Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE MACON WEEKLY TELEOKAEH. TUESDAY MAY 11, 1WG.-TWE.LVE PAGES. SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. Decision* Rendered May 1st, 1880. Special lie port by Henry C. Peeples. Cobb va. the State. Receiving stolen goods, from Chattahoochee. Before .lodge Wil lis. Criminal law. Practice. Receiving stolen goods. Proof. Jackson, C. J.—1. Where exception is made to a long extract from the charge of the court and errors therein ore not speci fied, the exception will not be held good unless the whole is erroneone. 2. Circumstances may convict the de fendant of knowledge that the goods were stolen, as well as actnal and direct proof. The circumstances, the time, the secrecy, all the transactions before, at the time and afterwards, may be brought to bear upon what was the knowledge of the party re ceiving the goods; and if from all these the jury can conclude that the receiver did have good reason as a reasonable person to believe or suspect that the goods were sto len, they may well conclude that if ho did not inquire and investigate before he re ceived them, that he had knowledge such as the law will charge him with, of tho character ot the goods aud of the person from whom he received as one who had stolen them; 55 Go. 221; ib. 121. Judg ment affirmed. C. J. Thornton, Eugene Wynn for plain tiff; T. \V. Grimes, solicitor-general, by J. M. McNeill contra^ Cox vs. Jones. Equity, etc., from Terrell. Before Judge Ularke. Bond for titles. - Evidence. Contract Vendor and pur. wiffiser. Jackson, C. J.—1. The bond for titles given by Jones to Cox only gave him the lot in question, subject to Mrs. Pope's claim. lie lived in the neighborhood while Jones lived in Macon, The Fords of Jtho bond ns to this lot were; “Lot No, 2CJ, containing 152j acres, mom or less, or so much thereof as does not belong to Mrs. Pope" and these words of description were taken from the sheriff's deed just received by Jones, and after fnli knowledge of Mrs. Pope’s claim Cox wrote to Jones, that he intended to S ay as soon as he could, and to wait until ones settled about the disputed lot. Cox should have looked to gee what Mrs. Pope's claim was before he traded; and there was no error in the charge, that if the entire lot wag held by Mrs. Pop- at tho time of diate taxation or the issue of bonds is the most advisable method for raising the money to rehnild the bridges. 3. It does not appear that the debt of the county exceeds seven per cent of tho as sessed value of ita tixablo property, and therefore an election may bo held and if the requisite majority be obtained its debt may be increased. Con. of 1877. Code 5191; code §508 (i), (j), (k), (1), and (m). (a) In 71 Go. 484, it waa held that this general law, codified in sec. 508 (i) ct seq., must bo followed over a subsequent local law on the subject of a bonded debt for a bridge. If, thor.fore, any special law of tho General Assembly should now prescribe n different mode it wonld be invalid, bat the general law would rnle. Judgment affirmed. Underwood A Rowell for plaintiff. No appearance contra, Jones A McDonald va. penny. Illegality, from Floyd. Before Jndge Branham. Mortgages. Parties. Payment. Liens. Jackson, C. J.—1. Mortgages not re- cordtd in time remain valid against the mortgagor. In this cose it is the mortgagor who complains that tho money raised from tho sale of tho mortgaged goods was applied to the mortgage fl. fas. instead of to com mon law executions now levied on other property. He cannot make the point, and the mort gagee and tho holder of the common law executions as transferee being the same firm, had tho right to apply the proceeds of the goods to either of its two liens, as against the mortgagor. 2, The lien on the face of the notes is valid, whether the notary public attested them offlcUlly or not, 40 Ga. 253, Judg- ment reversed. , J. F. Hilly of for plaintiff; Forsyth .1 Ho(- kiuson contra. Crockett A Sons. vs. Roebuck et al. and vice versa. C omplaint, from I'ulaski. Be fore Judge Kibhee. Evidence. Practice. Jackson, C. J.—I. Tho evidence in this case demanded a verdict against both the defendants sued. 2. The motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial was properly overruled. Thomas vs. Doekins, last term; Page vs. Black- sheur lost term; 09 Go. 705.; 09 Go. 700, 748. Judgment reversed in first case and affirmed in second. M. T. Hodge, J. U T , npl ip for plain- the trwln, Jones wonld'not be bound to I tiff; J. H. Martin contra. for fraud, it must be fraud in the plaintiff in judgment or his counsel or agent. No such fraud is shown by this bill. 3. The remedy at law was complete by motion to sot sside tho judgment, hail it been pursued in time, within the three years; but as complainants have waited six years they are plainly in laches, and equity will not aid them. Judgment affirmed. Phillips A Sessions, J. O. Gartrel), T. B. Irwin for plaintiff; Clay A Blair, W. J. Winn contra. Massengill vs. First National Bank of Chat tanooga. Complaint, from Catoosa. Be fore Judge Fain. Contractu. Frauds. Evidence. Charge of the conrt. Nonsuit. Jackson, C. J.