Newspaper Page Text
THE MACON WEEKLY TELEGRAPH: TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 27, 188U.--TWELVE PAGES.
St ' 1 21 —No. 5 (continned).
mHP 1 ■ . firimsley, administrator,
SfCi J V C - f w ‘ u ;v A -
Ho.lnel 1 - •'« „ kiu, for plain-
4 S 01 wlraiik w. Kiddoo contra,
f • o. W. '■ » r iron it. Dismissed,
pi- t "gfeft circuit. ni«* vs.
So. J*“* d Smith & Russell, w. A.
b, for
Pe»boiy & BrannoM
lontrs- .. itrnp .i * 0 9 n. m. to-morrow,
feostl'rn arcait wiUJw reached To-
h"'- .^IdTpruWl., »**•-
I r.sisj't h>' doory C. Peeples. -
f R.ilros.1 »ud BankiOff Company vs.
LtrJ I" 1 " Cuc ( ron , Striven. /before
■ H Railroad*. NsfflBMme.
uB^„pr«ofth.-Court.^-
■»f **{? As the owe g(fi
r trial nn opinion is
back
*to*ss5>#tbf T^ic"
e *Tmrv to evidenoo and la*",
f D the rfnty of a railroad company so
~ V- Stnlion or de pot that the passenger
fcn off st tb» depot or place to alight
Stuff the car without danger; it is also
'? f. L fix such a way of exit from tho
■rarer its right of way that the passenger
: .o ,«rav from the place he is invited to
Ccndoffat without danger o life or
it is not its duty to Bee him safe
scSnro in hi* exit from the track and
'voluntarily getting off a
not at a station, but where it i» tern-
h stopped, without some announno-
or wtion of the company's agents, do
"It their own venture and risk as passeu-
041 and if an annonucement of the agent*
IEpu»*cgcr», the cars hiring stopped, to
K Sit such a place.
|""V,n the tram is stopped and not in
1 '’Lit all, and the announcement of
lrtwili!ion is made by the company’s agent,
lahMsiralcnt to saying, nnder such cu-
l“iS»iW. "*e srsat q*4*Miop."
I r “ jfthe passengof get off without such
L anouBcemeat * is his set; if deceived
15, lie soaouncAtelrt, it is theirs so far Us
I m full is concerned.
I tft er he is out, if prevented from
I jtjjj back by tho conductor, though ho
I Stoat without the announcement, it is
cot diligence toward the passenger, if tho
Imre be dangerous, not to toko him back,
[Uoif necessary to stop the starting train
todoio. ;
lb If he gets out on such announcement,
or is prevented from jetting bank, and can
noi.ltheconhcqncneo or sooh c.mduct by
*lis«j care in looking ont for ganger and
avoiding it, then if ho does not use snch
an he cannot recover.
t. For a judge to instruct the jury that if
nth and such things appear from the evi
dence, or if such and snch facts exist, then
then ns negligence, is error.
(a) The only exception is where the
ilatntc makes a thing neg igence in express
terms as in case of failing to blow the
ihislic or ring the bell when the train ap
proaches a crossing.
• i, iVb'O the company has done all the
h> i ',n>C8 them .to do, it is enough, and
it cannot be made liable tar unavoidable uc
6. It is not error to charge to the effect
that the law requires extraordinary diligence
on the part of railroads and their employes
in tBwporting passengers wisely, at hu
man life t* at stake from steam carriage, anil
foMliipit mgligence they are and ought to
he heU responsible. 62 Qa. BUG.
(n It if not always best to ape the Ian
inage of a reviewing court in a charge to
IWjuj.
7. Itia not error to charge that the jnry
iwawntned to any naonrnauaii' rule in
Bewaring tho value of a life. Age, bealtn,
habit*, the money hd ia nutking, are all data
front which tho jury may argue bis length
of If .'find ability to walk, and that what
that life is worth to bis wife.
S. X passenger is nut a trespasser if he
nil on the track of his carrier. No man
ia«trespasser for merely walking thereon
shut nn train is coining tipon it.
!| . Tho court should have called the at
tention of the jury to the decreasing capaci
ty for labor, as a carpenter, of the plain
tiff's husband, as age grew heavier upon
him, aud to snch decrease of the value of
bislifo tobis wife, as such continuing de
crease from year to year- of his ability to
vork necessarily Cause. To ascertain this
dernsse erectly is impossible. No arbitra
ry rnlo can ho laid down for it •
(a) It would.seem to follow that tho ver
dict is too large atq tho effect of decline of
strength with age- was omitted.
Iff Section 21)72 of the Code should have
*•*[* given in charge to the jnry. Central
miiroiul cs. Harris, this term. Judgment
tcvensd.
Uvton A Cunningham for plaintiff; Hob
by X Matthews contra.
B«b«r et id. vs. Shaffer et al. Ejectment,
Iron) Paulding, Before Jndge Fain,
heedt. Constructive Possession.
Lomov, C. J. l. Where a deed doeanot
convey, or purport to convey oue tract of
had which cmliruces so many lots as one
whole lady of continnona land consisting
of an many acres, hot conveys several dis
tract lots of forty acres .each without nny
intimation of a sale of all as one tract,
40 0a. 231; 40 0a. 173; 43 0a. 405; 52 Ga
407; 60 Ga. 23d. Judgment affirmed,
J. S. Pope for plaintiff; Boynton & Ham
mond contra.
