Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About Weekly chronicle & sentinel. (Augusta, Ga.) 1866-1877 | View Entire Issue (May 10, 1876)
amronicle anfr jgenttntt. WEDNESDAY MAY 10, 1876. The gentlemen who got left for St. Louis say the train didn’t stop at the stations for them to get on, as it should have done. Sad I Messrs. Bryant and PRises, with possibly Fannin, lead the cohorts of Mr. Blaine, of Maine. Our private opinion is that Georgia Republicans will cast their votes for Blaine or for Bris tow. Will the few newspapers that are so much disgruntled by the election of Governor Smith, Messrs. Barnes, Les ter and Wofford as delegates to St Louis trom the State at large please sug gest a better ticket? The leaders of the Conkling party in Georgia are said to be District-Attorney Farrow and Collector Atkins, of the Port of Savannah. We think that these two will be able to kill Conkuno very comfortably between them. The McDuffie Journal (we have to quote a good deal from that paper, somehow) says “the State Executive Committee received a severe but well merited rebuke” in the preamble aDd resolutions which were unanimously adopted by the Convention of the Eighth Congressional District. We publish this morning an article from the Milledgeville Union and Re corder, headed “Our Next Governor, which we commend to the consideration of our readers. Of its author the Union and Recorder says: "He is a distin guished Georgian—one whose name and residence were we to mention them would give additional weight to the truths he lays down for the calm consid eration of the people. Tan neoDle of Georgia must their faces as a flint against all independent candidates in the coming campaign if they wish to perpetuate the rule of the Democracy in Georgia. They should be crushed like young vipers as soon as they make their appearance. With in dependents in control of the Govern ment the rule of the Radicals would soon be restored. The safety of the State lies in a strict adherence to party lines, implicit obedience to party discipline, and united support of party nominees for every position. Col. Hardeman has also been strength ened by the withdrawal of Governor Smith. The Telegraph and Messenyer says : “The prospects of our talented townsman continue to brighten daily. His eminent services to the party in its darkest days of adversity, his ripe expe rience as a legislator, his big hearted in terest in behalf of agriculture and edu cation, his brilliant eloquence and genial manners, his malignant persecution by Farrow, in short, his superior claims upon the people of his native State, are fast commandingtbat attention and con sideration to which they are justly en titled.” < The editor of the Rome Courier is not in favor of independent Democrats. He says: “We hear a great hue and cry among the so-called Independents against Democratic trickery, party chicanery and electioneering jugglery. We have watched these fellows and listened to their talk, and a more shame less set of wire-pullers, wind bags and pot-house tricksters than themselves are cannot be found in even the most disreputable slums of a rotten town •ward. They are controlled entirely by one or two midnight conspirators, who, in some back caucus, put forth their can didate and then cry out the next day against the tyrany of nominations. Fel ton was nominated by just such a set, and ‘Sleepy Hollow’ is mumbling his gums in praysr for just such a nomina tion. The Democracy makes its nomi nation fair and above board and ia the light of day. It publishes its calls and invites the presence of all. Not so the Independents; they meet at midnight, two or three together, and fix up the slate, and then they cry out to the peo ple, ‘Behold your man !’ They are Independents sure enough, for they do uot depend upon the people for their nomination—they make them them selves. _ WII.KES COUNTY. During the past week we had the pleasure of spending some days in the beautiful fown of Washington. The county of Wilkes is one of the best in Georgia, end as a necessary con sequence Washington is a thriving, pros perous town. The citizens are educated and cultivated, aud are not excelled for probity and worth by those of any other city or town in Georgia. The pro fessional and business men stand high in their respective callings. The bar of Washington is a credit to the State. It is -composed of gentlemen of a high order of talent—whose reputations are not lo cal but national. Among tlie business houses, there are several that would compare favorably with those of Atlanta or Augusta—not in the volume of busi ness, however, although some of them do a large trade for a town, but in com mercial standing and the system which characterizes the conduct of their -af fairs. Court Week Usually attracts the people from the surron.uding country, but the present term of Wilkes Superior Court failed to withdraw t be farmers from the field, aud the numbe v in attendance was therefore small. The people were too busy to take holiday, and there were only those in attendance whose business compelled them to be present. Court commenced Monday and adjourned Saturday. Judge Pottle’s charge to the grand jury ws* pertinent and forcible. There was one portion of it that will commend itself to the hearty approval of all right-thinking people everywhere, and that is the Right ofßeU*l*us Liberty, WhiciL' every man is guaranteed by the Constitutions of the State and of the United States. The fanaticism that would ostracise a man for worshipping God according to the dictates of his conscience will find no toleration among the good people of Georgia. The isms that cursed the country were eraAi and nurtured in the North. The Soath always been tolerant, allowing eve,*7 man the widest liberty in matters of re ligion. Political fanaticism found oonge- 1 nial climes in Old and New England, and ! its wrath and vengeance impoverished and desolated the South. The rained homes, the desolated plantations, the -widows’ wails and the orphans’ tears have been seen and beard all over this j fair Southern land. The latter day teachings of Exeter and Faneuil Halls are responsible for the blood that was shed and the property destroyed in our late fratracidal war. The disciples of this school, who have come South since the war to foment discord and engender strife, will fiud neither toleration nor enoouragemeof- among the people of Georgia. Harmony aud peace dwell with our people, am] he who would at- 1 tempt to sow the seeds fanaticism by j making war on any religion# denomina tion, is au enemy to society aad to our 1 Government, which guarantees ci-vit aud ; religious liberty to all citizens. The Bar. The visiting members of the bar were Judge D. A. Yason, Albany; W. G. Johnson and Samuel Lumpkin, Lexing ton; S. W. Seidel, Hartwell; J. A, Hat let, Sparta; J. E. Strother, Lin coln. The local bar was represented by Gen. Toombs, Gen- Dcßosb, Messrs. Wm. M. AM. P. Reese, J. C. Reed, F. H. Colley, 8. H. Hardeman, B. S. Irwin, E. T. Shubrick, W. M, Silts, S. M. Wynn aad Wm. Wynn. The Ihdifc Several important oases were eon tinned, among them the Pounds case. The following were disposed of; Bum Smith (colored), convicted of burning a dwelling house, was found guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. Frank Stone (colored) plead guQty to larceny from the house and was sen tenced to eight year* in the peniten tiary. He also plead guilty to an as sault with intent to murder, for which be waa sentenced four years. Simon Bird (colored), who was found guilty of hog stealing, was sentenced to the chain gang for four months. Marcia H. Fanning vs. W. P. Fanning—appli cation lor dower —granted. H. C. Ma thews vs. Luther G. Smith —appeal referred. Bank of Washington vs. Frank Arnold— appeal—judgment for costs. Mary M. B. Stone vs. John V. Stone —divorce granted to both. Pol lard, Cox k Cos. vs. John D. Coxwell verdict for plaintiffs. John T. Wimj field, administrator, vs. the heirs at law of Nicholas Wylie—bill for direc tion—compromise verdict. Fannie Heard vs. Arnold k Dußose suit on note and plea of discharge in bank ruptcy contested —verdict for defend ants. Several judgments were rendered on unlitigated cises. The Crops. The crop prospect generally is prom ising, and bids fair for a large yield, es pecially of cereals. I find that there tias been an increase in small grain in wheat, oats and barley. There has been more corn planted and less cotton than last year. Ths area devoted to sorghnm is greater than any year since the war. Gnano has been used more generally—perhaps the consumption has increased fully one-fonrth. It has been used on grain as well as on cotton. Some of the farmers are cramped for money, bnt all of the industrious, wor thy men in the county will make a crop. 1 It is believed that none of the land un der cultivation will have to be abandon ed for the want of accommodation. There are men of means in the county wuo are making advances, ana iu this respect Wilkes is better off than almost other county in Middle Georgia. There are large numbers of, farmers in this county who make it a rule to raise their own supplies. They never buy bread and meat, bnt always make it the first consideration to raise their provisions on their own farms. These men as a rule never ask for advances because they never need them, and they are in a position to be independent of the stringency of the money market. The men who suffer most in Wilkes and in the other ootton producing counties are those who are afflicted with the unfor tunate mania of exclusive ootton cul ture. Political Notes. Wilkes will support Gov. Johnson as the first choice, but if he is not in the field Gen. Colquitt will probably carry the county. Col. Hardeman has some friends, but no strength. If Judge Augustus Reese will make the race he will go into the Convention with a strong following from the counties in the Eighth District. Gen. Toombs and Hon. A. H. Ste phens are said to favor the (nomination of Senator Eaton, of Connecticut, for President. He is a dyed in the wool Demo crat, of the old school of States Rights, but it needs no prophet to predict that he will not receive the nomination. No man can be elected President of the Uni ted State ß who was