—I. Although the eontmet between the parties may have been em bodied in a draft, with bills of lading at tached, drawn by the defendant in favor of the piuiutiff below-, if the proof shows that the borrower gave it with intent to defraud the lender and the lender became aware of it, it had tho right to repuuiato the draft void, and snu on the account for uionoy loaned, and to put in evidence the draft, bills of lading, letters of the drawer to the drawees, and sayings of the drawer showing or tending to show the intent to defraud. 2. Requests to charge, omitting tho cf- feot of fraud as stated, and ussnming the necessity of suit on the draft, with presen tation, non-payweut and notice were prop erly refused. ' 3. There being no motion for new trial the question as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence, is not before us. 4. There should have been no non-suit. I’m Ga. 098. Judgment affirmed. McCntchon A Shumate, Win. II. Pay no for plaintiff; J. II. Anderson, It, J. McOamy Contra. llili vs. Uanlton. Claim, from Taylor. Before Jndge Willis. Claim. Evidence. Mortgage. Notice. Jackson, C. J.- 1. This being a claim to property levied on under a mortgage fi. fa., t was not error to admit in evidence the rules nisi and absolute for foreclosure as recorded on the minutes of the court where the trial was bad. 2. The c'ainmnt bought with full knowl edge and agreed to pay the mortgage. The vordict was demanded by the evidence. Judgment affirmed. C. J. Thornton, L. F. Garrard, A. A. Carson, W. P. Edwards for plaintiff; O. M. Colbert contra. Haij. J. 1. The aot of September 28,1 ness for an indifinite period, and that these 1881, as to voluntary assignment by goods were embraced not only in the deed insolvent debtors, requires that the I of assignment, but likewise in mortgages issignor shall attach to the deed or make titles to it, and Cox could not claim a vordict from the general price of the en tire purchase on account of it. 20 Go. 588; Code2G42. Judgment affirmed. D. A. Vason for plaintiff; C. B. Wooten, contra. Cleveland National Bank vs. Reynolds. Complaint, from Floyd. Before Judge Branham. Jackson, C. J.- There was no error in overruling the City Conrt and granting . new trial on account of the providential ab- Cook ot al. vs. Weaver, executor. Appeal nonce of tho defendant in error from court from Coweta. Before Jndgo Hams. Ex- Judgment affirmed, excutors and administrators. Account- Dabney A Fonclie for plaintiff; Dean A mg. Ordiny. _ Venue^ Jnrisffiction. ^ [ Eaing, by Harriaon A Peeples, contra. £« < D ^, c S"J!i n !fi.. t08 ®i h ^S. ith “f tio .“ Roland vs. Coleman A Co. Refusal of in 2o99, 2002, 2lj0J, 2604 and 2005, authority junction, from Bibb. Before Judge Siin< is not given to cite an executor or admin- m0UH . Deeds. Mortgage. Power of sale, istrator before the ordinary for a settle- Revocation. Administration, ment of account* after his discharge Jackson, C. J.-l. An instrument com 2. Where the discharge is attacked as V( ,y ed title in the usuid form, with the usual fraudulent and therefore void, the discharge I wo rds of conveyance in a deed, and after ahonld first bo set aside on motion and the usual Wiemium and Untnium clause proof of the fraud, before tho citation and ftnd the warranty of titlo came this stipula- settlement can be had. Code 2608. tion: "This conveyance is intended to oper- 3. buit against tin exeeutor or adminis-1 , da as provided by an act of the General As- trator under section 2ol>7, within five years *embly „f „aiil State, and the not amends- after attaining majority, etc., must be I tor y thereof, entitled, An act to provide for brought in the county in which the executor ] sa ] eg 0 f property to secure loans and other or admimsfmtor resides at tho time of smt, dcbU) . the debt hereby scoured being *950, ** dischirge. as shown by note of this date, pay- 4. When the administrator is called to ft hlo ono day after date, and whereas account before tho ordinary under scotious t he said D. Roland (tho grantor), 2598etaoq., it is to make an account and b( , in(? cng aged in mercantile host to issno execution, etc. Bat we do not bo- may Tn tho future desire further lieye that it is within the scope ol the ordina- crwlitg{fom lbo said 8. T. Coleman A Co. ry 8 power*under thoMsccUouH of ourCodo | / t j, 0 g ran tec8), and to seenre tho payment to construe intricate beqncetff and settle leg*} conveyance in also (riven, the question* which are with difficulty adjusted Hald D . Roland agrece that if by the ablest of the judiciary sitting on tho 9conro w hi c h this .debt is t bench of the Superior Courtsaschnnccilors ^i nnjj #t maturity, including bills 21 Ga. 21. The reasoning in the cue cited f or f$ure purihasea or advances, according applies sa fully to settlements of accounts j („ (f, e tenure and effect of the same, then *® * T. Coleman A Co. may. and by will* is beforo bint, as to the cose of tho factum then beforu the court. 