Shannon vw. Vincent. Certiorari, f-om
Green. Before Judge Lawson. Illegiiity.
bond? 0 * 01 * ° £ molt,! "* e ' Forthcoming
Jacksov, C. J.—Illegality to tho fore-
closure of a mortgage on personalty must
be accompanied by bond with security for
the forthcoming of the property, or pauper
affidavit. Code 3976; Brantley vs. Bsker
last term. Judgment affirmed.
A. J. Shannon for plaintiff; J. B. Park
contra.
- . .->70>sgrante.-, snch possession does
bot by construction extend over the others
by tills deed us color. Code 2681; 57 (la.
W Gu. 647; 61 Oa. 156; C5 Oa. 102.
- The numbers of the lot and district
*"dtljc name of the county sufficiently
“UtiBcd the land in a deed offered in evi-
jfonoe, though the section in which the land
“7 w.ut not mentioned.
Judgment affirmed. C.
Vt-urunf; 1). p. lister, W.
lieorge X. Lester, contra.
Phillip* for
McClntcby,
Glass v*. "’ynn, executor. Alimony, from
licnry. Before Judge Stewart. Alimony.
' reel treatment
»ick*o*, c. .1.—The eonrt did not abuse
“discretion in granting alimony.
- I nder section 1717of the code alimony
““X.”* granted where husband and wife
living separately and are bona fide in a
zJJ*separation and there is no divorce
i landing, „ u j jt is immaterial what
brought the separation about.
vs. Howes, 66 G*. 142, does not
'“uihct with this view.
mi ' C ™*> trciitruent may be from conduct
her than blows. Mental anguish, wounded
rohugs, are as bad as uctnal braises of the
P«wn (17 Oa. 771, 776, 777, 778, 77«.i, et
r' -J^RWsnt affirmed.
titrV Y' 1,r J F. J. Reagan, for plain-
*"• 'hghy A- Dorsey contra.
L ?' r \ Hale. Illegality, from Hke. Bet
bsri-Judge gtewart. Homestead. Dower.
i» B - J -—1- Inasmuch as the widow
m* at bar look homestead tor her-
and family, which most reasonably be
fwtyrded as minor children, and a* no aadnlt
rs mentioned m the agreed atatement of
i.fo’ : ' Dl ' (he only contest is with a creditor
Mother, the homestead could not ha
dnJ****"*. *° bBe execution levied on it as
when tho homestead was older than
7?*® r > and dower could not be taken
of «, Both ^cannot be had ont of the
Bna* it would ecem juat that the
'"•‘'““idaland. 41 Ga. r,».
"^IJGa. 523; 40 Oa. 555; 40 Ga. 140;
Ison vs. Manley. Certiorari, from Spald-
rng. Before Judge Stewart. Nuisance.
Special damage. Pleading.
Jackson, C. 1. The charter of Griffin
gives that city no authority to define n nui
sance. It has only the power “to prescribe
the mode and manner of trying all charges”
of them. The State law doclares what a
nuisance is.
(*) Therefore when the mayor and coun-
i °* t p r iiBn try n caso “upon law and evi-
de.nco under section 235 of thtirordinances,
they must determine the law of nuisance by
tho State law and not by the city ordinance.
(b) It follows that before, by the action o.
suit or complaint of anyindividnal that body-
can find a nuisance in his favor, he mnst
show private damage to him, whether the
nuisance be private or public.
(o) Hia complaint jnust apecify this spe
cial damage.
See charter of Griffin, see. 14. 229, 234,
235, 236; code, see. 3000, 2,937, 2,QOS, 2,999;
50 Ga., 351. Judgment affirmed.
F. D. Dismuko for plaintiff, Beck &
Beeks, Boynton A Hammond, contra.
Fleming vs. Fire Association of Philadel
phia et si. Removal to United Slates
Court, from llichmond. Before Judge
ltoney. Removal of oanse. Local preju
dice act. Construction.
Halt,, J.—i. When s cause hud been onco
tried and a new trial granted, and on tho
rehearing at a subsequent term the cause
hnving been set for trial on a certain day
under tho rales of court, the ease was called
and counsel uunounced ready, a motion for
continuance was msde and overruled and
counsel directed to strike the jnry, and
half hour's time was granted one of de
fendants to procure counsel, at the expira
tion of which time ho procured counsel,
who moved to dismiss tho case, which mo
tion was overruled, and then he filed a peti
tion for tbo removal of the cause to the
United States Circuit Court, nnder what is
known as the “Local prejudice act,” snch
motion esmo too late.
It was after the “final trial" of the cause
had begun or was entered od.
(a). This application seems to have been
resorted to to secure a continuance, which
hail been denied.
2. The act in question, being designed to
meet an emergency, and apparently not in
tended to be ]>eruanent, should bo strictly
construed sgainst the spplioant. Dillon on
removal of causes, pps. 23, 24, 25. Judg
ment reversed. Wm. H. Fleming, Foster
A Lamar for plaintiff; W. F. Query, F. H.
Miller contra.
Vaughn vs. Miller A Bnssey and vioe versa
Complaint from City Coart of Riohmond
county. Before Judge Roney. Husband
and wife. Ratification. Agency. Charge
of the court. Cross-bill. Evidence.
