statements, there being no request for such a charge.
Ibid.
3. This Court will reluctantly interfere with the discre-
tion of the Judge below in his direction of the busi-
ness of the Court, and never unless manifest injustice
have come to the party complaining. Parker vs. Ful-
ton Building and Loan Association
166
4. The defendant having been furnished with a copy of
the indictment before it was sent before the grand
jury, it was not error in the Court to refuse to direct
him to be furnished with a second copy. Lynes vs.
The State.......
5. When, on the trial of an indictment for "burglary
in the night time," the jury, after retiring, returned
into Court and asked if they could find the defendant
guilty of any other offense than that charged in the
bill of indictment, and the Court informed them "that
they could not; that they must find him guilty or not
guilty of burglary in the night time," and the jury
found the defendant "guilty:"
Held, That this instruction of the Court to the jury was
not such as the prisoner could complain of, and the
evidence being such as to justify the verdict, a new
trial ought not to be granted. Williams vs. The State. 212
6. An accessory before the fact to the crime of arson
cannot be put upon his trial until after the conviction
of the principal felon, at least not without some special
reason recognized by law, showing why the principal
has not been tried. Smith vs. The State.......
7. Where a verdict is plain and unmistakable in its
terms and legal effect, it is error in the Court to per-
mit counsel for the party against whom the verdict is
rendered to interrogate the jury, on the reading of the
verdict by the Clerk, as to what they intended by their
verdict. The verdict in such a case not being ambigu-
ous must speak for itself. Anderson vs. Green, execu-
tor.......
... 361
8. A judgment rendered by the Judge of the Superior
Court, without the verdict of a jury, in a civil case
founded on contract, when an issuable defense is filed
on oath, should be set aside. Erambert vs. Scarborough. 398
9. Where an execution was levied upon a lot of cotton
which was sold and the money arising from the sale
was claimed under a distress warrant for rent of the
land on which the cotton was made, and the Court
adjudged the warrant irregular but refused to pass any
order disposing of the money until the landlord could
procure a new distress warrant, which he did before the
adjournment of the Court, and the money was awarded
to him:
Held, That this was not error.
Harrison vs. Guill et al. 427
10. Where a bill was filed by the legatees of an estate
against the executors, praying an account and settle-
ment, and the jury find in favor of two of the com-
plainants only, directing certain specific assets on hand
to be turned over to them, saying nothing about the
other complainants:
Held, That, as in equity, the jury may find a special
verdict, this verdict is not void, as not disposing of
the issues. Shell et al., executors, vs. Sanders et al..... 469
11. The Chancellor may, in the final decree, dispose of
the whole case in accord with the verdict, and it is,
therefore, sufficient. Ibid.
12. Where, on the trial of a bill for account and settle-
ment in favor of the legatees of an estate against the
executors, the jury found that one of the executors
was not liable to the legatees at all, and the verdict
directed certain notes and assets to be turned over by
the other executor to the legatees, and two of these
notes were the notes of the executors, made by them
as memoranda of moneys belonging to the estate, used
by them:
Held, That the verdict was illegal. The jury should
have found against the executors a money verdict for
the amount of the notes, and it was right in the Court
to grant a new trial. Ibid.
13. Evidence which ought properly to have been offered
in chief, but which was then omitted through inad-
vertence, if offered with the rebutting evidence, should
be admitted if otherwise unobjectionable. Dennis et
al vs. Weekes........
...... 514
14. When there has not been personal service on the
defendant in a suit on an open account, the plaintiff
must prove his claim to the satisfaction of the Court
by competent testimony before he is entitled to a judg-
ment, although no issuable defense has been filed on
oath. Jones vs. Adams......
15. The judgment of the Court below dismissing a suit
upon an erroneous ground will not be sustained, be-
cause there is a defect in the declaration upon which
the suit might have been dismissed, but which could
be cured by amendment. Jackson vs. Gayden..... 645
16. Where, upon the trial of the defendant for the
offense of an assault with intent to murder, the jury
returned a verdict finding "the defendant guilty of an
assault with intent to kill," and upon being remanded
to the jury-room, with instructions from the Court,
returned a general verdict of "guilty," a motion in
arrest of judgment, based upon the facts aforesaid,
was properly overruled. Williams vs. The State...... 647
PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT.
1. The bill of exceptions should specify the portion of
the charge to which exception is taken. Rawson vs.