not in thorough accord with the Modern people, or, in other words, loyal to the Union, during the war between the State#, dominating a candidate for President who wto in sympathy with the South would be like shaking # red flag in tte f ace ol au en raged bull. A loyl man-though in sympathy with the corruptionists would find no difficulty ip dfefestjng Senator Eaton, who is one of the purest as he is one of the ablest public men in the United States, Tb* South would support Senator Eaton with unanimity> but the South alone could hot Messrs. Colley and Bin*#, who serv ed the oounty of Wilkes in the last Leg" i islatnre, will be re-elected, if they de sire to ye turn to Atlanta. Mr. Colley is a yoiisg hut prominent lawyer, de servedly popular with fll classes of the people. Mr. Binns is a respected citi zen aud substantial farmer. Wilkes bad one of the best delegation 3 in the Legislature, with Judge W M, M- Reese as the Senator from the Twenty-ointh Distriot. When this distinguished jurist was nominated for Congress from this District fie declined the honor, pre ferring to serve hf# people in the Senate thau to occupy a seat in (the Congress of the United States. Suoh instances of unselfish devotion are rare in these days of greed for office, hut they deserve to be preserved with pride a# examples to shame the brood of hungry office-seek ers, During Judge Reese’s term ip the Senate no man has rendered more signal service to (he State. Our laws for the last six years b?ar the impress of his vigorous intellect and accomplished legal mind. If he desired to represent this Distriot, iu case of the resignation or inability of Hon. A- H- Stephens to serve, the people would readily tender him the nomination. He is in the merid ian of life and in the possession of a vigor of mind and strength of character that would reflect honor upon onr Dis trict. The mantle of the illustrious sage of Liberty Hall conld not fall upon shoulders more worthy to bear it. INIPSBESTINCJ INSURANCE FACTS. The St. Loaia Republican says the proceedings of -the National Board of Fire Underwriters that mat and held a three days’ session at New York ;ast week furnish some interesting informa-i tion on the condition ot the insurance business in this country. Gas surpris ing fact is the increase in the amount of risks assumed over the year 1874. This increase is 8290,127,000. The capit.il employed by 199 home and 14 foreign companies was 855,383,000, an increase of 82,331,888 over 1874. The dividends for the year 1875 avasnsged for New York State companies 13 71-108 per cent., and for those of other States 13 W-100 per cent. But this is the bright side ot the subject. The tables show a decrease of the ability to write of the American oompanies from $239 in 1874 to 8228 in 1875; and the loss rate* lor ffrst three months of the present year is eq aad to that for the first six months of 1875. It is almost inconceivable, bat tbs reports declare it to be an indisputable fstft fpnt the aggregate losses by fire in lo7 R 'u ajpc United States were $78,102,2- | 5. This >s a loss than that sustain ed by the great feo*w fire j 1872, and it represents an actual and utter anni hilation of property to that extent. A very large proportion of the fires that inflated this loss are attributed to “lack of intelligent caution." Thirty-five per cent, of the number are charged to in cendiarism. The committee have no reason to hope that the losses for the present year will be any less than those of last; that is, they think we shall barn up another $78,000,000 of wealth in 1876. The Sandersville Herald does’nt seem to regret that the District Conventions “fixed” the delegation to St. Lonis in sU4 of allowing the Executive Com mittee U.&) the “fixing.” It says; “The unanimity wist yhich the Distriot Con ventions voted for delegates from the .State at large is remarked indeed, and shows • oneness of purpose on fee part of the greed Democratic party ot' Georgia. The entire .4 allegation ia a good one, and Georgia’s honor Ihe inter ests of the whole oountry a*e in their hands.” t _ -■ J" 1 - The MeDnffie Journal calls attention to the fact that somebody has beep palming off aa excellent add poem, “The, Moneyless Man," pR the Atlanta; Times as an original contribution. We hope Col. Waddell will properly resent the i*dignity, and either mangle the thief with* tin quotation or braiw him with a Greek EMt SOUTH CARQLLNA. THE DEMOCRACY IN COUNCIL- Meettus f the State Caavwittou—A *pre aeatatiTe Bady—PUtl—lihrA Dele*ate*— Pernaaent Oraaiaatiaa —Kerakaw Preal- Itat-BafMl Reedy far Beat af Drm* ar Blast at Bogle—Pawera ef the Ceereetion A Secret Session Ordered. [Special Dispatch to Chronicle and Sentinel 1 Columbia, May A— In accordance with the call issued by the State Execu tive Committee of the Democratic par ty of South Carolina, a St:te Convention of the Democracy assembled here to day for the purpose of sending dele gates to the National Democratic Con vention. Every county in the State was represented, and among the delegates were some of the best and leading men of South Carolina, including Gen. J. B. Kershaw, Gen. Johnson Hagood, Gov. B F. Perry, Gov. M. L Bonham, Gen. M. C. Butler, and Col. T Y. Simons. The Convention did not assemble nntil this evening, and met at 9 o’clockjin the Hall of the House of Representatives in thecapitol building. Col. D. Wyatt Aiken, Master of the State Grange, was chosen temporary Chairman. The proceedings were opened with praver by the Rev. Dr. Meynardie. The State Executive Committee and the Chairmen of the County Committees were invited to seats on the floor, with out the privilege of voting. The roll of the delegates was called by the Secretary and a large majority found present. A resolution for permanent organiza tion was adopted and General J. B. Kershaw was unanimously elected per manent President by acclamation. Gen. M. L. Bonham, of Edgefield; Col. T. Y. Simons, of Charleston; Col. J. A. Hoyt, of Anderson; Col. J. A. McQueen, of Darlington; ex-Governor B. F. Perry, of Greenville; and General Johnson Hagood, of Barnwell, were elected Vice-Presidents unanimously. Mr. Geston, of Chester, and Mr. Fox, of Colleton, were elected Secretaries. A committee of three escorted Gen. Kershaw to his seat. On taking the Chair he assured the Convention that it was a matter of as much surprise as gratification to him to be called upon to fill so distinguished a position. He felt that the most distinguished position that any man in Smith Carolina oould occupy at'the present time was to be pre siding officer of a Convention of that class of ostracised citizens whose voice shonld always be heard in shaping the destinies of the State. He excused him self from saying more than assuring the Convention of his heartfelt thanks. He felt that this was not the occasion, if it was otherwise proper,thathe shonld offer measures or counsels for the considers tion of the Convention. When the battle for the redemption of the State in which the Democracy expected to be victorious was so far distant, as a military man he should not indicate his plan of battle nntil the enemy had somewhat devel oped his plan of campaign. Without pre suming to indicate what should be the plan of action by the Convention he an nounced the Chair ready for business. General Johnson Hagood, of Barn well, offered a preamble and resolutions preparing the business qf the Gonven i tion: First, eleotion of delegates to St. Lonis; second, election of a State Execu tive Committee; third, a secret session on the plan of action of the State Demo i cratic party. Each Congressional Dis i triot to elect two delegates to St. Louis | and the Convention four from the State at large. , 1 A Tong discfissiqn ensued, partici i pated in by Messrs. Tilman, But ler, Gary, Aiken, O'Conner and others, in which the power of the Con vention to adopt a platform and declare 1 the principles of the party met with r much favor and equal opposition. There ■ seemed to be a general desire to discuss the matter in secret session to-morrow, ’ which no doubt will be done. General Butler offered a resolution ) tbat a committee of fifteen be appointed - to consider the resolutions, whioh was 1 tabled. General Kershaw was made ex ofticio Chairman of the State Exacntive Com mittee. General Hagood said the people of the State were ready to respond to the blast of bugle and beat of drum when the summons was given. There are three colored delegates to the Convention. The lobby and gallery were filled with spectators, white and colored, and many visitors were on the fioor. The intelligence of the State was represented from all classes of society. It is a finp looking, dignified and order ly assemblage. 4 great many aud lengthy speeches were made. Torch light pavis was in the lobby and Swails, colored President pro tem. of the Sen ate, woe op fee floor. Pfle Convention adjourned to tpn o’clock to-morrow morning, when a secret session' will be held. John McCammon, an old resident of Columbia, died suddenly this afternoon of apoplexy. What Waa Done Yeaterday—The Caucus— Tbp !£uolutioiiß of Ed*efleld—A Plan of Speaks—The Dele gates at Larae —Np Ipiruptions. [Special Dispatch to the Chronicle ami Sen\,ii\el 1 Columbia, 8- C-, Muy s.