Ham., J.—1. A wife, like'sny other cred
itor of her husband, has the right to receive
from him collateral* taken in the course of
his business, for the seonring of her debt,
or to take in payment the debts he held
sgainst his customers.
If, however, she by concert with him as
sist him to procure goods for the purpose of
which she was doubtful about collecting, then
sho would bo guilty of such a frandlas
would have made her liable for his
debt for the goods, whether tho credit was
extended to her or her husband. This
question was not clearly submitted to the
jury in this ease.
2. A charge that; “If the plaintiffs sold
the goods for which suit ia brought
to the wife through her husband, as
her agent, and the credit wan given to her,
and her husband waa not in fact her agent,
yet if ahe in bar business need the goods
furnished nnder this contract and the goods
were sent to persona she advanced to by
plaintiffs, and she knew it, this was a rati
fication of her bnsband's acts, and plain
tiffs arc entitled to recover against her,"
was error.
(a) Thu charge was objectionable
instructing the jury wnat act or acts
would amount to a ratification without sub
mitting that question on all the evidence
bearing upon that point
(b) It was also erroneous as assuming
that tho wife waa interested in the bus
iness conducted by her husband, anal
that she atjd not he mado advance* to his
customers. Her version of their relations
being entirely different; as she claimed to
be his creditor, that her separate estate was
not interested in his business, that be never
aoted as her ugent and bad no knowledge
that he had ever held himself out os such,
that she knew nothing of the terms ou
which her husband dealt with plaintiff and
could not ratify acta of which she was
ignorant and from which ahe derived no
Bough one of them may be actually oceu- lienefit. There was evidence to sustain
oy ths grants -, snch nowession does thi* view and it should hare been presented
to the jnry.
3. A charge that if “plaintiffs extended
the credit to the wife and afterwards took
the notes of the husband, her agent as col
lateral security to the original indebtedness,
U is the duty of plaintiffs to aeoount for
these notes ami,’produce them at the trial (to
show that they had not negotiated them,
and that they were oatstanding against the
hualiand), and after producing them plain
tiffs are entitled to recover egainet the wife
ou the original indebtedness for which this
suit is novr brought," was error.
It was not sufficiently guarded and spe
cific. The necessity of any knowledge on
the part of tho wife of the circumstance*
attending ths transaction to charge her with
this liability, was left out of sight, and the
charge seems to assume that the husband
acted aa the agent of the wife.
4. It is unusual practice and not to be
commended to bring by cross-bill to this
court objections to the admission of evi
dence, made by plaintiff in the cross-bili,
which are set forth in their response to de
fendant's motion for a new trial, to which
the crons-bill refers. A dear and succinct
statement of the circumstances in which the
questions originated would be preferable.
5. Defendant bad e right to show by her
husband the amountof money she advanced
him to cary on hie bnsiness, and to prove
the conversation* in relation to that ad
vance, at the time it was made.
6. The assignment for the benefit of cred
itors msde by the hnsband wes admissible
in evidence. It wea not altogether irrele
vant or res alias inter seta. It showed the
amount of bia indebledneaa to plaintiffs on
account of the transaction in controversy.
7. The testimony in explanation of a pay
ment made on the account in etui, which it
wa* alleged was msde by defendant, wm ed-
'"judgnient reversed in first case end ef-
firmeaf in second. Tutt A Lockhart for
plaintiff; 5V. K. Miller contra.
Craiae vs. FoaUt A Eatoa Certiorari, from
Forsyth. Before Judge Brown. Statute
of frauds. Evidence.
Hill, J.—1. Where credit had been re
fined a son, and his father informed tboone
refusing that if he would furnish the son
goods he (the father) would see the account
paid; this wonld be an original and not a
c Bilateral undertaking by the father. Bald
win vs. heirs, September term, 1884.
2. .While there was testimony on which it
might be urged in this else that the under
taking of the father was not ns above stated,
still there was conflicting testimony, and the
judgo below did nut err in sustaining the
certiorari. See 70 lla., 62, 55.
Judgment affirmed. Geo. N. and D. V.
Lester, R. P. Lester for plaintiff; Georgo L.
Ball contra.
Baker vs. Akermnn, executor. Illegality,
from Bartow. Before Judge Fain. Ille
gality. Principal and Secnriiy Pleading.
Hall, J.—1, An affidavit of illegality al
leging that affiant was tho aecuaity of his
co-defendant in execution and that this
was known to plaintiff in execution before
judgment, and that plaintiff in execution
made a contract with the principal defend
ant for a valuable consideration, by which
«he agreed to indulge him on said ft. fa. and
exteud the time for its payment, without
affiant's knowledge or consent anil that he
was thns released on account of increase of
hia risk, etc., was proper:/ stricken on de
murrer, Tbo terms of the contract were
not stated, nor what the consideration waa,
nor the time extended.
Judgment affirmed with damages. J. A.
Baker for plaintiff ;J. B. Conyers byJ. H.
Lumpkin contra.
Hatfield vs. State.—Burglary, from Dade.
Before J udge Fain. Criminal lsw. In
dictment. Bu glary.
Halt., J.—1. In an indictment for burg-
iary an allegation of ownership in “The
Walkor Iron and Coal Company 1 ' waa suffi
cient, without setting forth that the com
pany was a corporation, or joint stock com
pany, or pirtnership. Barbour, adminis
trator. vs. Albany L 'dgo F. A. M., Sept,
term, 1884; Code 4628 ; 68 (la. 822.
