The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-06-13

Of fdisc6antidg. and not under the clause Of the
Act directing loans to be apportioned among
the Districts, and TO be secured by bond and
mortgage, is moi regarded as recorded under
the provision ofthe Act relating to such loans,
and was postponed to a previously recorded
mortgage.
By the Law Court of fappeals.
The State vs.. Zach. Bowen.--The defendant
under the Act of l740, was convicted in IL ca.
ses before Magistrate, for no: giving his slaves
sufficient food and clothing, and fined Ia each
case, EGO, current money, equal TO Sl3 GO, and
for such Sums the Magistrate issued his war.
rant of distress, as drecIed Ivy the Act. Pen.
ding the appeal, the defendant died. II was
held, 1st The cases did not abate. 2nd. That
the decision of The Magistrate was final, there
being no appeal allowed hy the Act. 3rd.
That the Magistrates Jurisdiction under tho
Act, was not in violation of the Constitution,
the Act being prior thereto, and thereby the
law fthe land al its adoption.
Thos Stark ys. r. 8. Barwick.-R. 8. Bar
wick vs.. T'hos. Slarke, e cases lin these ca.
ses, the sole question was, whether Barwick
had performed his contract TO erect two saw
mills. on the Ho,chkiss patent reaction water
wheels, and to make them perform vel
There was conflicting proof The jury found
for Barwirk-,heir verdict was sustained.
The State VS.. James Browns-The indici-
ment was ruled to be sufficient, the w'rd
"said, relating to the prisoner. and moi 20 The
person hired to commit the felony. lf&fhere
be one good count, the conviction will be re.
frrred to that. The supernumerary jurors were
drawn on Monday, and were presented to the
prisoner in order so drawn; this was held to he
correct. To carry away slave from an own.
er, and against his will, with the intent to set
him free, is stealing slave under The Act ot
1884. Though there may be three offences
charged in the indictment, yet, It they be sub.
jecl to the same judgement, they may be Joined
in the same Indictment. The proof covered
the six counts Of the Indictment. in which the
prisoner was charged with, stealing slave or
slaves, hiring another to steal him or them, and
aid the slave or slaves TO run away. The proof
ofan aceomplice, even uncorrohorated, may pos.
sib, sustain verdict of guilty, Il The jury be-
properly advised that he ought not generally
10 believed, without proof corroborating him.
Proof corroboraling his statement Of the felony.
may be enough to give MIN credit bei're the
jury. Proof corrohorating him in shelving the
prisoners connection with the felony, is all
which can be required to give him credit. The
prisoners motions in arrest ofjudgement and
new trial, were refused. The prisoner was
sentenced by O'Ncall, j., before whom he was
convicted in April last, at Camden, 70 he hang.
ed on Friday, Inc 18th day Of July next.
NJ. NJ. Levy vs.. Tilman Story.-Sum. pro.
on due bill in the following words: "Due
Sheriff Levy. on, Of the note in the hands Of J.
p Dickinson, for which haze given him an
order, The sum of S47 Oscis., to satisfy Ca Sa.
in the office. against ]. Gibson" In the de.
fence. Gibson was offered as witness. and
excluded. The Court of Appeals held that'he
had no apparent interest. The decree was set
aside, and new trial ordered. -
A. n. Ingrum vs.. 3. Phillips ct. al.--indcd.
ednpss existing, at a sale ola, dcbtors land. l'y
the Sheriff, Cat which, by an arrangement with
his son il was bought for very tri6ing sum,
conveyed To him by he Sheriff, and then to the
debtors daughter, the debtor 10 have, with her,
possession, he paid the sum, at which it was
bid of. and also fnr The litle,) will not makegshe
sale and subsequent conveyances void. lf all
the existing debts be afterwards paid of. "Speh
conyeyanccs arc not within :he 18th and 9th
of Eliz., and cannot thereupon be avoided by
subsequent creditors at law. The only inter.
est which the debtor has under such an arrange.
ment, is resulting trust which cannot he reach.
ed at law. A deed no. recorded is good against
purchaser, under an execution. with notice.
M'FaIl VS.. Shcrari, Harp. Rep. 295.
Stovnr and Barnes, survivors, vs. Thomas
Dur"n.-In this case, in conformity with the
ruling below, II was held, that in an action Of
dsbr. on Judgment recovered in 1922, the
legal presumption Of payment arising from lapse
oftime. 30 years, was moi rebuted by mere
admission that the debt was or might DO paid.
The defendant, in 1922, was arrested under
ca. sa. in This case; he remained in prison rules
for more than year; he had been at large for
more than 20 years. twas held that the ar.
rrst was satisfaction in law, until il was shewn
that satisfaction in fact did not result ,trcmit;
and that this was not done by shelving that
this was no, done by sIewing that the defendant
had Leen a, large 20 years. Such lapse Of
time strengthened the presumption Of sa,is!ac.
ton in fact. II,
For the Camden Journal.