Ponola [sic] weekly register. (Ponola [sic], Miss.) 1843-1843, 1843-05-13
Agricultural societies.

mas Iailen through VIC uope u VIII oo !"
viycd, aud set an example for the for
nation of similar societies in other parts
OF the county. Why not form one at
Rockingham and others at Pharsalia Il
Ponoa, and then 4 Union society at Pc
nola to conpair views once year
We would be happy to be authorized to
give notice Of meeting 10 be held at
any of those points for the formation of
such society, and would gladly hear
from some of our farmers on this sub
jet.
0cT The Circuit Court at this place
adjourned on Monday evening last af-
ter a session of week aud day. The
trials Of Smith and Sullivant, indighted
for murder were continued by de!en
dants. The session was one Of more
than ordinary interest, he suits being
much litigated; but the chief subject of
interest was pleas in abatement filed III
a large number of the suits denying the
right Of our sheriff to discharge the
functions of his office, by reason of his
not having taken the oath according 10
the Propositions Of law. The oath was
taken before the Probate Judge, where
as, as the advocates Of the pleas in a
batemcnt insisted, it should have been
taken before q justice Of the Peace
The question was ably argued by Mcssrs.
Coleman and Barton in favor of the
pleas in abatement, and by Messrs.
Totem and Bradford against them, and
is held under advertisement by his hon
OF to be determined at the Oxford
Court
Some very unpleasant excitement a
rose from the circumstance of the pleas
in abatement, being sworn to, aledgng
broadly, that William w. Smith, was
not the sheriff Of Ponola county; where
as il was fact notorious TO the commu
nifty that said Smith was duly elected
and commissioned as sheriff, and had
given bond and taken an oath Of offices
and had actually ofliciated rs sheriff
moro than year without his right 10
do go ever having been called in ques-
lion. The oath 10 the pleas was taken
bv several Of our most respectable and
intelligent citizens, yet appearances
were strongly against The correctness OF
il. tits not generally understood, as II
should be, what is the nature and effect
Of the pleas in abatement IN question
and under what circumstances they were
verified by affidavit. By law, no plea
in abatement can be filed unless the truth
appear by the records Of the court, OF
he verified by affidavit. This is re
quired, because the plea does not tent
10 settle the con,r oversy between plain
tlfi, and defendant and is a plea unfaver
ed by the court, and one which If allow
ed 10 be plead on every occasion, woult
harrass and occupy the time of th
courts without conducting to Justice
The oath when made is always as t
the truth Of a-po4at Of law or of fact
The oath does by no means settle III
point s~o to; nor is il even consider
ed rs evidence in the least. Ii it b
made as TO the law, il merely raises th
point of law TO be adjudged by tn
court, if as to fact, it merely raise
controversy upon that fact to be DE-
termined by jury; and il does not. 8
oaths DO under other circumstances, col
tribute in the least to decide quest.o
one way or the other. There is the
less danger in this oath than any othe
that can be taken; il can harm no or
unless the court or jury concur in OPT
ion with the affiant. Then if il be {
point Of law, the advice of "a lawer 81
en- under the sanctions of an oath to h
client, together with the reasoning
the lawer and the reading of the Ia
itself might raise concencious bell
in the breast Of sensible man that I
point oflaw-or rather the legal fact
does exist in particular way and the
fore he can conscienciously swear to
and refer it, as his oath really does, a
: does no more, TO legal tribunal to
deferninnd Resides II is often the on