(a) At most this exct piiuu went to the
form of the indictment and should have
been taken before trial. Code 4629. Judg
ment affirmed.
Jas. Hodge McLean, B. T. Brock, for
plaintiff; T. W. H. Harris, Solicitor Gen
eral pro tern, by R. B, Trippe, contra.
Nevin vs. Fouche, assignee. Complaint,
from Floyd. Before Judge Simmons.
Bond to dissolve garnishment Snroty.
Mistake of law.
Hall, J. —A plea filed by a surety on a
bond to dissolve a garnishment, which set
up that the garnishee owed nothing, etc.,
to the principal defendant and that If the
garnishee bod answered it wonld so appear,
and that at the time tho surety signed snch
bond he supposed he waa only to ba liable
for so muon money, etc., as the garnishee
held subject to the summons, and that he
signed amlor a mistake of law; bat w" MM
did not set np Hut this mistake was cai
by the act or fraud of the plaintiff, or dby
misplaced confidence in the plaintiff, yfei
property stricken on demurer. ;
Tho surety is estopped by hi9 bowl'to
deny that the garnishee had effects
hands or woe indebted to defendants in'a
sum equal to the amount that might ba re
covered against them. Code 3753,3221,3122.
Judgment affirmed.
Underwood A Howell for plaintiff; Dab
ney A Fouche contra.
Allen, administratrix, vs. Elder A Son.
Equity, frutu Butts. Before Judge Ham
mond. Mortgages. Equity. Mistake of
law. Answer. Demurrer. Statute of
limitations.
Hall, J.— 1. Where a bill in equity waa
filed praying for tho reformation of a mort
gage, which complainant alleged waa de
fectively executed in that it had no acroll
attached to the mortgagor's signature, al-
•beagh it wws stated u» us faae ttul it was
“sealed," a* well a* “signedand delivered;"
that it was complainant’s intention as well
aa that of the mortgagors to make the in
strament a good, valid and legal mortgage,
and that they failed in so doing, in oonee-
qnenceof a mutual mistake of law upon the
subject; and that, when so reformed tho in
atrument he foreclosed as a mortgage, pray
ing discovery and propounding interroga
tories; and respondents filed an evasive
answer, svering that the mistake was tho
result of a mutual ignorance of the law,
but not denying the intention charged i
the bin, also e demurrer selling up the
statnly of limitations; it was error, af'er
complainant closed her ease to etutain the
demurrer.
Tha insufficient answer, with what ap-
|u>ared on 'the face of the instrument, ad
mitted enough under the rales of equity to
entitle complainant to thn relief prayed;
and tho issues on this evidence should have
been submitted to the jury. Coale 3117,
3119, 3120, 3121, 3122; 12 Ga. 459.
(a) Complainant did not seek to foreclose
the mortgage in its present shape, oa a sim
ple contract, bat to reform it and foreclose
it os a sealed instrument, and the demurrer
of the statute of limitations should not have
been sustained.
2. The disoherge in bankruptcy aat up by
one of defendants was matter of defonse
and not reached in the progress of the trial
3. Complainant had the right to go into
a nity to foreclose her mortgage, and having
ten jurisdicti nfor this purpose the court
will retain it for other* Lseessary to the final
settlement of all matters involved in the
litigation between the parties growing oat
of the subject matter of the amt, 71 Ga.,
363, 374. Judgment reverend.
Jackson, C. J., concurred ilnbUtinlf.
M. V. McKibben, W. W. Anderson for
plaintiff, A. D. Hammond contra.
premises in dispute subject to plaintiffs’ ex- plaintiff, 0. Anderson, Attorney-General, by
enntion. end tbo court below having granted
a new tii rl unless pisiutrffs wonld dismiss
their levy as to oiie-fourtb of the lot in dis
pute, which they have done, and both sides
having r.grecd in writing that (imbalance of
the larni La subject, and that tho fl. fa. thall
be paid Jfi. rt from; in order to carry .this
agreement into effect wo order and adjudge
thuttue finding ot the jury, as modified by
the judge's order, stand a* it now appears of
record.
Judgment affirmed. Blanco A Noyes
for plaiutiff; Jones A Richsrdson contra.
Beck vs. the Slate. Murder, from Rabun.
B f ire Judge Kates. (ritmnal law.
Dmnkeniievs. Insanity, Evidence, lies
g estae. Charge of the court. Malioe.
iLANuroni). J.— 1. Sii far an tli» requests
to charge made by defendant's conusol were
legal, 'he.v sere substantially given in the
general charge.
2. It tee n cured was drank and in oon-
sequence ot tbaidrunkenutHsdid not know
his wife, or comprehend tho nature of ihe
act he committed, ho would he responsible
for th“ act, «nd be a person of sound mem
ory and discretion within tho meaning of
the law,
3. it the drnnkennoss produced a tem
porary ffeucy, madness or unsoundness ot
min t in the accused, be will not be excuBed
or held irresponsible for tho act done by
him while laboring under such temporary
iimamtj, madness or nnso nduees of mind
thns produced, because it is his own volun
tary oci | be put himself in that condition
and must abide all its consequences.