52 Go. 15 these presents are, authorized to tell at public outcry to tl.e highest bidder for cash, (t°" ‘fli '*? ** ^ t ®*' ttDl1 "d of said property or u sufficiency thereof distinguished. Judginent affirmed, 1L Buchanan, McLendon A Freeman, J. B. 8. Davis for plaintiff; P. 11. Brewster oontra. to pay said indebtedness as may then be owing, with interest and the cost of the proceeding niter advertising tho time, place and terms «t sale in the Ttcniaiiui’ii and Complaint, from I Mkhskw.ku four weeks, and the said 8. T Latham v« Kolb et *1. , , Harris. Before Judge Willia. Statute of Coleman A Co., may make to the pur- limitations. Minor. chaser or purchasers of said prop- Jackson, C. J.—1. Plaintiff could not re- city good and sufficient lilies in fee cover as against the security sued because I simple tothe same, thereby divesting out he did did not put his seal to his signature I of the said D. Roland ull right, title and to the do tea, end the action waa not brought I equity tint ho may have in aud to Hoid prop* within six years after their maturity. Neither «rty and vesting the same in the purchaser can she recover as against Kolb, as he was I or purchaser* aforesaid. Tho procccda of * a minor at the time of the transaction in I such sale are to ho applied first to tho pay question, and It dees not appear that tin- “cot of said debt aud interest and expeniea things purchased for hi* uso were necessary I ot Ibis proceeding, which expense la to in- in any way to him. Judgment affirms i. I <— —a —— W. L. Latham, George Latham for plain tiff ; H. C. Cameron contra. clnde attorneys' fees and any other expense incurred, if any, to pay to said D. Roland. In witness whereof, etc., etc." Hold to ba a deed conveying title absolutely to eecnre Lamar et al. vs. Lanier Honse Company et I * debt with power to sell to pay the debt, al. Refuse I of injunction, from ltibb. I *”'} not » mprtgsge. _5o Ga. 65l);r,l Ga. 45; Before Judge Kimnton*. Corporations. I ^ fia 601* 59 Ga. 507; 60 Ga. 588;6l Go. Jndge Bimmons. Corporations. Stockholders. Discretion, Jackson, C. J.—1. This case seems to be Johnson vs. the 8tute. Perjury, from Htimter. Before Judge Fort. Criminal 1. UW. Perjury, indictment. Jackson, C. J.—1. The oath charged is legal. It was, that accused waa "in due munner sworn, laying her hand on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, and took her corporal oath, to speak the truth such witness." Code 4460. 2. The allegation of tho issue being mate rial was sufficient. It was; "Aud at and upon said trial it became and was a material question and questions anil subject of in quiry whether tho said Laura Johnson saw the said George Baker, the defendant in said cause, in tins night tioar J udgo Mont gomery’s ut the timo of the alleged offense and vvhethet tho said George Baker • did strike her * * * anil whether the said Laura Johnson had sworn before the mayor ot America- that George Baker, defendant as aforesaid, bad knocked her down and almost killed her,” etc. 3. Tho battery was upon herself and the charges above exeepted to show it suffi ciently. 4. The charge that "by her own act and consent and of her own most wicked und corrupt mind, in name and form aforesaid, she wilfully, knowingly, absolutely und falsely did commit wiltul perjury," is suffi cient in respect to allegations that what ahe then sworn was false without further and additional allegation to tho effect that such and such was the truth iu opposition or in consistent with what she swore. Code4628. 5. That the court had authority tn ad minister UtC t'fth is plainly alleged. J udg- wont affirmed. J W. Brady, 8. C. Elam, for plaintiff; C. B. Hudson riolioitor General, by \V. A. Hawkins, contra. Ezell et al. vs. Thrasher. Illegality, from Pntnam. Before Jndgo Lawson. Ped dler. Lightning rod vender. Jackson, C. J. - Oac who travels through tho country, carrying with him all the tools, ladders, etc., necessary- to putting tip and repairing lightning toils, charging a certain amount per font for rods und a certain amount for nutting them np, never having aold any without putting them up, and soliciting patronage from lionse to bouse, is not a peddler and subject to penalty for failing to take out connty license as aucli in tho aenao of the law. Code . 33, 528, 629. Tax Act for 1885-6; 55 Ga. 678. He does not aimply sell rods from house to houae, which would make him a pedlar, but he affixed rods to houses and expended skill thereon, aud is rather a skilled me chanic than a peddler. Jndgment affirmed. J. 8. Turner by Harrison A Peeples, for dainriff; \V. B. Wingfield by Newnuu A ■illis contra. 398; Ut Ga. 651; 66 Ga. 704. (a) The only equity tho adminiatrator of an effort of a minority of stockholders In a I ‘he gronter has is to tender payment of the corporation to have the court* interfere in I debt secured und thus to stop tho sale, reaped to different views of policy among 3- The conveyance lias a power to sell, tho stockholders in regard to their internal coupled with an interest in the property, management of nffaraTwithinthe charter the title to it, to ueenre the debt, aid there- It would require a strong case to authorize fore the power it irrevocable anil doe. not * . . . * .. .. ° . . ... I .1.