiine
lor tbe same price, (s) This ia true »i»s
though it hau been issued ia the course of
diallings between the broker and his prin
cipal for the broker to continae to sell at
the prices quoted lest by the principal. 52
Ud. 179andl9l) Judgment offliun-d
Abbott A Gray for plaintiff; A. E. Cal
houn, A. b. Cox, contra
McAlpin vs. Bailey, 8heriff. Rule, from
City Court of Savannah. Before Judgo
Harden. Debtor and creditor. Judg
ment. Priority.
Blandtord, J. - This cose is controlled by
Coleman va. Slade A Ethridge, lost term. A
, udgmeut levied on laud to which deed bus
liceu filed iu tbo Clerk's office by plaintiff
iu judgiuuat to defendant, under aectiou
1970 of tlie Code, will take precedence over
an older)udgmeut against same defendant,
obtained after the conveyuneo by said de
fendant to tbe said plaintiff, although the
first mentioned judgment is a general one.
Judgment affirmed.
John S. Schley, Wooten A McDonald for
plaintiff; Lawton A Cunningham contra.
Taylor vs. Benjamin. Rais vs. Justico of the
j’ruae, from Effingham. Before Judge
Adams. Distress Warrant. Garnishment.
Justice of the Peace. Rule. Jurisdiction.
tiLANDrnuD, J.—Where distress warrant
was sued out against Benjamin and on it
summons of garnishment was served on
Tiaon, and Titmn answered, admitting in
debtedness and paid in a sum of money,
nnd the justice of the peace who collected
the money paid it over to the plaintiff in
tho distress wurrsDt, tbs justice was not
subject to a role afterwards brought by tbe
defendant iu the distress warrant to compel
the payment of tbe money to him. Ob
jection should have been made by him before
the money wus paid over. The garnishee
•ltd uot object aud waa not bound to do so,
(u.) While garnishment could not issue
on a distress warrant, yet oaths justice had
jurisdiction of ths parties and the subject
mutter, tlie judgment was merely errone
ous, anil was good until reversed or set
aside. Judgment reversed
P. W. Meld rim, IL F. C. Smith, J. G. A
D. H. Clark fi r plaintiff; A. C. Wright by
S. B. Adams contra.
< rui-; i.iviiR.
Tilt-; KlUNI'Vfi.
. THi: NTOWACUi
THE BOWSUi
Crab Orchard
WATER.-/,,.
mi
rf?«5
hit!
fir
a rusiTiVB cure Fou
3 DYSPEPSIA, s-k
a l*oUHIM1IIC H L 3
Dot*Ont to two tttapoontalf.
(•iMiuliM! Crab Ori'iumi Halts In »pb1*
e<l pack Aim at fO and 33c l a. No gen*
utuc Salta ruhl \n balks
Crab Orchard Water Co.. Proprt.
I. N. ICNL-S, Maaager. Loulttllla. Ky.
niarir.tiua'AWt’irn
COME AND SEE US !<
Collier vs Georgia Railroad Banking Com
pany, Ossa, bom City Coart of Atlanta.
^ _ Before Judge Clark*. Railroads. Cuts.
F»lvey vh. Georgia railroad, apppeal from
Fulton. B-fore Judge Hnmmnnd. Com
mon currier*. Krilrotul*. Tranaportation.
Damage*. Contacting Rnea. Evidence.
Blanpkoud. J.—I. When the goo!* are
received l»y a carrier to be transported be
yond the terminus of it* line, and delivered
at a particular pDce nml to particular per-
non* nt anch place, without more, a contract
i* implied tunt the carrier will c&u«c such
good* thus delivered to it to bo c-irrhd to
tbo pltce of dedication safely, without
damage or burt, nnd be will In* liable to the
consignor, for failure to perform hi* con
tract, for any damage* wbuh may anno
tlwefrotn to the party injured.
(ci) To ascertain if any contract was made
by the fi nit carrier to trsuaport beyond Its
line to the place of de*tination, the lull of
affreightment may be looked to, and aliunde
evidence may nlno be iutrodu?ed, such as
pay tueut of all the freight to it, the way bill
and de*ignation of all the line* over which
the good* are to go and the apportionment
by the find carrier of the amount which
each line is to he iwid. Code, 2UHJ; 45 Ga.,
148; 38 Ga., 37. 519; 37 Oa., 103; 36 Ga.,
635; 8 Met*. .V Wriby, 421; 32 Ga., 409.
(a.) 'Ilie i’pinitm of the majority of the
Court iu 42 Ga., 612, considered and over
ruled.
2. Thia rule is not changed by section
26i4 of the Code. The ouly change which
this statute makes U to give the consignee
i remedy agatiMl ilw Ust fv*d receiving the
goods a* in good order, which he might not
neve bed before the adoption of this section
of the Code. This is a cumulative remedy.
Judgment reversed, Broyles k Johnson
for plaintiff; Hooper ‘
./. W. BURKE & CO,'
146 Second street and 7 Cotton avenne,
Invlt* their fHernia and tbe public to the largest
anil beat aelected stock of gooda In their line ever
aeen in the South. Don’t buy until you have had
their price* and seen sample# of their goods.
yuallilea and price# to enit all.
FI ANUS AND ORQ4N8 AND ALL MILSI-
CAL MERCHANDISE.
Everything of the beat and fully guaranteed.
THE JFAIR!
Has entirely new line of
goods just arrived from New
York at bottom prices.
R.F. SMITH, Proprietor.
THE O.I.O. CO.,
PERRY, GEORGIA, \
la the eole proprietor of
O. I. c.
(Old Indian Care),
Tlie Perfect Illootl Purifier !
This regulable Tonic and Purifier never
foils. Druggists ti ll it and indorse it every
where.
Dr. Wm. F. Bynum, Sr„ a prominent
phy-iciun nnd citizen of lav. Oak, Fla,,
write, ns: “U give* the beat satisfaction of
all tbe Blood Emitters."
Ladies ia Delicate IleultU
Have in it a Sovereign Cure.
AS A TONIC AND APPETI/. Kit,
There U absolutely nothing to compare
with it.