4. But if tbo m,nia, insanity or un-
sonndnass ot mind, though produced by
drunkenness, he j ermanentand fixed, so as
to destroy all knowledgeof right and wrong,
then the per-on thus laboriug under these
infirmities would not ho responsible, ihe
insanity must be fixed nnd permanent. 31
Gs. 424; 1 Halo's 1*. C. 32; 4 Coko 126 a; B.
4 Black. Comm. p. 26; Code 4301.
5. It was not error to refuse to allow ac
cused to prove that Miss Bailey, one of tbo
persons shot, said shortly after the shooting
that “Rugcnc Beck killed her sister, Beck’s
wife, but he would not have dono it if he
had been in hi* right mind.”
The evidence waa immaterial, and her
opinion wm not a statement of a fact con
nected with tbo transaction so oa to form a
part of the re* geatm. If she hod been on
the stand ahe conld not havo given the
opinion without the facta on which is waa
founded.
6. It waa not error to exclude testimony
that nn Monday before tbo homicide accused
bought a quart of whisky and said be was
going to qnit, that was the last drop be ever
expected to drink. This testimony waa im
material.
7. That the court spoke of the oaae to the
jury as presenting momentous issues, on
one side the good order, etc., of society, on
the other the life and liberty of defendant;
I Rowing this by stating tbo precise mines
solved tn the case; and that thn court told
jsjary, after charging them fnlly, to take
ttocaso with the sole purpose of vindicating
the law, etc., , were not error. 31 Ga. 421
8.‘ A oharge that malice was tho deliberate
inteht unlawfully to take human life,
whether it sprang from hatred, * >* • *
or a'mfere pbrenzy of drunkenness, was not
error.
9. The tenth ground ot the motion is
covered by Danforth's ease, not yet re
ported. See also 45 Ga. 64, 225; 56 On. 463.
10. The eleventh gronnd complains of
certain remarks of the eonrt whieh might
well have been dispensed with, bat which
were not aaloulated to hart defendant.
11. The entire charge waa correct and the
verdict is sustained by evidence. Judgment
affirmed.
Fope Barrow, Henry Jackson, E. K.
Lumpkin, for plaintiff; 0. Anderson, Attor
ney-General by J. H. Lumpkin, W. H. Er
win, tolkltor-Oanetal by F. U Haralaoa,
Colquitt, Governor, vs. Smith. Claim,
from Floyd. Before Judgo Branham.
Bond. Ratification. Estoppel
HiJtNntoBn, J. — 1. When it is taken into
consideration that Mr*. Deason, who sold
to claimants and against whom exeeatien
is proceeding as one of the sureties on the
bond of a hank aa a State depository, waa a
stockholder in the bank and expected a
benefit by its becoming a depository, that
ahe gave verbal authority to her sister to
sign her name to the bond whioh the bank
bad to give, and that when she waa inform
ed about the matter she mado no objeolion
but said it was all right, and that she mado
no complaint to tho Governor orhcrco-eecn-
titie*, and nllowed the Slate to deposit its
funds in tho bank, os to tho State and her
eo-sccnritks she is estopped front denying
that hor name was signed to the bond by
competent authority. So the verdict was
demanded hv tho evidence. 63 Oa. 314; 14
Gu. 121; 39 Ga. 586; 16 Ga. 384, 424. Judg
ment reversed.
C. Anderson attorney-general, Henry
Jackson, Dabney A Foucuc for plaintiff;
Unaerwood A Rowell coutra.
J. II. Lumpkin, T. W. Grimes, Solicitor-
Gened, fcy J_ if. McNeil! contra
Johnson vs. Stale. Hog stealing, from
Cobb, Before Judge Brown.
ButNDronn, J.—Tho verdict is sustained
by evidence. Judgment affirmed. Phil
lips A Sessions, Georgo 8. Thomas for
plaintiff; George L. Gober, Solicitor Gen
eral, contra
Davis A Deason vs. the State. Obstructing
legal process, from Wilkinson. Before
Jn Igc Lawson. Criminal law. Obstruct
ing offictr. Construction of Statute.
Biandcord, J.—Where a sheriff, who had
levied on oxen, left th- m in a field in care of
an agont,nnd the defendants in cxeention
privately removod them, they were not, there
fore, guilty nnder seo. 4476 of tho Code.
Under that section to make guilt there
i must bo opposition to the officer and not
simply to tne process of tho court.
(a). Defendants should have been indict
ed for simplo larceny as tho sheriff had a
qualified property in the cattle. Judgment
reversed.
J. C. Bowen, W. A. Lofton, Jno. C. Reed
forpluimiff; It. Whitfield, Holicitor-tleneml
by J. II. Lumpkin contra.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad rs. Wil
kinson and wife. Case, from Dade, Be
fore Judge Fain.
BLANnronn, J.—Defendants in error sued
tho railroad company for not putting the
wife off at tbo station to which sho had a
ticket, und carrying her a small distance be
yond. Tho jnry found a verdict for them
for one hundred dollars. The amount was
ressonablo and wo will not interfere. Judg
ment affirmed.
W. N. A J. P. Jacoway, R. J. McConiy
for plaintiff; MeOntcheon A Simulate contra.
Metcalf vs. The State. Selling Uqnor wlth-
ont licenso, from Cbattahoocbeo. Before
Jndge WilUs. Criminal law. Licenso.
Ordinary. Consent of freeholders. Pe
tition.