*1.. - - - * - n. eiiOi r i n. such interference, if it can be done at all U H- i„ 433; 10511. &, 605, die with the grantor. GO Ga. 562; 6i Ga 441. 65 Ga 312; 72 Go. 20, 863 cited and 2. We do not find that the chancellor I distinguished, abnsnl his discretion, .traders the conflict- L 3. Inasmuch a* the solo waa postponed ing evidence in this case, and upon this we tbs restraining order, it mm the re-ad- pnt oar decision. Judgment affirmed. vertired, and then it can be made to follow Lyon A Gresham for plaintiff; Doesau A “>« P2*«r.to sell and it* term*. Bartlett contra 4. This is not such a snit sgamut the ad- _ . ' ...—- . I miulstrstor *s must await the Ispsc of twelve CrawforJ va Kimbrough et al. Claim, months. It la not a suit at all, hut a pro from Talbot. Before Judge Willia Per- aonalty. Claim. Possession. Title. Jackson, C. J.—1. When the claimant ad- ceeding to eell under the power. (a) whatever rights the administrator lisa will attach to the proceeds of sale, mid mitted possession in her husband of the | Coleman A Co. are perfectly solvent and personalty levied on, and assumed the bar- 1 - - - - - - den, she admitted title in him. Possession of p. rvonal good* is title thereto. 2. She undertook to overcome this pos sessory title by showing title to the land on I Marshall ct oh va Lockett. Injunction, from able to account. Judgment affirmed. Nishet, Edge A Nishct for plaintiff; Des •au A Bartlett contra which tieerop was raised, bnt the evidence wfinwhaPy unsatisfactory that her money paid for it, thongh the deed wes made to The evidence demanded the verdict. UttMt Taylor. Before Jndge willia Injunc tion. Receiver. Equity. Jackson, J.—1. Tne writ of injunction is a mild remedy to prevent interference 68 Ga 560, 667; ltoyce va Gozan and Kmilh I with a receiver, when attachment and im va Wellborn, last term. Judgment at-1 prisonment for oontempt might have been finned. Willis A Mathews for plaintiff; Martin A WorriU, Jno. Peabody contra 2. The effort to distrain for rent, the lands being in the hand* of the receiver, and the title thereto being in djepute be tween the litigants, would ba an interfer ence with the court's dominion over the lands and decree to bo rendered fixing the rights of both parties in respect to the one to the other, and Elliot vs. Gammon i-t.&L, commissioners. Refusal ot injunction, from Floyd. Be fore Judge Branham. Connty affaire. Bridges Debt Ccnstitntionsl law. Jackson, C. J.—1. It appears from the I amount doe from allegations In the bill, that the County I me injunction to atop that pro -en until Commissioner* of Flojd connty, by special 1 u n *l hearing or farther order of the chan act of the General Assembly^jmrchssed the I djo, was germsin to Urn issues made in the briagM which adjoin and touch the city I Liil and anawer. Jncoment affirmed, and control the Fame ss connty officers W 8. Wallsci k Hon tor plaintiff; J. M. We do not see why they may not rebuild Snath O. J. Thornton. A. A. C'snion contra that which the connty, by authority of law, purchased tor the people of tho connty. Moreover, it is inooneavabla that the city Morris i t *1. Vi. Moms et si. Refusal injunction, from Cobb. Before Jndge Brown. Jailgmrnts Remedy. Equity. Htsl* demand. Laches. ... Jacksow, O. J.—1. In so far sa the judg- vene is a party, and why the I ment of th* ordinary of Floyd county is so to interpose for the I void or may be piooounced so tor went of I jurisdiction, tbs remedy against it is oom- and not tor ] plet* by affidavi t of illegality, determine whether imm*-| 2. Whilst equity msy setarids* j ndgment object to th* connty rehnild- ing bridge* ewrentUl to it* commercial pros- pezity. 11* city hi* made DoopppiiUon.nd Brown et al. vs. Davenport, orlinary.—Snit on bond, from Haralson. Before .I Bilge Branham. Error. Bond. Pleading. Jackson, 0. J.—1. An administrator's bond, delivered to tho ordinary himself, by whom it wss received officially, is not an error. 60s 202 cited and diatingnished. 2. This cose is controlled by Lewis et al. va commissioners Gordon connty, 70 Ga 488. 3. If both parties intended that some thing left ont ot the bond at the time it wss signed wss to be inserted in it then, bnt wua left ont by frnnd or mistake, then parol evi dence was admissible to engraft it therein; bnt if the party signed in expectation that it would be afterwards done, the bond as written and delivered could not be altered by parol; 72 Ga 679; 57 Ga 319;52 ib, 41S; 43 ib 190, 423. 3. The plea of non esf fartam wan not filed at the first term, and none wss filed at that te rm on which could it be grafted. 