—The Con vention reassembled at ten this morning, President Kershaw in the Chair- The first business was the resolution to go into secret session. It elicited a long discussion, when, as a substitute, a reso lution was adopted that the Convention adjourn to 12, m. The caucus was then held, outsiders being excluded. The plans anil p,Q%y of the Democratic par ty were discussed in th,e caijcns, but no definite shape was giyen tq'tflp yiews expressed. At 12, m., the Convention reassembled. A resolution for a secret session ya# tabled. A committee of one tfQtp each delegation was appoint ed to whom all reaolati.ous V e F e referred without debate, . M. P. O'Ooouer, of Charleston, intro duced resolutions charging the prevail ing misgovernment in Stats and nation on the Republican party; urging tbat they be hurled from power by the ballot box; that the National Republican par ty be overthrown at the next election; that tha Democratic party of South Carolina align themselves with the Na tional Democratic that stand on the platform adopteu at and pledge non-interterenoe with the of guaranteed under existing ; laws. Beferf„ ~ _ , J. C. Sheppard, of Ragefleld, offered a resolution of the jEdgese(d ppmocrats pledging themselves to sustain <?W F el ] known Demoorat# for office—State and National. Referred. E. McCrady, Jr., of Charleston, °ffer ed a preamble and resolutions proposing a plan of organization and defining the course of action for the Democratic par ty qf South Carolina. Referred. A resolution was adopted rescinding the aotion qf jiiut Convention in electing President Kershaw Gtairman, ex officio, of the State Executive Co^iftiftee, and giving the committee, when selected, the fiftoiaP fff its Chairman. This was in aecordaftqe j request of General flygfc aw. J. N. Lipscomb, of Newtiewf, offered resolutions urging continued toy feet organization of tbe State T)ej#o cratic party. Referred. Mi. G. B. Lartigue, of Barnwell, offer ed resolutions declaring it inexpedient for the Convention to adopt any specific plan of aotion nntil after the meeting of the National Democratic Convention at St. Lodis, ia .order that the Democracy of South Carolina may act in harmony with the National Demcuratio party, but urging the preservation of .township and ppgnty clubs for prompt and de cisive Sffiiop, find that when delegates to St. topis ap4 Executive Com mittee axe .elected i±yj Convention ad jOBFP, subject'Jo ,t£e call is# gem ''era of Uusptiye Coin*i%e. Me- ferreu. _ . ... Colonel fieitt, of Newberry, M?o --dneed resoluHons which had been read t in oauous. Referred without reading in Convention. The President then 44UijBlJb ce “ , readiness to receive nomumtfpns for delegates to the St. Louis Conyentfwß— two from each of tbe five Congressional districts and four frpm tbe State at large. The delegates at large were first elected by ballot.— While counting ballots, on motion of General Conner, tbe Convention ' went into oaucas for the purpose of as certaining from the delegates tha views of their constituents as to the course to be pnrsned by the Democratic party of ■ the State, and bo consider the plans tor the approaching campaign. At 1)30 the Convention went into caucus. Exit re porters and spectators. The canons re-; mained in session until 3, p. sa. When the Convention reassembled the follow ing result of the balloting was an nounced: Delegates from the State at large—General John Bratton, Fairfield; Hon. W. D. Porter, Charleston; Coloael D. W. Aiken, AbbeTUle; General J. D. Kennedy, Kershaw. Alternates Gen. M. Q Butler, Edgefield; ex-Governor B. B. Ferii, .Greenville; Col. J. A. Hoyt, Anderson'; General M. L. Bonham, Edgefield. At 3:15 Convention ad journed to 5, p. ni., to give Jige to the Committee on Resolutions to eoa&Apr the sujtifiTS before them. The Convention Reassembled at 6, p. m., and proceeded, to el* two delegates and tiro alternates .from each at the uve Congressional T>istricts.by aoffiamsGon. with result: J’lratXhatnet,, J. S. Richardaoa/qf Snmtsr; J. G- Mc- Lucas, .of Marioa; alternates, R. McLrsr, of Darliqgton;/. B. MbLaunn. Second District, M. P- Q of Charleston; John F. Fwken, of G^aylqp-. ton; alternates, John L. Manning, of Clarendon; J. F. lalar, of Orangeburg Third Disi rict, S McGowan, of Abbe ville; W. B. Stanley, of Richland; al ternates, B. W. Ball, of Laurens; Samp son Pope, of Newberry. Fourth Dis trict, J. H. Evins, of Spartanburg; B. F. Perry, Greenville; alternates, W. H. Wallace, ot Union; Gabriel Connor, of Spartanburg. Fifth District, J. C. Shep pard, of Edgefield; Wm. Elliott; alter nates, J. J. Fox, of Colleton; Paul F. Hammond, of Aiken. Governor Perry declined as alternate at large, and Wm. Wallace, of Richland, was elected to the vacancy. The Convention proceeded to the elec tion of three members of the State Ex ecutive Committee from each Congress ional District, with the following result: First, W. W. Harllee, J. A. Law, T. B. Fraser; Second, T. Y. Simons, J. F. Izlar, James Conner ; Third, A. C. Has kill, J. N. Lipscomb, J. B. Moore; Fourth, W. L. Depass, T. Stobo Far row, B. H. Massey; Fifth, A. C. Izard, J. D. Tillman, T. J. Counts. The Committee on Resolutions asked further time, whioh was granted. The committee then (8:30) went into secret canons. The Convention reassembled at 8:40. The Committee on Resolutions deemed it inexpedient to take aotion on the res olutions referred to them, bnt urged onr county organizations to preserve them selves compact and to be ready for prompt and decisive action when the time arrived. General Gary submitted as a substi tute three resolutions, as follows: Tbat the platform of the National Democratic party be adopted as the platform ef the Democratic party of South Carolina; that the Democratic party of the State make a straight-out fight on the State ticket, and that county conventions make such nominations as they may deem expedient, and be governed by the circumstances surrounding them. General Gary then advocated prompt action in the adoption of a plat form and straight-out Democracy. General Kennedy defended the report of the committee, advising caution and prudence and deprecating precipitation of action at this time. Butler, Ball and others favored the adoption of a platform and prompt and decisive action. Cothram, of Abbeville, favored the adoption of the committee’s report. The committee’s report was adopted by a vote of 70 to 42. Hoyt’s resolution that the State Exe cutive Committee call a State Conven tion when deemed proper, to nominate candidates for State officers and issue a platform, was adopted. The Convention will probably adjourn to-night. OUR NEXT GOVERNOR. [For the Union and Recorder .] It is perhaps unfortunate that so much has been said and written in re gard to various aspirants for the posi tion of Governor of the State of Geor gia. The discussion we think has been premature, and has already, we fear, produced a degree of bitterness and dissension whioh seriously jeopardises the harmony of the Demo cratic party. If there ever was a time when the honest and true men of the country should band together for the common good, this is the time—with onr State burdened with taxation and debt, o.ur agricultural interested pros trated and the people impoverished to an alarmiDg extent, it is high time that all bickering and quarreling about this, that or the other favorite shonld cease, and that the wise aud prudent men of the oountry should consult as to the beat means of averting the threatened danger to the oountry, and if possible oenter npon some man to whom all will concede honesty, in tegrity, and talent. .One upon whom all good people may unite and who will consequently be enabled to har monize conflicting interest, to retrench and economise, to rednoe taxation and interpose the barrier of a determined will to the tide of extravaganoe aud corruption, whioh unchecked, must soon engulph us all in one oommon bankrupt cy and ruin. He should be a man whose antecedents are good, and who being free from the entanglement which in volves so many otherwise pure men, compelling them to confer place and honors upon political friends and neigh bors who are known to be professional aDd constitutional intriguers, destitute of principle and every qualification to fit them for position. The condition of things demands a man who can discharge his whole duty to the State, looking solely to the publio interest, having no regard to the claims of tricksters and demagogues—a man whose intellect and character will plaoe him above and be yond the reach of suoh influences. It will require such a man as this to bring order out of the confusion which now prevails—to restore the financial standing—regain the reputation and re new all the drooping interest of the Commonwealth. The people of Georgia oannot in this emergency allow the trick sters and demagogues to write inoompe tent or dishonest men into office having in view solely their own private aims and objects. Parties who thus write are generally bad men and expect to be re warded for their work. Editors have a legal right to subsidize their papers and advocate, and endorse the man who pays them the most money, but it is the duty of every honest man to refuse or endorse or aid in tbe support of suoh papers and editors. It was said by one of Geor gia’s noblest Divines that when bad men are eleoted to office, the people are bad who elect them ; upon the same principle when weak, unedu cated men are eleoted to office, then the people will be regarded as weak also who elect them. The people of Geor gia, the great Empire State of the Soufe, cannot afford to make themselves liable tq either charge, for the reason they are neither meat) Q)’ weak—they are as houest and are as weH, if not bet ter, educated fean the people of almost any pther State in the Union, especially the women; therefore, we must honor them anfl protect ourselves by placing a man in the Gubernatorial Chair who is acknowledged by all parties, friends and foes, to be honest and fully capable of discharging every duty of the office. I am proud to know that Georgia has many sons who would honor the posi tion and protect the interest of her peo ple, but the one (in my judgment) that would best harmonize all conflicting in- I tfirest and opinions and at the same time i preserve unsullied the honor of Georgia and' h’er peopje is ex-Governor H. V. Johnson. 1 ' LINCOLN COUNTY. LiN.cqLN County, Ga., May 2, 1876. Editorg Cfyronipfe etna Reniiifel : t peg the indulgence qf a abort space in the colpmus of your exeellppt journal to give your numerous readers a few ink lings of crop news, eta., from what is termed by some people the baok end of oreation. I suppose this appellation is applied to Lincoln because we have not the advantages of railroads, telegraphs, daily mails, etc. While thi&is true, our farmery, pith few exceptions, raise corn, wheat. oats, etc., yeengh by economical management t 6 sdppl^tjh 0 ti‘ This is more than is done in a great many plaoes, and if reports from abroad are to be ielied on, we are about as well to do agrioultura/if, financially, political ly, religibusly an'd Socially, as a number of otfcej: places. Tt Js frqfl, Wfi nave de voted tod much of onr tiffie and money to the production of cotton, out J. think the prospects for a change are favorable, and I hope soon to see the error correct ed, and to see our farmers return to their habits and customs of ante-bellum days. Wheat and oat crops are in a flourish ing condition, though a wetting rain wonfij be of. great benefit to the latter. Farmers hate fmiwiod and are now workibg out theirurop*. yrgeds of corn and cotton generally are good. ■Superior Court in yefsbßf ffßply four , d , a y ß . laßt week, apd fee preys of business jnst dow JVA3 W Attended fh>y both whites aud bUeks. Ip fact, .there was an unusual large attendance of the fat ter class, who were drawn out to witness the trial of two cases—one, the State vs . Oliver Parks (coh), charged with ar son; to# pfher the State vs. Sandy Barks dale (coh), QuAfged with larceny. San dy plead guiltjv sentenc ® d to eight years id the There sras an unusual array of legal Went ififA?