The Pearl River banner. (Monticello, Miss.) 1837-18??, 1839-03-30


fhich, while i cannnt possible give y
fence q Any one, will mol tail toSconvine
any reasonable man 81 tie eyiltender
cies u tie tiPI'ling system. We have
few copies OF hand, and fuf sale.
We have received number Of ney
paper lately establshe d III Mobile, Ala.
and entitled the "Mpb,Ie Literary Ga
x.,le. !" The editorial departments con
Quoted BY r. Green, Esq, viii. taste ant
ability. The original communications
as well as The selected articles. show thai
the editor has isnd capable oI discrim
! atipg between the light aud ephemera'
productions Of the every day writer, and
those emanatipg from minds deepl, i'm
bued with study and philosophic research.
As Southern work, j: has claims upon
lt sas2
the South generally. The number be-
tore us contains communication upon The
tie subjert Of '.1'he Literature 81 the
South, which i o,ost beautifully and for
c'b!y written. The price is s. per an,
nun, 10 advance.
The Reported case 10 our last, Of lie
Vi Noble, s. Brarder, McKinnle &Ayrisi,t
70 which The following communication is
reply, was EVIDENT intended as quis:
FIR THE PEARL RIVER BANNER. M
Sir; Seeing case repcrl-d for your
paper Of March Esd 1889, in which my
name is particularly mentioned as s,iuror,
which, 10 those wto have no knowledge
Of The fact. aud testimony that did and
should have governed The case, appear
not only novel and singular, but indeed
strange. The facts were and are as iul.
lows, VIZ: il case The preceding day.
before The same court ADD jury, The lie
feIldanis 10 ibis (repor'eJ) case, were
plaintiffs; and the the plaintiff in This, de.
iendant in that, and The very same &C.
coun, for which The plaintiff iD This &C.
ton complains, was brought forward aud
substantially proved as an Offset against
the claim Of lhe plaintiffs 10 lhe former
action, and was allowed BY the jury 10
sts full amount aud placed to credit Of The
plaintiff 10 the latter action. who was de-
fepdant in the former action. And on the
latter NAL !, was again clearly proven by
an undoubtedly credible witness that the
very. sane accoun, sued Cor by The plain.
til, was the very same that had On The
preceding day and preceding t1ial been
proven and allowed as az Offset, 70 the
benefit 81 The plaintiff in the latter ac-
iiou. and sgaiass The defendant IN he lai-
ter action Now. then, these being The
facts, i viii mol 50 realilySappear thai
The jury we're eilhrs 20 grossly ignorant
m % grossly corrupt as wanton'y 10 ic-
deprise a man ~ i'S figt'ts:: and " Tie
counsel fctthe riaIn.if u tie latter az.
ton thought prhr+r lof,heaten the j,lry
With the publication n Their yetthcf,
they Of course gavpihim leave 40 do So,
and be- Is wetcome. ioit. Tie court per.
ini,tet tbs defendants counsel IN tois
action 10 read che verdict % The jury %
tbe fofmertrials and prove BY parole u.s.
iimoay that Vie same thing here sard ior,
was NE same thing hat had been placed
q the ptsiutig \ ciedu IN Corner action,
10 HbisI. he was then dsisadani. Tie
jar, tbesshs j Hsstighl topsy ne man
his account ihat wa. fairly prosea one
day, bul'ihey lia oet think Il va. rich,
!" ray i'iaiiM .gsm tie mex, day, and
r@ ~ iasfniwn.
Wg.sz WHITE.