31 Ga 435; 61 Ga 233; Searcy Extx. vs Tillman, lust term. (a) Besides it doe* not certainly appear that this plea was stricken. Judgment affirmed. Underwood A Rowell for plaintiff; Ivy F. Thompson contra_ Kimbrough va the 8tate. Lan-eny from the house, from Webster. Before Judge Fort. Criminal law. Evidence. Jacksow, 0. J.—1. It was not error to al low a witness to testily that, "Some time after Christmas defendant came to aee my husband and said, ‘Bill, yon presented me at court. Now if yon swear to the tracks I’ll be hurt and if yon don't I won’t be hart. Now l want you to go to my lawyers and swear them tracks did not get the cotton. I had rather pay a bale of cotton, or a hun dred dollars than for yon to do it'" Defendant's counsel objected on the ground that if the evidence was in the na ture of confessions, h* desired to examine the witness in the absence of the jury ss to ita admissibility, and farther that it wss in the nature of a confession without more; Judgment affirmed. E. G. Simmons tor plaintiff; C. B. Hud son, Solicitor General, by W. A. Hawkins contra. instrument by which the assignment is made, “a toll and complete inventory anil schednle of nil the assets of every kind held, claimed or owned by such insolvent person, firm or corporation at the time of executing auch deed or other instrument of assignment, which inventory or schednle shall be sworn to by the person making the assignment," etc., and that the person or persons making snch affidavit snail upon indictment and conviction for filing a falae, deceptive or incomplete schednlo of assets be liable to the poina and penait es pre scribed by law for persons convicted of per jury, and that no deed or other instrument of assignment by insolvent persons, firms or corporations shall be valid, nnless accom panied by auch sworn schednle. Act* of 188U-81, p. 174; Code odd., p. and see. 1953 (d) (e). The act of October 17, 1885, requiring in addition to auch schednle of assets that the person making the assignment shall prepare and attach to the deod or instrument by which such assignment is made at the time of executing the same, "a full and complete inventory and schednle of all indebtedness of every kind” of such person at tho time of the execution of snch instrument or deed of assignment, which inventory or schednle shall set forth in detail the names of the amounts due to, and the residence of each of the creditors of snch as signor. and which inventory or schedule shall be sworn to by the. person making the assignment, etc.; and that "no deed or other instrument of assignment by insolvent persons, etc., shall he, valid nnless ftfcosipanied by the sworn schedule required.” lienee, when a deed of assignment was attacked for omissions, both from the schedule of assets and liabilities, it- is not a sufficient reply that the creditors omitted were only snch to an inconsiderable amonnt as compared with the entire amonnt of as- signor's indebtedness; that it was donbtfnl, at least, whether some of them were credit ors at all, and that tho assets omitted were trifling in value and amount, and were omitted from oversight and forgetfulness, without any intention whatever to palm off a false, deceptive, or incomplete schedule, ns was evident from u general claaso iu the deed of assignment authorizing and empow ering tho ns-ignee to take, hold anil recover not only tho property ami assets embraced in the schedule hut ever) thing else belong ing to the assignor at the making of the deed, and in addition thereto the assignor, npon discovering the omissions, stood ready anil willing to supply them by sn amended schedule duly verifiml and actually did so. Especially is this true when it is claimed that nearly three thousand dollars were omitted, and the assignor concedes after those omissions hail been brought to his notice by the evidence adduced on the trial, that assets to the eiuount of nearly thirteen hundred dollars had been omitted from one schedule and sundry creditors whose un disputed demands were shown to aggregate more than *l,00t> were omitted from the other, and sought to supply the omission by then umemiing his schedule* in both re respects. 2. Tho acts of 1881 and 1885 referred to are remedial statutes and should be strictly construed as against the assignor and his assignee anil liberally in favor of creditors. 76 Ga., 279; Cugglns vs. Stephens A Go., September term 1881. la) The differenco between a schednle which is not toll and complete, and no st-hcdnle at all, is a difference in degree only, and ahonld not vary tho application of the rule prescribed by the statntes. '3. It is impracticable, it not impossible, to lay down any rule us to what may he safely omitted from such schedules, cither by oversight or inadvertence, aud without any intention to do so on the part of the assignor, or purpose to mislead creditorsl>y filtng a false, deceptive or incomplete sched ule, The omh a ion ot some alight and un important article of little or no value from the schednle of effects, or gome one or more creditor* whose claims amounted to a trifle and which would probably he overlooked or forgotten by tho most careful, deliberate and painstaking person in preparing bis soheuule might not have the effect ot inval iduting the assignment, 4. The conclusions expressed above are fortified by the act of 1881 which enabled creditors to file their hill without rudneing their claim to judgment nml prohibited any creditor after the appointment of a receiver from acqniring a preference by judgment or hen, on any suit or attachment, under pro ceedings commenced after the filing of the bill, etc. Acts of 1880 and 1881, pp. 12 i, 125. 