Blanobord, J.—1. Where one presented
bis petition to the ordinary for leave to re
tail liquors, under the acts of 1873, p. 271.
and 1875 p. 330, whioh require the consent
of tw'o-thirds of oertoin freeholders, Aa..
and the petition purported to show anch
consent, and tbo ordinary granted the li
cense, bnt afterwards discovering that tha
petition did not oontaiu the reqmaite num
ber of names, revoked tho licenso, and the
petitioner continned to retail, if in fact his
petition did not contain the proper names
and number of names, he wonld be gnilty
nuder.said acts, whothcr snch ordinary had
revoked the licenso or not.
Tho ordinary is a mere ministerial officer
in issuing the license and if petitioner did
not comply with the law he acted at hia
peril RnsaeU vs. State of Alabama not
yet reported. 1 Jones (La.) 276; 41 Miss.
737; 5 til. 197. ‘ Judgment affirmed.
Peabody, Brannon A Battle for plaintiff;
T. W. Grimes, tiolicitor-Geneml, by J. M.
McNeill contra,
Hollis vs. State. Fornication and adultery,
from Chattahoochee. Criminal law. Ev
idence. Impeachment.
BLAJtnronD, J.—Proof of what prosecu
trix had sworn before the Justice of tha
Pesos In a trial foy bastardy, no foundation
being laid to impoach prosecutrix by raking
whether she bad so testified, was properly
rejected. Judgment affirmed. Leonidas
HcLester, Hatcher A Peabody for plain tiff,
T, W. GrimwvBolicHor.O«neral, by J. M.
MeNtill contra.
Wonderful Cures.
W. D. liny t k Co., wholesale Sod retail drusaUU
ef Homo, Oa. ear: We have been settees Dr. Klat’e
»«w liiaeovere. Electric Bitter* end Bncklm's Aral-
due Halve for two rears. Have raver bamliru rente
f e» that sell ae writ, or give each wiser*a) salts-
eaotioe. There have been earn wonderful cares
effected bv these BSdlotnee In this city. Several
' eee of pronounced Oonsamctlon have been entbe-
enrad hj use et a few be tries of Dr. K toe's Mew
hwvtov. ffnjto ewnetalhn rtta Bncten-BU.
Graham to. Georgia Railroad and Banking
Company. Certiorari, from New ton. Be
fore Judge Stewart
Ham, J. —1. There was no abuse of discre
tion by the court below. Judgment af
firmed.
Middlebronks A Edwards for plaintiff; J.
M. Paco contra _
Moore vs. Roescr. Ejectment, from Rock-
dale. Bp-fore Judge Stewart. Practice.
New trial.
HALia J.—1. This is the first grant of a
new trial on conflicting evidence, and some
donbt as to what the jnry really intended to
find, and wa will not interfere.
2. Consent of the defendant to the onler
taken in term to present the motion for new
trial with brief and copy of the evidence in
vacation for approval of the eonrt, will be
presumed from the fact that lie was present
and assisted in making np the motion and
agreed to the brief, a* well an from hia as
sent after this bad been done to the l>ost-
ponement of the heawng to a future day, of
whioh thejndge waa to give both parties
notice. That the jndge proceeded to hear
and determine the case, without giving this
notice, makes nodifference, since at the suc
ceeding term of the eonrt be set aside that
judgment and heard tho caso when Imth
parties ware present and on that hearing
rat the verdict aside, and neither then, or
at any previous stage of the proceedings
did the defendant object to the hearing or
move to diambn the motion. As be made
no inch point below wa will not pass on it
here. Judgment affirmed. A. C. McCalls
for plaintiff, J. N. Glenn contra.
Blance and Noyes rs. Liddell and Chisolm.
Claim, from Polk. Before Jndge Bran-
barn. Consent of counsel Final dispo-
aition of oum.
Hall, J.—The jnry having found the
Singer Hewing Machine Company vs. Bar
nett, L. C. Rales, from Whitfield. Be
fore Judge Fain. Constable. Fi. fa.
Rule. Process.
BLANDrotD, J.—A constable oannot pro
tect himself nnder a rale for not making the
money due on a fi fa placed in bis hands,
on the gronnd tnat the fi. fa. did not fol
low tba judgment on whioh it wm
founded. Gladden, sheriff, vs. Cobb,
SepUtulier term, 1884. The execution
is not void and could have been
amended. Tbo officer mast execute all
process placed in his hand, regular on Us
face and which is issned by a person having
nnthority. 19 Ga., 139, 268.
Judgment reversed. W. C. Gienn for
plaintiff; T. 11 Jones contra.
Jackson vs. Georgia Railroad. Cose, from
Morgan. Before Judge Ijnwson. Mus
ter and Servant Bosa. Negligence.
BLAx::n>ui>. J Where one was employed
by the defendant, nnder a boss, to help dig
a weB, and was ordered by the boss to *
on top of the derrick and loosen one of
gay poles, but objected on the ground that
he had heard the day before that something
had cracked or broken abont the derrick
and asked if there wm any danger, when
tho hosa cursed him and said he could do
as he wa* ordered or leave, and then ho
went up tbo derrick carefully bnt a gny
pole below broke, and the derrick fell, in
juring him. etc., it wax error tn nonsuit
the case. Judgment reverted.
Calvin George, for plaintiff, J. A. Billups
contra
McWilliams vs. Lee. Motion tn amend
judgment, from Henry. Before Jbdgn
Stewart. Judgment. I’rmcipJ and surety.