- eut. Messrs. W. Mt and tfl. P- Beeee, of WashißsfeS; and CoL W. D. Tntt, of Thomson, get’ a f?£ e majority of the practice at the Line&iuruu bar. It is really refreshing to listen .to tiw wester ly and niuy speeches of €oL Tntt is be ■ half oi his olidnwi He is a young lawyer of talent and ability, is destined to a prominent member .of the le gal fraiwrffity. BanOT THE AAR JJHEST. The OalS NetVue BreaA-HU#is#at Tusprmace pecuufcp. Omaha, May 4. —A recent arrival from the Black Hills reports a great scarcity of provisions. Flour brings $22 per Back in Cnstar City. Judge Dillon, of the United States District Court, in the case of Moore, assignee in bankruptcy, vs. the Mntnal Life Insurance Company, dgßi£p9 its loans in real estate of some half ’a c of dollars are nsnrions and the penalty provided in the statute must be inflicted bd tns cotoLtmv. The decision involves the load fe t hree million dollars in this State. We fresr Hof. "JF- A. McDougald has aord the'mare Lucy feat ran some races at Newnan ana Anguffi,aff which has been here some ffionths, toa Tennessee mn for *1,150. ' * r “ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IMPORTANT DECISIONS RENDER ED. [Atlanta Constitution.] Cowart, vs. Dnnbar & Cos., et al. Rale vs. Sheriff, from Emanuel. Warner, C. J. This was a rule against tbe Sheriff of Emanuel county, and the record contains the following statement of facts: De fendants in error obtained judgment against Jno. L McLemore at the No vember term, 1871, of Emanuel Superior Court, on which judgments ft fas. were issued November. 13. 1871. At tbe April term, 1874, of said Court, a rule was issued against the Sheriff because of his failure to levy said fi. fas. The Sheriff answered the rales aying, he had made search bnt conld find no prperty. His answer was travers ed, and on the trial of the issue thus formed plaintiffs in ft. fa. introduc ed in evidence the said ft. fas. with en tries of nulla bona thereon. They also introduced the following oral testimony: John M. Stubbs, attorney for plaintiff in fi. fa , swore that at the April term, 1873, Deputy Sheriff Cannady told him defen dant in fi. fa. was in possession of a horse and baggy, bat that he did know who owned it. Witness told him to levy on them, to which Cannady replied he would if he (witness) wonld point oat the property. Witness, at same time, also instructed Cannady to ascertain if defendant in fi. fa. had any interest in a certain store house and lot iu the town of Swainsboro, and that if he found snch interest, to levy on the same. That at April term, 1874, witness asked Cannady if he had made the money on these fi. fast That Cannady run out his tongue, with an expression of surprise, and said he had forgotton it. Witness then told him he would have to rnlehim, to which Cannady replied, “Well, go ahead. You have not paid me tbe cost in these cases anyhow.” S. A. Pughsley swore that he saw defendant in fi, fa. in possession of property in 1869, 1870, and 1871. He was in possession and exercised acts of ownership over a horse and buggy in 1872, and early part of 1873. His possession of horse and baggy and claim of owner ship was open and notorious. Horse and buggy were worth $325 or 8350. After 1871, defendant in fi. fas. was in possession of store house and lot in Swainsboro. The house was built by Sherod in 1872. Defendant’s possession thereof was in 1872 and part of 1873. Witness, at the time this role was brought, and still is in employment of plaintiff in fi. fas. John H, Sherod swore that he bnilt the house on tbe Moore lot, and finished the same injune, 1872, and then delivered possession thereof to defendant in fi. fa., who re tained possession of it about one year. Store house and lot worth 81,000. The dwelling bouse now oooupied by defen dant in fi. fa. is worth 81.500, and has been in his possession since its completion last year. Saw defen dant in fi. fa. in possession of horse and buggy in 1872 and part of 1873. Said horse and buggy were worth 8350. The possession of all this property was open and public. The sheriffs office, in the town of Swains boro, is within 100 yards of said store house. H. M. Sutton swore that he built dwelling house occupied by defen dant in fi. fa. It is worth 82,500, Com pleted it in 1874. Defendant in fi fa. was in possession when house was com menced, and has since then retained possession. Store house and lot worth 81,000 or 81>200. Respondents intro duced the following testimony: Wm. Cannady, Deputy Sheriff, swore that he had no recollection of conversation tes tified to by Col. Stubbs. Don’t remem ber to have told him that I had forgotten to levy fi. fas. Don’t remember that he said he would rule me, and that I replied, “Go ahead, You havn’t paid me the cost on these cases anyhow.” I have not seen defendant in fi. fa. in possession of any property since I have been in possession of these fi. fas. I and Cowart, the Sheriff, went into of fice in February or March, 1873. Cross- Examined.—Am quite positive I never had any such conversation with Col. Stubbs, as stated bj him. Don’t recol lect I swore on the last trial of this case that I would not swear these conversa tions had not taken place. [Here coun sel for plaintiff in ft fa. read from wit ness’ recorded testimony on the former trial, which was an approved brief, agreed upon by counsel on former mo tion for new trial, as follows: Witness would not say tbat he did not tell Stubbs that he had forgotten to levy and that Stubbs had not paid costs of said suit.] Counsel asked if this was not his testi mony on former trial. Witness replied, “If it is so recorded, I must have so testified, but I do not remember it.” Had seen defendant in fi. fa. and his brother Lawson McLemore, selling goods in two or three stores about town, but don’t know which was in possesion of the houses. Matthew Overstreets sworn: Went in possession of store house refer red to in January, 1873. Lawson Mc- Lemore was in possession when I went in; defendant in.fl. fa. is my son-in-law, and was not in possession of the house at that time. Chesley Faireloth sworn: I went into possession of store house in fall of 1872; Lawson McLemore put me in possession; he was in possession be fore I went in. Defendant in fi. fa. sworn: He was never in possession of store house; kept post office in portion of store house. Sinoe I have been post master I have kept post office in several stores belonging to others; others kept post office for me. Defendant offered to prove by the witness, H. W. Sutton, ealled by plaintiffs, that the house occu pied by John L. MoLemore, defendant in fi. fa., as a dwelling house, was built by witness lor Ira T. McLemore, father of defendant in fi. fas., and that the de fendant in fi. fa. was in possession merely as a tenant of his father, Ira. T McLemore, who was then, and has been ever since, the owner of the premises. To this evidence the plaintiffs objected, the Court sustained the objection, and refused to allow tbe evidence to go be fore the jury. To whioh ruling and de cision of the Court the defendant excepts. Defendant offered to prove by the "witness, John L. McLemore, that he, the defendant in/?, fas., was not the owner of the horse and buggy testified to by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and that he never exeroised aots of ownership over said property, nor had the same in possession, except when he had borrow ed them for a short time, and that L. A. McLemore, his brother, was the own er of said proper y and in possession of the same. To this evidence the plain eiffs objected, and tbe Court sustained the objection, and refused to allow the evidence to go before the jury. To which ruling ani| decision of the Court, in re jecting sail} eyideneg, defendant excepts. Defendant then offered to the evi dence of John Sherod, introduced by tf)e plaintiffs, as to (he bujlding, posses sion snfl owuership Qf th.e store house by fep wjfeeai. John L- MoLemore, by whom defenflaut offered tg prove that the witness, who is defendant mft fas., did not oontract for the building of said honse, and that he was never in posses sion of the same, bnt that witness’ brother, L. A. MoLemore, had the house built, and is the owner of the same, and had been in possession of the house ever since its construction. To this evidence the plaintiffs objected, and the Court sustained the objection, and refused to allow the evidence to go before the jury. To which ruling ana decision of the Court, in rejecting said evidence, the defendants except. The defendant . having offered no other evidence, the jyas sijbmittpd to the jury. The Judge charged fep jury as follows: Gentlemen of the Jury—Two fi. fas., the one in favor of J. L. Falk & Cos., and the other in favor of T. J. Dunbar & Cos. vs. John L. McLemore, were placed in the hands of the sheriff for collection early in the year 1873. Having failed to make the money thereon, a rqle nisi was issued against him at the April'term, 1374, to show cause why, &c., &e. In rfeipohse iu fef£ UrrC W® sheriff answered that he ‘naq searched, and oould find no property whereon to levy said fi. fa*. Ti** plaintitf m fi. fa. traversed fcaid answer, and alleged' that when caljed on by plaintiffs’ counsel ana asked >£y he hafl not Collected the /?. fas., the 'sheriff aiis jered “that he had forgotten it," and a3ded, “yhn not paid the cost on these fi. fas. anyhow. The issue thus made up forms the sub ject matter of your present deliberation. The sheriff having answered the rale of ficially under oath, and in response to pfEiop&' call, the presumption of law is, that bm (HfeVs# is true and that pre sumption eonefttfitfa traversed and rebutted by proof. 