5. The fact that tlie schedules were not intentionally false, deceptive or incomplete wonld nut save the assignment, ulthongh snch dc ign, purpeseund intention is a pre requisite to the indictment under tho act of 1881. 6. No provision is made cither in the set of 1881 or 1885 for perfecting the schedules by amendment after the deed is executed, and mail legislative authority is given this cannot be done. (a.) This has been allowed in other Htatca but by atstntory regulation. 7. The general olause, conveying allsnch property to the assignee as might have been .omitted from the aebedulea, so far from sus taining the position of connsel for the as signor, is rather advene to it. "Fraud lurks in generalities." 8. While preferences in assignments are allowed they are tolerated rather than fa vored, aa is manifest from the drift of onr legislation from 1881 down to tho present day. Hce nets above cited; act of 1885 p. 1UO, ltti; code 1945, 1946; art 1 nee. 9 par 6. Con. of 1877. Judgment reversed. Juo. L. Tye, J. U. Lumpkin, G. W. Bryan tor plaintiff; Jos. U. Gray, Mail A Hammond, K. J. Reagan contra. cotemporaueonsly executed to certain cred itors preferred by the conveyance, includ ing the assignee himself to aid, as charged, any defects therein. The fact of provision being made to carry on tho hnsinoss by the aid of goods pro cured for that purpose and which have not been paid for, raises a presumption, though not a conclusive one, of an intention on the part of the parties to delay, binder and de fraud such ereditora in are not preferred. . 4. it would lie unjust to hold the assign, ment void, and yet permit these mortgages to he closed at law, where complainants could not intervene, Code 3965 and cita tions, denying to the complainants the aid of a court of equity to hold the assets and determine tho vnlidity of the mortgages given. Judgment reverend. King A Spalding, Candler, Thomson A Candler, Abbott A Smith, W. R. Brown, Harrison A l’eepies for plaintiff; Hoke Smith, Jackson A King contra. Mosely vs. Sanders. —Case, from Early. Be fore Jndge Clarke. Dormant judg ment. Illegality. Sheriff. Damages. Expenses of litigation. Jackson, C. J.—1. A judgment rendered in April, 1866, on which a fi. fa. was issued in May, 1866, and delivered to the sheriff in October, of tho same year, and this fi. fa. being lost an alios issued at the April term, 1875, and levied on tho lands of de fendant in execution, was a dormant judg ment. 58 Go. 278; 01 Ga. 236. 2. When the sheriff refused to receive the affidavit of illegality to the execution from , this dormant judgment, he did so at his K ril and is liable for the dumages caused • such refusal, 9 Ga. UK); 11 Ga. 294; 25 Ga. 613. 3. Expenses of litigation do not full nnder the head of punitive or vindictive damages, bnt stand by themselves. They may be recovered when the defend ant has caused the plaintiff unnecetmary trouble und expense. Jnilgmtnt'affirmed. E. C. Bower, for plaintiff; Bacon A Ruth- erfoid, contra. Gay vs. Gilmore. Mandamus, from Macon. Before Jndgo Fort. Mandamus. Equity. Chancellor. Chambers. Jackson, C. J.—1. A petition in equity for a writ of mandamus, presented to u chancellor in chambers, wiw properly dis missed, becanso the writ of mandamus is a common law writ, anil equity has nothing tn do with it. either in term or vacution. 55 Ga., 256 cited and distinguished. 2. The judge at chambuis is not bonml to grant a rule nisi on any sort of petition, bnt may dismiss the petition in limine on oral or written objection or demurrer. Judg ment uftirmed. E. G. Simmon*, Hawkins A Hawkins for plaintiff; F. T. .Snead, coutiu. MoMiilen vs Knapp et al. Claim, from City Conrt of .Savannah. Before Judge Har den. Debtor and creditor. Assignments. Schedules. Assets. Affidavit. Haij., J.—1. A schedule attached to an assignment which omitted a right of re demption the assignor had, in certain prem ises, conveyed for the security of a debt he owed and which rigid of redemption ho sur rendered to the party holiliug the deed shortly after the execution of tho assign ment, w as properly held incomplete and the assignment void. Tnrnipseed et al. vs. Schuefer et al. above reported. 2. The affidavit to the schednle was not in the language of the statute, but that it was a true, complete and perfect inventory of all the property of which the assignor was thon possessed eto. Tlie nftbluvit was bad slnco tbo statnte requires tho inventory to cover not only all property in possession but nil nsseta of every kind. Judgment affirmed. Lester A Ravenel for-plaintiff; Garrard A Mrldrlm, J. H. Schley, C. N. West, Rich arils A Heyward, Lawton A Cunningham contra. an 1 her co-defendant, and a chars,. „„ point was not error. 