Bell........
2. The grounds of alleged error, set forth in the motion
for a new trial, must be identified by the Judge as
true, or they will not be considered on a writ of error
based thereon to this Court. The usual certificate to
the bill of exceptions is not sufficient. Elliott vs. The
State...
3. At the July Term, 1871, the death of Greer was sug-
gested, and an order was passed allowing the plaintiff
in error to open the record at the next term of the
Court, and providing for its publication. At the Jan-
uary Term, 1872, the case was continued for want of
parties. At the July Term, 1872, the writ of error
was dismissed, on motion of defendants in error, upon
the ground that said order had never been served,
either personally or by publication. Henderson vs.
Greer et al.....
4. When the bill of exceptions fails to show, affirma-
tively, that the certificate of the Judge was given
within thirty days from the adjournment of the Court
at which the rulings complained of were made, the
writ of error will be dismissed. Walton vs. Morgan.. 567
5. The verdict in this case is fully sustained by the evi-
dence, and this Court will, in its judgment, award
damages against the plaintiff in error, on the ground
that the case was brought up for delay only. Mercier
vs. Mercier.......
1. Where a tenant in common conveys the whole lot to
a third person, and the grantee took possession, claim-
ing the entire lot as his own, this action constitutes a
disseizin and ouster of the other tenants in common,
and they are barred from asserting their right to such
property after the expiration of seven years. Horne
et al. vs. Howell.....
2. Where a prescriptive title is set up in defense to an
action of ejectment, it is competent for the defendant
to show the good faith with which he purchased.
Ibid.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
1. Where notes and liens, payable to the order of plain-
tiffs, for goods sold belonging to them, were in the
possession of their agent, with no authority to trans-
fer, and were represented by said agent to have been
lost, and were found in the possession of the defend-
ant, who denied knowing anything about them on
inquiry made, the magistrates on the trial of a posses-
sory warrant for the same, properly awarded the pos-
session to the plaintiffs. Wilcox, Gibbs & Co. vs.
Turner......
2. The fact that the plaintiffs took the note of their
agent for the amount of the liens and notes alleged to
have been lost, with the stipulation that when found
the same should be credited thereon, does not defeat
the right of the plaintiffs to the possession of their
property. Ibid.
3. Where a plaintiff sues for damages sustained from
having been pushed off a car of defendant, while in
motion, by a negro, who emerged from the car and
stated that he was in charge of the same; this decla-
ration, unless brought to the knowledge of the defend-
ant or its agents, who had charge of the train at the
time, is insufficient to make the defendant liable for
the acts of the negro as its servant.
Central Railroad and Banking Company.
PRINCIPAL AND SECURITY.
1. The Legislature has authority to appoint, by resolu-
tion, a committee of their own body, as ministerial
agents, to audit and state the accounts of the officers
and agents of the Western and Atlantic Railroad.
Where such statement shows an officer or agent in
default, and is transmitted by the committee to the
Comptroller General, and he thereupon issues execu-
tions against the defaulting officer and his sureties,
this Court will presume that he has satisfied himself of
the correctness of the committee's report by inspection
of the books and accounts of the Western and Atlantic
Railroad, and adopted it as his own. Scofield et al. vs.
Perkerson et al........
Hinton et al. vs. Same......
2. The Courts will not entertain jurisdiction to enjoin
such execution on the ground that there is a suit
pending, at the instance of the State, against the de-
faulting agent and their securities on their bond, or
on the ground that the amount for which the agent is
a defaulter, was fraudulently used and embezzled by
him.
3. A surety whose principal has been adjudged a bank-
rupt, when sued for the debt on which he is surety,
cannot set off against it usurious interest paid by his
principal to the creditor, on transactions other than
the one out of which the debt arose, on which the
surety is sued. Woolfolk vs. Plant & Son............... 422
4. To discharge a surety on account of extension of time
by the creditor to the principal debtor there must not
only be an agreement for the extension, but the indul-
gence must be for a definite period. Ibid.
5. The dismissal of a possessory warrant for cotton, (upon
failure to find it in the possession or control of the
warehouseman with whom it was deposited and against
whom the warrant issued,) by the drawee of a draft,
who held the warehousemen's receipt for the cotton,
as collateral security for the payment of the draft,
and at whose instance the warrant issued, does not
discharge the accommodation drawer, even though the
|