1 Hence the trav erse in this case. On the-one hand, the sheriff say ß be searched and could find no property fo levy said fi. fas. On the other hatfd. the-piiintiffs say his an swer is not true, btko far tfom any “search” f<r property, tuuconfessed to tbe ulsintifis’ counsel that he forgot ** " ancl urged M an additional excuse ;s.t th. 35? the cost on said.#. /“.* to this gentlemen, if the sheriff's rtUe nSt be trde. then he has done dnty-rJhe rule Vo*lff be discharged Bnt the plaintiffs infi. fa.w fi is not true. Wteif WegatAorf uf 1 F e P®“f **“* tbe sheriff fe#4 feW* ? n ? ** at *“ cost on tbe ft fas. bad B°t been paid anyhow. Now, if tbe wiegaUOß. of the traverse be true, then tbe iberifr# an swer is not true. If he forgot the mat ter, it is certain that he did not search for the property. Both cannot be true. If yon find from the evidence that he ’du) search and conld find no property, etc., etc.; fat rot liable under this rule. Bub. H jntf gnd ±tk £did not, that he said lie “forget/: an® faded to levy because he “forgotit, or* beusef “oosls on said fi. fas . had not been pasp be ia liable. The defendants counsel request me to charge von that if the sheriff a answer is taken, he is not liable. Ido bo charge you, as I have once or twice already stated. The de fendant’s counsel requests me to charge that if you find from the evidence that the defendant in fi. fa. was not in pos session of property subsequently to the sheriff’s coming into office, he is not liable. I so charge you. This brings me, gentlemen, to the real question for your consideration, and that is, was the defendant in possession of property since the sheriff came into office ? This is purely a question of fact for you to determine. You have heard the evi dence concerning the alleged posses sion by the defendant in ft. fas. of a horse and buggy, a store house and lot, and a dwelling house and lot in this town, worth, as the plaintiff alleges, from $2,500 to $3,000 enough, as they insist, to have satisfied their fi. fas. The matter of evidence in this cause falls exclusively within your province. I intimate no opinion—would not do so if it were my right—as to what has r has not been proven on this question of possession, or indeed upon any question involved in this case. You will inquire, therefore, what has been proved in refer ence to it. If you find, from the evi dence, that the defendant was in pos session of that or any other property, the sheriff was bound to make a faith ful effort to levy and bring it to sale. (Here I read one of the fi. fas. and oalled the attention of the jury to the language of command, viz : “We com mand you,” etc.) From this you see, gentlemen, that as a mere executive officer, he was bound by judicial com mand to levy. In addition to this, his official oath binds him faithfully to exe cute all writs, warrants, precepts and processes directed to him, etc., etc. From this you will perceive, also, gen tlemen, that it is not necessary for the plaintiff or his counsel to give special order to levy; that order is embodied in the writ of fieri facias, emanating from a source superior to either plaintiff or his counsel, nor is plaintiff or his coun sel to point out property in the posses-, sion of .the defendant, for the writ com mands to levy it, nor can the sheriff de mand the payment of cost in advance, and even if he could he should make de mand before he can act upon their non payment as an excuse for failing to levy. Nor can the sheriff excuse his failure to levy by saying “he forgot;” nor oan he excuse himself by saying that the prop erty in the possession of the defendant is the property of somebody else, and npt subject to the fi. fas. in his hands. The law does not permit him to set up a forum in his bosom to decide the title of property. That is a question on which the plaintiff in fi. fa. has a right to be heard. The sheriff cannot place himself in the position of and take sides with the defendant in fi. fa. He must make a faithful effort to bring to sale proper ty in possession of the defendant. Such possession is prima facia evidenco of title in him, and the sheriff must act upon that presumption. He must levy, If he is met and stopped by legal interpo sition, such as a oluim interposed on an injunction by a third party, he will be free from blame, free from liability. I repeat, therefore, that if you find from the evidence that the defendant, McLe more, was in possession of property at any time since the sheriff came into office, and he failed or refused to levy and try to bring it to sale, he can not be exonerated by setting up any of the exouses just mentioned; he is liable to the exlent of the value of the property so in possession. You will therefore (if you find such posses sion of property in the defendant) as certain its value from the evidence be fore you. In considering evidence, it is your duty, if possible, to reconcile conflicting statements and contradicto ry witnesses, without imputing perjury to any. When one witness testifies posi tively one way and another, equally credible, testifies as positively the other way, it is like two equal forces acting in opposite direction. Nothing in relation to matter thus testified of is proven. Affirmative testimony outweighs, in law, negative testimony; that is to say, one witness who swears affirmatively to a fact, outweighs the testimony of two or more who only swear negatively. These, gentlemen, are the principles of law applicable to this case. It is an importance to the parties litigant. Let me admonish you to free your minds 1 from all bias or partiallity. Know noth ing, gentlem' n, but the case as it is ex hibited to you by the evidence.” To which charge respondent excepts. The i jury retired and returned with a verdict i in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs in fi. fa. made a motion for anew trial on the following grounds, to-wit: 1. Because the jury found contrary to the law and 1 the evidence. 2. Because the jury found contrary to law. 3. Because the verdict is contrary to evidence and charge of the Court. 4. Because the verdict is contrary to the charge of the Court 5. Because the verdict is strong : ly and decidedly against the weight of evidence and the charge of the Court. The Court granted anew trial. To i which judgment granting anew trial the respondent excepted. i There was no error in the charge of : the Court, in view of the evidence before the jury, nor in granting anew trial on i the ground that the verdict was con trary to that charge, and that would dispose of the case; but as tlr re is to be : anew trial, aad the counsel for the de i fendant in error having expressed a de sire that we should decide the question ; as to the admissibility of the evidence i offered to be proved by the witnesses, i H. W. Sutton and John L. McLemore, as set forth in the record, we will pro oecd to do so. The 3949th section of the i Code declares that the sheriffs of this , State shall be liable to an action on the ' case, or an attachment for contempt of Court, at the option of the party, wherev er it appears that such sheriffs have in jured such party, either by a false re turn, or by negleoting to assist a defend ant, or to levy on the property of the defendant, or to pay over to the plain tiff or his attorney any money collected by such sheriffs by virtue of any fi fa. or other legal process, or to make a proper return of any writ, execution or other process put into thejhands of such Sheriff. Thus it will be peroeived, that when a plaintiff in fi. fa. has been injured by the failure of the Sheriff to levy on the property of the defendant, he has his option of one of two remedies against the Sheriff, either by an action on the case, or by a rule oalling upon him to show cause why he should not be attach ed for contempt of Court. When the plaintiff elects to pursue the latter reme dy against the Sheriff, the measure of the Sheriff’s liability to him is the value or amount of the injury which he has sustained by the failure of the Sheriff to levy his fi. fa. on the property of the defendant; that is the amount for which the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the Sheriff in that proceeding, so far as tfoe plaintiff himself is concern ed. shoqld the plaintiff, when he elects to pursue his remedy under the statute by an attachment for contempt against the Sheriff, be entitled to a judg ment for bis beneftt for any greater amount than the ootual injury whioh he has sustained by the failure of the Sheriff to levy his fi. fa. on the defendant’s property ? Why should not the Sheriff be allowed as well as the plaintiff, in that proceeding, to show what was the actual injury sustained by the plaintifl? According to the inlings of this Court in Dobbs vs. The Justices, etc., 17th Geo. Rep. 624, and Currell vs. Phillips, 18th Geo. Rep. 469, this is not an open ques tion here. Tne Sheriff offered to prove that the property in the defendant’s pos session was not his property, qnd, there fore, that the plaintiff had not been in jured by fijs failure tp levy on it. In oar iadgjpent this evidence was compe tent and should haye beep received. It is unquestionably the duty of the Sheriff to levy on property found in the defen dant’s possession, as a general rule, be cause theDossession of property is prima facie evidence of title, and when a Sher iff is ruled for not levying a fi. fa. on property in the defendant’s possession, the burden of proof is on him to show that it ■ wao pot tfie property of the de fendant;' 4?he writ oi fier.i /acid; com ; mauds the Sheriff to levy da the prop erty of the'defendant, but it does not necessarily follow that because the de fendant has property in his possession that it is his property: as, for instance, the defendant might hire a hqrse and buggy from'a liyerV staple to use fora few days, and have the same in'fiis pos session, and the Sheriff fail to levy On it —should the Sheriff when ruled