011 ttb 3. The defendant was a principal fa first degree. Bho did not affi and" J* I merely the act done by her actual or”* 1 strnctive presence hut actively piitbin!? 11 : i. the doing thereof; she wiwWSj 4 principal actors in, or a-tual pormaii of the fftet done. Whar. Am. trim t ” book. 112 and 113; 15 Ga. 346; 13 u, 1 ?!* Judgment affirmed. R. H. Powell, W. A. Rutler for m..—. J. H.Guerry, Solicitor General. C. And^J* 1 Attornov Genera], contra. Wingfield, et al. vs. Rhea Equity Floyd. Before Jndge Brauham Uwfi and wife. Domicil. New trial. CW hill of exceptions. Liches. Hall, J.—1. This is the first gram a, new trial on the issues horo made am) * do not think the judge below abased hti,^* cretion. Clt - 2. When the hnsband and wife arc Kv'» together the !aw makes his domicil hc»'°* 3. Where the judge grants the motions new trial on one ground and impliedly 0 ,„ rules it on the others, the moyant sCw tile a cross-kill of exceptions to hoy« Jl 4 other grounds considered by u 8 if v opponent bring np the cases. 70’g*. «J*. 4. Had this been done there could be «- doubt of the propriety of the grant of tlu new trial, as plaintiff in error was in Udb! for failing to traverse tho return of serv£ by the sheriff at the next term of the cone rendering the judgment after she hod n-m- ‘hereof. Cixfo 31140 and citations; «ee"Z 73 Ga. 477. Judgment affirmed. Underwood A Roweli for plaintiff- 0 K Feathers ton contra. ’ ' Keans vs Jones. Complaint, from Floji Before Jndge Brauham. Evidence, hts trial. Error. Practice. Presnmption. Haij. J.—1. The evidence was conflict ing. there hod been three verdicts 6, ,-- cl of defendant apil there was no abuse'e! discretion in refneing a new trial 2. While the transcript from the hooks seems to have been famished in comnli once with section 3517 of the Code, jet it does not appear in the record, and we can not say that it was relevant testimony, nor does it npnenr on what ground it was re pelled, ana we must presume the Judge did not err in rejecting it. Judgment affirmed W. D. Elam tor plaintiff; H. M. Wright contra. Mooney va Rome Railroad Company. Com plaint, for land, from Floyd. Before Judge Branham. Railroads. Right of wav. Reservation. License. User. Blands-obd, J.- 1. The dofondant in error never seems to have had possession of the land sued for, and never seems to have con demned any of it as its right of way, but has used for a long number of yenra gimplj what its track covered. It bad no deed to tlio land, bnt relied partly on reservation* iu its favor in the chain of deeds nnder which plaintiff in error held. Tlieso reservations, however, were only ns to tho right of wit overwlrich "said rendnowmns,” etc. The grantor or plaintiff in error held the land under deed aud has asserted actnal adverse possession from 1853 uutrl pluiDtiff iu error bought. The vordict, therefore, was not supported by evidence. 2. Tho company may have hud the right by license or otherwise to use so much of this land ns it deemed necessary, and the fact thut for thirty years it did not take and use this land is conclusive that it wan not deemed necessary by tlie company. Judg ment reversed. Reece A Denny, W. D. Elam, Dabney A Poncho for plaintiff; C. N. Feathers toe, Junius Hillyer contra. tub _ fin l,-.-..:! Id*- title fcraw’- Dlxon, 80 Randolph .treat, Cnluruhrw, Os. after .nir.rin* tor niontns with tattoos f.Ttr is* ItndlnK nothing to benefit him. Tnrnipseed et si r*. Bchufer et si. Refu sal of injunction, from llsnry. Beforo Judge Stewart. Debtor and Creditor. Assignment*. Bchadnlss, Omissiooe. Amendments Prefer'net*. Albany and Van Rensellaer Iron and Bteel Company et al vs. B iathem Agricultural Works et al. Refusal of injunction, from Fnlton. lkfore JnJge Hammond. Cor- potations. Assignments. Preferences. Debtor and creditor. Equity. Fraud. Hall,J.—1. The material questions made iu this case, as respects the legal sufficiency of the assignment, are identical with those made in the case ot Tnrnipseed et si vs. Schaefer ct aL, above reported, and are con trolled by that case. i Under the laws of Georgia, especially since the set ot September 28, 1881, sn in solvent corporation can moke s general assignment tor ths benefit of ereditora, either with or without provisions giving preferences and priority of payment to cer tain named ereditora. Bee also 37 Ga. 613. 3. While it is generally true that credi ton who have no lien and who have not re duced their claims to judgment have no right to invoke the remedial aid of a conrt of equity, circumstances msy exist render ing this rule inapplicable, 42 Ga. 46; 70 Us. 315. Wc find 'list some of these circumstances exist in this case, snch ss the insolvency of the debtor, who, it is alleged, has fraudu lently transferred bis property to one who is in complicity with him in the fraud, and who is rapidly disposing of the property, or where the property is obtained by fraud ulent representations with which the as- ijgntf connected. It is also alleged in this bill that Urge supplies of goods were obtained with avisw ot nuking the very assignment in question to enable the assignee to carry on th* bosi- Moody va. Travis. Certiorari, from Decatur. Beforo Judge Bower. Laborer’s lien. Claims. Otuslnnding lien. Ham.. J.