Evidence.
Blaxio ori), J. - On a motion to abow that
one (A defendants in u judgment wassnrety
for the other, to which, motion that other
wu msde a party, it waa not error to admit
in evidence the judgment, which waa a
judgment by default, though it appeared on
its face to be against both aa prinatpala.
Jnrigmftnt ifllrmcd,
Boynton A Hammond, J. T. Spence for
plaintiff; F. I). Dismuko contra.
Lae v*. the State. Murder, from Marion.
Before Jndge Wills.
BLA.v.rivrui, J.—1. There ia no proof of
tba eoim> delicti or that the child came to
its death at the bands ofacenacd. Judgment
reversed.
J. 8. McCorkla, Willis A Matthews Cot
PRQF.CHS.LUDWIG VON SEEGER,
ProAttor o/UtdUAnt at tha iwpai [Tnirartjtp i
KnfyfU of the Kami Austrian Order of the Iron
Croton i Knight CoumnwUrofthc lloynl Spa tilth
Ontrr of ltabrUti t Kn*yht of (hr P.oyul Vrustum
Order of the Hot Eagle; Chevalier the Legion ef
Honor t etc., i»ys:
»• nun to cow coca bkep toxic
fttiould not to* oonioumlcd with it* LoiU« of tttisbjr
euro alio. It to in no acnoe of tbo word a patent
retard*, I am thoroughly conversant with Its
mole of preparation and know it to bo not only a
leffitfaatovfcanrMoeatieal product*bataloo worthy
of tbo Men oonmendatioos it bu receiled in all
port! of the world. It oonfaino ooornoo of Beef,
Coen, Quinine, Iron and Csliraye, which afedis*
solved in pure genuine Spanish imperial Crown
Bherrj. H
Invaluable to all who are Uus Down. Newon*,
Dyapoptie, BUioua, Malarinue or atOirUd with
weakkiduoys. Beware of Imitations.
eu junstro riveura coocxtio aiiczsmz.
VttH bn Her Royal Wahneee the Ptrinette of WaUt
and the nobility, for taeBfeln. Complexion, Brup-
Hour, Chapping, Rough urea. •t.OO. Of druggists.
JUr^pSTtK:
N. Y. Depot 38 MURRAY 8TREET
J*al8ta»tlia-Mtew!r
SMITH'S
n il RE Bilfaesnen; Sick Koadsote In r.urlware.
Olio duoreUovee Neuralgia. Ttievcsrt end
prevent Chills «* Fever,Hoar ItdMCh r> Bad
wm;
Trv Item oaae sad you wM ravsi ra without them.
Price, 23 cents per bottle, told tv Dt'yqlsts tnd
Medicine Oosl.rt Generally, tow on receipt Of
price la stamp,, postpaid, to aa} surest,
J.r.HJtVTH A VO.,
danufseturoro and Soto Preps.. >T. LOUtS.MO.
MltaUH.lt
★ * *
A FBIKND IN NEED.
Dr. Sweet’s Infallible Liniment
Prepare! from the receipt ot Dr. Btosbui Heart,
of Coarartlcut, to. grata natural Bono Better. lira
, sosd for awre ffcan M roam oad to tkotml
m reared} fbr Hhaiowtani. Nranlatodfraliu,
SA Out*. Hum., wouatot and »U .renal in
IdftH. HOLD BY ALL DBlKKilHIH—TBY IT.
|an a*erariwe-th«ra«wl
TORTURES
vBuooHusynraio
Humiliating Eruption*. Itching and Btuvidr
Toiturea, Loathsome Bores, and every ryt
It. hit ", rfcalyi Pimply, Iaberttcl, Sen . "
Contagion* Lir.ei*v«aof tho ‘Hood, Sktn i
with id -I* of Hair, from iofnuoy to oiJ igM
itivsly cured by CuDears, the great Bkin Om
Cutlcur* Hosp. gu exquisite bkin Bwwottfier,
nelly, and Cutlcur*Resolvent, tho new b >x>
tier, internally.
Covored with Sorcu.
1 lisve been ftfiltcted slnoe Usi Kerch with * f i In
diseese the doctors celled Ecsem*. My farn wan
covered w 1th sc*l :i end sores, and the itc.’ -atf : i •»
burning w ere almost unbetrabl*. .Seeing j our tn-
ticnm Remedlvs so highly recommended, rinri *L
«*d to give tbeut * trial, using the Cstkur* *ml C'ts-
ticur* 8o*p ewternslly. and Itcuotoeat internally,
for tour months. I c ill myself cored, tn grsllludo
for which I inske this public statement.
Mrs. CLARA A FKXDXR1C7K.
i Broad Brook, Conn.
Scalp, Face, Kars and Neck.
I was afflicted with Rcssm* on the 8c*’a Fsccl
Ear* and Nock, which the dr< ggtste, where I £c.t
your remedies, pronounced one of the worn! «*es
that bad come nnder his notfoe. He advised me to
try your Outicur* Remedies, end *ft*r five da; a*
use my scalp ami pert of my face were entirely
cured, and I hope tn another week to have my fans
neck, and the oto expert of my fsoe eared.
Itelilug Discuses Cured.
Cnticnr* stands at thekead of its cTaro. *«p**te)ly
ts this the case with the Onttcnr* Boap. Have h <1
au unusually good sale this summer, owi, * to ;i.o
prevalence of an aggravated form of Itch thr tigh
some localities iu the country, in which the
ra Remedies proved satisfactory.