by the plaintiff in fi. fa. for failing to levy it on the horse and buggy be prevented from showing that it was not the defendant’s property, and therefore that the plain tiff iraq-nct peon injured by his failure to make the levyV We think not. It was insisted on the argument for the plaintiff in fi. fa. that it was the duty of the Sheriff to levy it on any property found in the defendant’s possession, and fhat tojjH only protect himself from liability to- the piajptiff by show ing that a claim had been interposed to the property by Borne third person. That undoubtedly wottld have excused the" from bringing the property to 6^’ a - if he baa taviej ou it, but the foundation of Uje JilamtilTs proceeding against the Sheriff is hjs fa|iflre to levy on the property in the defendant, s pos seesiqnWketpbv be U§ been injured Whether the ptotig has been injured by the failure qt the Sheriff tq lgyt his fi. fit. op |i property w the defen dant’s poaseaaion, depend* 00 *b e fact whether it was the defendant's proper ty, or the property of some other rarson. The prima facie legal presump tion is that it was the defendant s prop erty sod that the plaintiff was injured by the failure of the Sheriff to levy on it and the burden of proof was on the Sheriff to rebut that prima fade legal presumption by clear and satisfactory evidence (as much so as if a olaim to the property had been interposed by a third person) that the property In the defen dant's possession was not his property and was not liable to be seised and sold as snch by virtue of the plaintiff’s/!, fa. If the property in the defendant’s pos session was not his property, and was not subject to the plaintiff’s ft. fa., then the plaintiff has not been injured, in contemplation rof the statute, by the failure of the Sheriff to levy hie ft. ft. thereon, and should not lie held liable to the plaintiff for the value of that prop erty; otherwise he would be liable to the plaintiff for its value. Let the judgment of the Court below, grantiug the new trial, be affirmed. Cbas. B. Kelly and Jesephus Camp, by Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiff in error. John M. Stubbs and H. D. D. Twiggs, contra. Reid t>s. Gordon. Illegality, from Put , nam. Warner, 0. J. This case came before the Conrt be low on an appeal from a Justice’s Court on an affidavit of illegality. On the trial ol the case in the Superior Court, the Court charged the jury that the affida vit of illegality, as set forth, was insuf ficient, and directed the jury to find a verdict overrulling the same; in other words, the Court sustained the demur rer to the defendant’s affidavit of illegal ity as being insufficient in law to set aside the plaintiff’s execution. Where upon the defendant excepted. The grounds of illegality contained in the defendant’s affidavit insisted on here were, first, that the summons in said case did not bear date twenty days be fore the time of trial in the Justice’s Court. As to the first grounds taken in the affidavit of illegality, inasmuch as the return of the constable of service of the summons on the defendant is not dated, the legal presumption is (in the absence of any proof to "the contrary) that the constable did his duty, and served it within the time prescribed by law. The main question in the case is whether the Justice had any legal power or authority, to render the judgment against the defendant on the day he ren der it. The general rule applicable to the judgment of a Justice’s Court (the same being a Court of limited jurisdic tion) is, that in such the Justice have no power or authority to render judg ments, only when the law of the land authorizes them to do so; that power and authority must be exercised in the mode and manner that law prescribes. Gay vs. MoNeal. 12th Geo. Rep. 425. A suit be fore a Justice of the Peace must be com menced by summons commanding the defendant to appear at the time and place of trial, which time and place shall be specified in said summons. All sum monses, when the amount is over fifty dollars, shall bear date twenty days be fore the time of trial. Code, 4139—4151. The summons in this case was dated on the Ist of January, 1872, and the time of trial specified iu the summons was on the 3d Saturday in January, 1872, and it is admitted iu the record by the argument of the parties that the 3d Saturday in January, 1872, was the 20th day of that month, so that counting the first day of the month, and excluding the 20th, as the 4th section of the Code provides, the judgment was rendered on the 19th day after the date of the sum mons, a day on which the Justice had no legal power or authority to render the judgment under the statute, and that being so, the judgment was void for want of authority of law to render it at the time it was rendered. If a Justice oan render a judgment against a defen dant nineteen days after the date of the summons, he can render a judgment within- five days after the date of sum mons, and one would be just as lawful as the other. In order to maintain and enforce the laws of the land, we feel constrained to reverse the judgment of the Court below in this case. Judgment reversed. The Georgia Railroad and Banking Company vs. Goldwire. Case, from Morgan. Bleckley, J. 1. A railroad employee injured while on duty in connection with the running of the cars, can, if free from fault him self, recover from the company for the negligence of co-employees in the same service. 2. The verdict, in the present case, was not contrary to law, if the jury believed the conductor negligent and the plaintiff free from negligence; and the evidence in support of the verdict is not so weak as to require this Court to overrule the Judge below ig refusing a new trial. He used his legal discretion without abusing it. Judgmen’, affirmed. Bailie & Bro. vs. McWhorter. Equity, from Richmond. Bleckley, J. 1. Where a will provides that the trustee shall hold and employ the prop erty in trnst for the sole use and bene fit of the testator’s son, during his life, permitting him, in the direction of the trustee, to have such control over the property, and such only, as may be compatible with- preserving the same unimpaired for the maintainauce of the son, free from all liability for any of his debts or contracts; aud iu further trust, to dispose of the estate, on the death of the sou, as the son, by last will, may di rect and appoint; and,in default thereof, to hold in trjjst for the eon’s widow and children, if any he shall leave, share and share alike; and if none, then to divide the estate equally between the trustees of other trust estates cre ated by the same will in behalf of other beneficiaries, the income of the property accruing during the life of the son is subject, in equity, to a debt contracted by him while managing the trust estate for necessary supplies for himself and family, and for the use of the trust es tate, the debt having been reduced to judgment aDd the execution thereon having been returned nulla bona. 2. The trustee being dead and no succes sor appointed, a proper mode of secur ing the income for application to the debt is to appoint a receiver.—24 Ga., 52. 3. The wife and children of the debtor are not necessary or proper par ties to the bill, he alone being interest ed in the income. Judgment reversed. Harper & Bro., for plaintiff in error. Wm. H. Hull, contra. Ansley & Cos., vs. Glendenning, admin istrator. Equity, from Richmond. Warner, J. 1. When the only occasion for going into equity is, that the judgment sought to be enjoined is conclusive at law in another suit against the complainant, an amendment to the bill which alleges that the judgment is void for want of jnrisdiotion in the Court that rendered it, is demurrable. Such an amendment is not in aid of the original bill, but in consistent with, and destructive of it. A judgment void for want of jurisdic tion need not be enjoined—46 Ga., 286. 2. When the object of a bill is to attack a judgment for something thqt trans pired qt the term when it was rendered, evidence of what took plaoe at a subse quent term on the trial of an affidavit of illegallity is irrelevant, 3,. A judgment against an administrator reviving a dormant judgment rendered against the intestate is evidence of assets. 52 Ga., 347. Judgment reversed. Frank H. Miller for plaintiff in error. H. Clay Foster, contra. Twiggs, et al. vs. Chambers. Motion, from Richmond. Bleckley, J. If, on a motion for property, the fee of plaintiff’s attorney be payable, by speaial contract, out of the proceeds of the suit, the attorney has an inchoate lien npon the property for his fee as soon as the aotion is commenced, and the olient has no right to defeat snch lien by dismissing the action before trial, over the attorney’s objection, with out first paying the fee. Judgment re versed. Barnes & Camming, for plain tiffs in error. Joseph Ganahl, contra. Tho Summerville Macadamized, Graded ! or Flank Boad Cos. vs. the Augusta Land Company. Application for In junction, fyom RichE^qnd, Jackson, J. 1. On an application for an injunc tion to restrain trespass, the Court be low in refusing such injunction if the defendants are fully able to respond in damages, and if the hill be retained for a full hearing on the tpal before the Court and jury, when all the faots can be 'fully investigated, damages for the fact estimated and recovered, and a per petual injunction be decreed for the fu ture, if on snch fnll hearing snch de cree should be found to be equitable and just. Judgment affirmed. * Frank H. Miller, for plaintiff in error. Barnes & Cumming, contra. Page, administrator vs. Haines, admin istrator. Equity, from Johnson. Bleckley, J. An administrator is entitled to no re lief in equity against a judgment at law, on the ground that be did not know the assets of the estate were deficient, or because he was ignorant of the effect of the judgment as 1 eyidencq of assets, there being no sufficient excuse shown for bis want of the requisite' informa tion. Judgment affirmed. R. W. Carswell by brief for plaintiff in erfrff t 6* ir ? £ Bolhiil, and John M. Stubby epn^a- Mary J 2. Primrose vs. John Ij. Brown ing. Claim, from Richmond, JacKSOK, J, 1. In a claim case the harden of proof is upon the plaintiff in exeention to show title- in the defendant in order to authorize a verdict that the property ia subject; and when the plaintiff seeks to i do so by proving that the proceeds of i the sale of lands voluntarily conveyed to the wife by the husband after he be came indebted to the plaintiff paid for the land levied on, though the deed was made by the vendor to the wife, the deeds from husband to wife and from the vendor of the land levied on to the wife, are essential links in the chain which binds tjie land levied on to pay the plaintiff’s debt; and proof evidence of the character or other contents of these deeds is inadmissible; the deeds themselves must be introduced or ac counted for. 2. When such a deed is introduced, its consideration may be at tacked by parol and though purporting to be valuable, it may be proven to be purely voluntary. An insolvent debtor cannot make a legal voluntary conveyance of lands so as to defeat ex isting debts, and section 2662 of the Code is appreciable to such a case; nor does it matter with what intent the deed be made, the debtor must bo just before he cau be generous; he must pay what he owes before he can give away. Yet whether he be insolvent or not is a question for the jury, and that questiou being in dispute and dependant on the facts proven, it is error in the Court to charge that “no debtor in the condition of Primrose could make such a gift of his property.” 