—1. The affidavit for the en forcement of the laborer's lion met every requirement of thestatnte. Code, see. 1991. 2. The special and general Hens of the laborer wire properly set up and enforced by this proceeding. Code 1975, 1974, and ] tho proper preference was given to the special liens in uccordancc with (lie law us above cited. 3. Tiro evidence offered by tho claimant to y'l-.-nv xiaktnnding title to the property claimed in a third person wus properly re jected. 6 Ga. 515 (II. N. 13) 529. JuJg. meat affirmed. Gnrley A Talbert for plaintiff; G. F. Westmoreland, contra. Iladson vs. the State. Murder, from Clay. Before Jndgo Clarke. Criminal law. Evi dence. Connsel. Hall, J.—1. The evidence sustains tho verdict. 2. Neglect of connsel, as s general rule, affords no ground for a new- trial. Graham A Waterman on New Trials, vol. 3, p. 1529, et seq. (a) It is not entirely certain that the state ment of the prisoner was not purposely and perhaps prudently withheld by liU counsel, or that he might not have consented to ib bciug.doue, in order to afford him, in case of conviction, a chance for another hearing, for it it to be remarked that the counsel who defended him do not make this motion for a new trial (b) And even if tie defendant's failure to make the statement that the homicide was justifiable, wss the result of neglect or over sight on the part of connsel or was the re sult of his own ignorance and their failure to apprise him of bis rights; it is uot made apparent thut he suffered detriment by be ing deprived ot the benefit of any evideuce K to allow thut the transaction wusdif- t in any material particular from that testified to by the Bute's, witnesses. In deed, had tho statement, as set forth in the motion for new trial, been nude by him, it is not clear that it would have varied tho resnlt r jrnt2 o.i.o. Co, Punity, GEORGIA, !• th* nolo proprietor of O. I. cv (Old Indian Cure)', Tin; Perfect Jilood Purifier I This vegetable Tonic anil Purifier new toils. Druggists hi-II it nud indorse it enrj- wbero. Dr. Win. F. Bynum, Sr„ a prominwi' physician and citizen of Live Oak, Fla, writes ns; "It gives the best satisfaction of all the Blood Purifiers.” Ladies in Delicate Health Ilave in it a Sovereign Cure. AS A TOXIC AXD APPETIZER, Thom is absolutely nothing to compart with it. mimyND mux i-.iti i us cvuF.u mu» 111L 3- Frazier, Columbus, Us., when she bsSsof fersd from nervous prostration for two yt*is sso was seuorsllj broken down. MONEY LOANED —ON— F JL X*, jMC N ! Apply to ELLIOTT ESTES, 144 Stroud street, Macon, Ga. feblRwtf imotVN-S I ill IN ill ITT. Its USED »* D Mr*. O. r*tnn, Columbus, Os., tor djvpos* 1 * •• four pairs- standing. It so gftstly improved ds U to svory one. 3. It does uot appear that anv harm was dono the prisoner by the inexperience or in efficiency of bis counsel, nr that any evi dence which could elucidate his ease, wss on this account withheld from the jary. (a) While we wonld hesitate to hold that, if the evidence established the innocence of the prisoner, and that bis conviction was in sn appreciable degree attributable to the un- skiUfnlneiw and idefficiency of his connsel, especially if this was the result of ignor ance and drunkenness combined on their pert, this wonld not afford good ground tor n new trial, yet, in this case, the jury did uot err in finding him gnilty. And when we look to the judge's certificate as to the facts on which these points depend we are compelled todetermine Ilium in favor of the Htstc. 3 Whar. Am. C'rim. Law, sees. 3366, 3367. 3367 (*), 3368 (b). 3369 (e), 3372 (a), 3377 tf). Judgment affirmed. II. 1L Powell W. O. Butler tor plaintiff; J. II. Guerry, Solicitor-General; C. Ander son, Attorney-General contra. Roney v*. The State. Murder, from Clay. Before Judge Clarke. Criminal law. Evi dence. Conspiracy.' Principal in first degree. Haij, J—1. The evidence snstains the verdict. ~ There waa evidence to sustain a charge sa to conspiracy to kill between theprisoner MONEY LOANED R. F. LAWTON, Banker, apr*dAwly •tre«;t, Mwon, G*. nnmvN'8 ikon itirruts has n*®* 1) used la dm family «( Mrs. 3. D. BtlUsao, XI tig thorp, stoat Columbus, Os., ss sa sppsthsr*** central ionic, and she hssrtuy endows 0- ^ MONEY FOR LAN1) OWNERS y X gpKCUL RATMI ° AUD OH CASTTXU0' Apply to .-a CLEM P. HTtt.D, li&roa, G*. Ro. ton Areaac, over Fayas’* «lro*»tor*. rw^^n rssi.v ni I * RR KN ■ nndtiitaif* of Mr. JofcnBcbatVWjJS Raakln Ucum. Colombo*. Ga., who waaaMJJ" with <Virjwu tar t*o j-Ai-k. l ail cth< HELP WANTED. WSO A WEBS “ peasssjmid. Vslasbl* oortt u* e. 3. f. II ILL tU, Augusts.