W. U HAUDIOO, Druggist.
tJntontown, Ky.
CuticnriV Kennedies
Are sold by all druggists. Pries, Cntirurs, ,W.; Be*
solvent, $l.<Xfc Heap, XV. tapered by fh.. : • .*
tii Druq k Ckkjhcai. Co., Boston, M im. KH
Senator ‘‘How ta Cure Skin DiBMML*
THU RXWIW) MACHINE Is t* » caw O
> of Ltsfine Pains and te'naknc* u Ki r
. Aching Hides and Back. Kidney Steins,
Sciatic*, Chest Pslns, Wfnino-M and In*
uUmmatlon the Onticun* Antt-P*in
« Plaster is tr..allib!e. Uo.
CAPITAL PRIZE $7ojoOO.
TICKETS Onlr*5. Shorts in rr(,'r;'<n
Louisiana Stnfo Lottery Company
rsnsement* for.ll tl:e Afnullity *ud ^|ii&Tt*-rly Draw-
llnp. of ThelxmlriaBS Htaio Lottery Company, andl
In person manage and control the Drawtni^ ti.*-n>-
Iselves, and that the same are ronduc^l with h* i>-
estjr, fairness, and In good faith toward all lantf*
and w# authorize the Company tonsethUr •« Ufa to
with fac-slaiillrs of oar signatures attached, in itw
advertisement*. *
We, the undersign.- t Rants and Bankers, w- u
nay all Prtzrs drawn In The Louisiana Ht.«te Lot-
terics which may be presented at our con trra. |
J. rr. OQLkfBY. fkntoent fouiifanaEatifital fruir.
4. W. KILHRRTB, Protest Bute KathnalBank.
v.. t 'i..-- tan
Incorpora*' «J • ;n for '25 years by the Legtelo*
tore for £di; .:!oual ard <1 .f.tMc * th
MOaNEY for land owners
A T SPECIAL AATn
ON KABT TPJIMH.
Apply to
CLEll P. NTKV’Jj, Karon. O*. Vo. 1 Cot
ton Avenue, ever Payne’S Arugstore. apc€w3m
jMirjM
It » rt-4-riH fllUii of
lad.
By an <n(^whelming fob iUr v. *r f-sr >.kh«e
" part of the prwni State (nffi'v-a
WCrccmtfr M,A.D.,im.
■i only lottery ever roteil on and lntK.r^ d by
tbo people of any State.
It never scales or poetpoaea,
Its Grand Single Number /imwim? toko
f dftce Monthly, and tbo KfttrtMtfin&sj Dhtv-
ntp rejjularfv ertrj Ihrttonenthi tarfmd of
Semi-Annualiy at hrawfavt
March. 1886.
A RPLEXDID OPI’ORTUNITT TO WIN A FOKTqO.
FIPTU OBAND DRAWI.Va K, IN ji-H
ACADEMY OP MUSIC, NEW ORLEANS, TUESDAY,
KAY llth IhKO—llL’d Monthly Drawing.
CAPITAL PIUZB, Sr.S.OOO.
100,000 Ticket* at Five Dollars Fjich, Frac
tion* in Fifth* ia Proportion.
LIST OF PRIZES.
* 1 CAPITAL PRI7.M $75,000
1 do do
1 do do I ».'"0
URO
1o,(KO
0
80,010
91K0CO
35,(/0
0,7f0
*.'*4 0
pr ~ •• too % \?o
1967Prises.amounting to, MO
Appllrstions for mh*e to cl*»* w ">\\
only to tbe ottos of the iwuiianj la ~
For further Information write tin
Irses. POSTAL NOT
. w York Exchange It
by exprfws (at our w-p
m
New Orleans, la.
Or M. A. IMUI’HIN,
WiMhlngton, D. C.
IVlnku P. 4). Money Ortfern Pan.
bio unit arid pons Itccixtorod ls-t-
toi s to
HKW DIIUMAS NATIIW.tl./M NM,
Aprl.1 wnlratav New Orlran*. L».
NERVOUS
DEBILITATED MEN.
You era allowed a free fHsI qf thirty Un v » or tho
use of Dr. Dyete <£l»bnre t V» tuw Belt wun
Kl4f«trl0 huspensory Applu- f-re, for «»>** »T» «dy
rrltrf and permaamtrurenr\«r,y»v» DtbQUg.
of Vitality and Jf-1 * V- '.andall atn'trsrtt treohlm.
Afs.> for ITn/ofitu r dfri4 .4-re. OntMlsfe r>*»t»ffra-
iton to Ilralin, Vi. • r an«l Meabood gaarvuUsrd
No risk tslnrurrr.t. llhiMrv.-<» i tunililn in
" — *WBaSlwkxt'WajKititaU,
•n-tbn^ai^iwfre
HOLMES* .sunn VUIUK
Moutb WUM anti DAntifVloe 1
Cure* Rl^odiitg Gutr*, Uts'<-. ?u»|p Mot
Tliroat, «'Ni» . • tho tVrth »n<i Pnrffir* tb
used and rseomBMwfad by .tr»K
ared hv tVr*. J. i». \ .7. a. ltotmesudenU-to*. M*.
Ifor Co by *H druggists and dentists.