4. An accommodation en dorser becomes a debtor at the time he puts his name ou the note, and not from the time that the note matures; and if in this case he made the deed of gift to his wife after the endorsement, and then owed more than he owned, he was in solvent; and the deed to his wife, if vol untary, was injurious to the holder of the note and void against him as an ex isting creditor. H. Clay Foster, for plaintiff in error. Barnes & Cummiug, contra. James L. Tarpley, et al. vs R. L. Mc- Whorter. Equity, from Greene. Jackson, J. 1. Prior to January 1, 1863, when the Code went into effect, a guardian had the legal authority to Loan the funds of his ward to solvent persons, and under the act of April 18, 1863, he could right fully receive Confederate interest bear ing notes in payment thereof. 2. Un der the act of December 11, 1862, a guardian had power to appoint an agent to aot for him in his absence in the Con federate army, and any act of the agent within the scope of his authority would be as valid as that of the guardian. 3. Where all the parties to the pay ment of notes b longing to the ward well knew that the notes belonged to the ward and that the title to the notes was in the absent guardian, legal possession alone of the notes is not conclusive of the agency of the holder of them, so as to discharge the makers and relieve the guardian of liability. 4. The guardian, in a contest between the heirs of a lu natio and himself touching his adminis tration of the ward’s estate, is a compe tent witness, the heirs being in life and also witnesses in the case. Judgment reversed. A. G. &F. C. Foster, J. A. Billups, for plaintiffs iu error. Reese & Reese and P. B. Robinson, contra. .WL SPENCER’S MURDER. HIS LIFB AND FAMILY HIBTORY. Interesting Reminiscences of the Murdered Man—The Hon ot President Tyler’s Secre tary of War—His Brother Hanged at the Yard-Arm of a Brig in 1842. [From, the St. Louis Republican, April 21<.] Our Jefferson City dispatches contained an account of the murder, at Linn, Mo., last Tuesday morning, of Col. Spencer, by W. L. Jeffries, of Texas. The Spencer re ferred to is Ambrose C. Spencer, son of John C. Spencer, a former Secretary of War, and grandson of Judge Ambrose Spencer, an eminent jurist of the State of New York. Mr. Spencer came to St. Louis about two years ago, and calling on Hon. Thomas Allen, President of the Iron Mountain Rail road, represented that he was in impoverish ed circumstances, and was pushed to pay board for himself and family. As Mr. Allen had been a particular friend of his father, and had helped him to obtain an im portant official position, he now came in his distress on the score of former friendship between his father and Mr. Allen to implore assistance. Mr. Allen examined his letters and papers, and ascertained that he was what he purported to be. Spencer stated that he once had been in good circumstances. He had owned a plantation in the South, but had been entirely broken up and impoverish ed by the war. He was a scholar versed in the classics, and had studied law. Mr. Allen gave him a position as tally clerk in the freight office at the Plum street Depot, with a salary of $25 per month. He asked at times to be promoted to some better pay ing position, and at length threw up his situation and took to the ■ practice of law, but afterward left the city. The account of his being shot at Linn was the first intimation Mr. Allen had of his whereabouts, Mr. Allen supposed while Spencer was her that he had a wife, but he knew nothing and never inquired about his domstic affairs. John C. Spencer, the father of the mur dered man, was not Secretary of the Navy under President Pierce, as stated, but Secre tary of War under Tyler. His son, who was a brother of Ambrose C. Spencer, was not hung by Oapt. Wilkes, the distinguished commander of the Southern Exploring Ex pedition. Young Spencer was a midship man on board the United States brig Somers, commanded by Commodore Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, and he, together with Cromwell and Small, were hanged at the yard-arm of the brig by order of Mackenzie on suspicion of being engaged in a conspi racy to mutiny, murder the captain and officers, and to sail to the Isle of Pines, in the West Indies, to join the pirates in a buccaneering cruise. This occurred in No vember, 1842. The brig arrived at New York with twelve men in irons, and stood off the harbor two days. The commander sent a messenger to Washington with his version of the affair to the Secretay of the Navy, and the publication was first made in the official paper. The public was astounded at the intelligence of the mutiny, and excit ed to admiration by the energy with which the commander suppressed it by hanging the ringleaders—Spencer, Cromwell and Small. Commodore Mackenzie landed in New York with his crew and went in solemil procession to the church, where thanks to God was offered up for the great deliverance. But John C. Spencer, father of one of the executed mutineers, and then Secretary of War, published to the country an entirely different version of the affair, characterizing the act of Mackenzie as cowardly and un necessary. Through his influence Mackenzie was tried by a naval court martial at Brooklyn, but was acquitted. An effort was made to indict him before the United States District Court, which failed. Public opinion in the matter changed, however, and the alleged mutiny on a ship manned by 120 persons, 95 of whom were mere apprentices, was received as the romance of a boy who had been reading piratical stories. Mackenzie, besides being a distinguished naval officer, was a man of literary note. He was the author of “A Year \n Spain by an American,” “Spain Revisited,” and also of a “Life of Pan) Jones.” Some four or five years after this he was killed by a fall frqm'a horse ait his country place near New York, and among other fatalities the brig Somers, with all on board, was founderei on tho ocean, The distinguished Indian fighter, Colonel R. 8. Mackenzie, now in command at Fort Sill, is a son of the Com modore. The service rendered by Mr. Allen to John Spencer, alluded to by the son of the latter, was of an important political character. After the death of General Har rison, Tyler retained the Cabinet officers selected by the former. The veto of the United States bank and other flsoal hills caused a flare up in the Cabinet, which re sulted in the resignation of all the Secretaries except Daniel Webster, The Whig party was furjoua Tyler was puzzled to recon struct his Cabinet. Himself, Webster, John Quincy Adams and Mr. Allen agreed that in the storm that was prevailing the Cabinet should be a unit. One day President Tyler met Mr. Allen, who was then editor at the Madisonian, the Whig organ, and accosting him, said; “Mr. Allen, I want you to name for me a Secretary of War—one who is competent, effloient, anti who will give unity to my Administration.” Mr. Allen became satisfied that the President was in earnest in his request, and told the latter he would comply with his wishes in this re sppect. Mr. Allen cast about to make the selection, and bethinking himself that Mr. Spencer was about the kind of man needed, and that he was withal drifting with the .leading Whigs in opposition to Tyteft im mediately at fiowm and addressing a letter to Air. Spencer, asked him if he wotfid ac cent' tffe post of Secretary of War if tender ed by the President, as he assured him would be done in case he expressed willingness to accept. Mr. Spencer, being then in Albany, took the next boat for New York, and call ing on Daniel Webster, at the Astor .House, showed him the letter from Mr. Allen, and asked his advice in the matter. Mr. Webs ter urged him to accept the place. Mr. Spencer forthwith posted to Washington, called on Mr. Alien, and the latter went with him to the President, and the result was that he received the appointment of Secretary of War. And this w;as the favor which Sir. Allen did for the father of the Mr. Spencer who had called on him for as sistance and who was shot down the other morning at Lion. Circumstances of the Murder, [From the Chamois (Mo.) leader, dprii 20.] Our usually quiet little town was tfie scene of a most 1 atrocious and bloody tragedy which transpired op Alohday morning of this week a little gfter fi o’cJqck, and which sent a thrifi of horror and dismay through the entire community. Early bn that morning a stranger, by the name of J. W. Jeffries, a railroad employee,and lately residing in Mar shall, Texas, arrived ip town, mid made in* qnlries for CoJ. Speqcer and family. Haying received tfie ueefessary directions, he pro ceeded at once tq the residence of Cant. George W- Ropkips, who resides a short <fis tanpe frojp town, and had a private interview With Mrs. Spencer. From the conversation had daring this visit, it appears that the stranger claimed Mrs, Spencer as his lawful Wife and her little boy as bis child, and in. sisted that they should leave Spencer imme diately and go off with him. His request haing refused, he retraced his steps to town. But a short time afterward. Col. Spencer came into town, calling at Mr. Thompson’s saddlery establishment, where he engaged in a conversation with several gentlemqj. While thus talking, the door was suddenly opened, the stranger appearing at tna en trance with a revolver in his hand, pointing at Col. Spencer, and saying in a (pud ana commanding voice: “Where is my wife, Col. Spencer?” The Colonel had hardly time to stammer: “ Who are you ? What do you mean?” when the stranger fired three shots.at him in rapid succession,none of them taking effect. By this time the Colonel had succeeded in reaching the street, but the stranger being close to his heels, fired a fourth time, hitting his mark and laying the fleeing man prostrate When we arrived at the scene of the tragedy we beheld Jeffries standing in the street with the revolver in his hand. Pointing at his vic tim and addressing himself to the crowd, he exclaimed: “Gentlemen, that is the man who has abducted my wife and stolen my boy,” and turning to the Sheriff, he said: “Sir, I am your prisoner; take this pistol, I have no further use for it.” While the Sheriff took his man to the jail the citizens crowed around the wounded man, and a moment’s examina tion discovered a ghastly wound in his head. He was removed to one of the lower rooms of the Court House, and medical aid provi ded instantly, but a brief examination reveal ed to the experienced eyes of the physician that the wound was mortal, aud that he could not live. He lingered until 8 o’clock p. M.,when death relieved him from his suffer ing. We saw Jeffries in his cell ou the same evening,and found him to be a man of aver age statue,well dressed, and of good appear ance. He weare a light moustache and goa tee, and his hair of the same color. His eyes are gray, and his face is striking, or rather peculiar, aud shows much independence of spirit. Judging from his letters, written to some attorney in this town, he must be a very sensitive man, who loved his wife and child almost with idolatry. The Buffalo Courier says : Trustworthy statements that have been received in this city from the scene of the tragedy entirely relieve the memory of the murdered man from this stain, and it is perhaps only just that they should have publication in this State, from which he bore away an honored name. From a letter written by a respectable resident of the place where Mr. Spencer lived, we are permitted to make the following ex tract: In the matter for which he (Col. Spen cer) was killed, after as thorough an examin ation as it is possible for me to make with the means at my command, I am entirely satisfied that both he and his wife were wholly blameless. The murderer had indeed been married to Mi's. Spencer, but he married her under an assumed name, and had at the time another wife living. He did not hesitate to desert her and live with other women; he frequently cruelly deceived her and refused to have anything to do with her. Years be fore she knew Colonel Spencer they had finally and irrevocably parted. When she was about to be engaged to Col. S. she told him the whole story, and wanted him to inform her if a divorce from her former pseudo hus band was necessary, and Col. S. told her no. She sought other legal advice and received the same answer. When the man again thurst himself into her presence, she went to the lawyer he had himself consulted and asked whether she should obtain a divorce and re marry Spencer, and was by him told not to do so. She threatened to have the man arrest ed and he ceased his persecutions and pro mised never to worry her again. “The next time she saw him was when, with his lawyer, he stepped into her room, attempted to force her go with him, and having failed, went from her presence to kill her husband, whom he had never seen, but whom he hated because she had made him happy by her love. I send you some newspaper ex tracts containing accounts of the murder, which are false in some important particulars and which all emanate from one source, viz.: the lawyers whom the man has employed to defend him.” The fourthcoming trial of Mr. Spencer’s murderer will doubtless throw some light on what seems to have a most cold blooded and unprovoked assassination. THE TROUBLE AT BETHANY. Bethany, May 3d, 1876. Editors Chronicle and Sentinel : I notice in your “State News” items of your issue to day a short item, giving an account of a difficulty that ooourred at Wadley, a week a£o last night, be tween H. A. McLeod and my son, L. R. Battle, that does the latter suoh gross injustice that I am ooustrained to ask you and all other papers that have pub lished it to correct it in accordance with the facts. I know full well you publish ed it as told you, without the least in tention on your part of doing *injustioe to any one. Mr. McLeod was the assail ant. and gave Laa a blow over the head with a stick, whioh he vory promptly re sented by giving him the best fight he had with him. It is not true that he was discharged. He was asked by Mc- Leod to release him from his contraot, as the times were so hard. The diffi culty had nothing to do with his leaving McLeod’s. It happened at McLeod’s, at night, and he did not call him out and begin firing on him. He has not fled from justice, but is easily accessible and will appear when the proper time ar rives. Very truly, &c., H. L. Battle. AFFAIRS IN OREENE COUNTY. Greene County, Ga., May 4, 1876. Editors Chronicle and Sentinel: Your subscriber avails himself of your invitation to say a few things of general interest to your numerous readers as they exist in Old Greene, not purposing to write a'long and worded letter, but a brief and pointed one. The area of cot ton planted in this section is somewhat less than last year. Corn and wheat area about the same. Oats a consider able inorease, and much improved va riety sown. Cotton has been about all planted, and iu som9 places is peeping at old Sol. Corn and wheat is doing very well, though there is some little complaint of rust in the latter. Oats are doing their best, having had a good season the past two days, whioh will doubtless be of great beuefit to that most important crop. From the lights be fore me I am of the opinion that fully as muoh fertilizers has been used iu this section as last year, if not more. Politically, we want a good man nomi nated for Governor—one who is not so anxious to step up; and we -believe, yes, hope that such a mau will yet be nomi nated. Suoh being the oase, let me think who it might be. I think of Judge Augustus Reese, of Morgan. Will Reese do ? Echo, yes; a unani mous yes from the people of Green® and all who know the abilities and good ness of the man. This people want Judge Reese for Governor, Judge King as President and Coionel Johnson as Superintendent of the Georgia’Rail road, and more money. Greene. THE ANTI-CHINESE MOVEMENT. Meeting in Ban Francisco—The Outrage at Antioch Appro veil—Warlike Information— Ah Sin in a Bad Box. San Fbanoisoo, May 4—The Sonth San Francisco anti-Ooolie Club and Young Men’s Universal Reform Society hold meetings last night and passed resolutions endorsing the destruction of the Chinose quarter in the town of An tioch, and advooating a similar course in this city unless the Federal Govern ment should take immediate steps to abate the evil of Chinese immigration. Highly incendiary speeches were made and letters were read from societies in the interior of the State, seeking the co operation of the San Franeiseo anti-Ooolie organizations. The Sergent-at-Arms of the Young Men’s Universal Reform So ciety said he hud received a telegram from New York saying 2,600 stand of arms could be delivered here at ten days’ notice. While suoh talk and ao tion are universally reprobated by the great mass of thinking people in this city, there oan be no doubt that it meets the approval of a large and dangerous class of the community, and that in the event of no aotion baing taken in the matter by theGeneralGovernment there is grave reasons to fear serious disturb ances here at no distant day. The State Senate Commission is (in session at Saoramento on the Chinese question. O’Neil, polioeman, testified to selling Chinese women for $450, who laughed at the idea of becoming Chris tians. A Chinese interpreter testified that two Chinese were killed for testify ing in a Court, and a reward was out for the life of the witness. Counsel, if ar rested, recompense for imprisonment and money for relatives at home, if ex ecuted, ia the reward offered the assas sins. District-Attorney Jones gave evi dence how the Chinese compromise felonies, abduct women and about other practices. JupiTia—Tho great planet Jupiter, now in the constellation of Scorpio, will arrive at its perigee or nearness to the earth on May 17th, when it will shine with a luminosity almost equal to that of Venus, which is just about passing her greatest elongation. In size Jupiter is ten times that of Venus, being 80,000 miles in diameter, while Venus is a little over 8,500 miles. Venus appears much larger and brighter, but this is beoause she ia so much nearer the earth than Jupiter. Yenus’ maximum dis tances is 65,000 miles, while that of Jupiter is over 400,000,000 miles. Ju piter will appear to fall baok for the next two or three months. This is caused by the earth in her orbit passing him. It requires 365 days for the earth to perform ner orbital revolution, while it takes Jnpiter 12 years. Venus will reach her perigee on the 7th of June, when aha will he an object worth gazing at. The little ruddy planet Mars, which shone so brilliantly last year, will barely be visible this year. It takes him two years to make bis oirouit. The smallest bi the planets, Mercury, will be bright est on the 11th of Jnly, rising shortly before the snn. This planet is so near the sun that it is seldom seen. The great astronomer Copernicus, who lived to the ripe old age of 70 years, never saw Meronry. There are a number of vieions ear dogs ia the city, which do not add to its rev enue 9? beauty.
