The Empire County argus., 1854-09-30
UMtseI slates Census.

UnttcI States Census.
Our Government has expended upwards Of one
million of dollars IN collecting and preparing mate
rial and printing Statistical tables, to complete the
census of 1850,
Tho tables when bound in volumes are supplied
to literary institutions by the government a large
number of volrlnes being distributed throughout the
the country by uatnbers Ct fCongrcsa Ono Of these
volumes is before Us, from which we compile
the following table. In doing it we exclude all free
persons Of coloy, and slaves embracing the free
whito population only and Of this that portion over
twenty years ofago. We have in the United States
962S96 persons Of ths class who are unable to read
and write, 3S9,66 being males OF the total num-
Der: l95ll4 are Of foreign birth and of this num-
ll9,525 arc enumerated in the states Of New York.
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania; the remaining
! 1889 being sc2ttorcd throughout all tho other
States
1t will be seen that In tho State Of North Carroll
ma there ia one person to every eight and in the
States Of Arkansas and Tennessee one in every ten
who cannot read and write Theratio ofignorance
in all tho States is shown il the following table,
New hampshire it will be seen has the smallest
ilutiDCT ol cISOHS ~ Tts}u anu lneTS
being only one in l0T, and yet the people Of that
State have been turning over new leaf in politics :
Alabama, IS; Arkansas, 10; California IS; ~
Carolina, 8 South Carolina II; Connecticut, rs ;
Delaware, l6; florida, IL; Georgia, l3; Illinois,
81 Indiana II Iowa. "a Kentucky, u Lousi-
ana, u; Maine, "a Maryland Fl Massachu-
sets 50; Michigan, So Mississippi %; Missou
IA No,1 Lop Nox
Jersey, 33 Ohio, 32 Pennsylvania, "a Rhode Is
laud 43 Tennessee, l0 Texas, IS; Virginia, Il !;
Vermont, 81 Wisconsin, 43
We shall recur to the census again more st length
and before we have done show that California is
not one whit behind any Of her sisters in point Of
intelligence, newspapers chp;chcs and piety gen
orally, in proportion to her population and age.
! DI8rnIcr Covkr.--The llth Judicial District
Court CONFERENCE.-The sittings in this town, on the
ath ina;., Hon. }. NJ Howell presiding. The fol-
lowing are the civil oases Of tho term.
, J. T Nelson Va Hatch AckIey &; Co.. dismissed
at plaintiff coat
Henry Myor vs. Henry Larkin; verdict for de-
fendant.
! l. s EIo!brook ys 0. n Morse dismissed
Emile Blanc ct a. KS David Z. Bucl, continued
| L. Gould ct al. vs. ". kn.x ct al; dismissed.
! Samuel Robinnet Va N. K. Stark Judgment for
plaintiff.
W. J. Co-nett VS. s. Prowitt; Judgment for plff
John Hartman VI Thomas Strike ct al dismissed.
! ?. Brien Murphy VS. Childs, Rice ct al. verdict
| for plaintiff
0sburn ct al vs. NJ W Hartmann verdict for
plaintiff.
! Q, f Greene CT al VS. Doane ct al; verdict for
plaintiffs.
S. L Roussin 6 Bro. vs G. Grace ct al; judg-
lnent for plaintiffs
W. H. Foster vs. C. V. n Ballard; dismissed.
John Nelson VS. jones Furnan & Co.: : judgment
for plaintiE.
Keyser q Elrod vs. R. R. Raynolds; submitted
and held under adyiSement
Frances o. Brown VS. Ahranl 0. Brown; decree
diTorcing plaintiff
j. r. brooks etal VS. John Price ct al; dismissed
james Broneil vs. Abram Potter; continued
Edward Rowe VS. L. Bradley & Co; judgment
for plaintiff
Wm. Shoemaker VS. Osburn ct 81; judgment for
plaintiff
jonathan S. Powell vs. Andrain 6, Layland YER
dict for plaintiff.
Wr. +. Potter VS. King, Langler ct al; judgment
for plaintiff.
britt ct al. We C. II. King; dismissed.
Stephens Simmons VS. Walter j. Burwcl!; con-
tinued.
0 Belden VS. S. F Canal Co.. trial jury did rot
agree
j. ". Ford ct a.. VS. Z. C.. Southworth; judy
ment for plaintiffs.
| j. L. Smith d. NJ. Boyd; continued.
| Robertson ct al vs. A. Chiffon; dismissed
l.. &. Hopkins VS. Alfred Langlan; Judgment for
plaintiff.
A. Rich VS. D. Hall ct al; dismissed.
Nathan Rhine VS. George V. Vaughn; dismissed
II w. Griswold Us " illiams ct al. dismissed
Resor g. Grace VS. William STARK continued.
n. VanTassel vs. Predmore & Co.. judgment for
plaintiff
James R. Dulin vs. Sarah A. Dulin; verdict for
defendant.
Nickerson ct al VS. Haskins & Smith continued.
John s. Welton ys Harriet " elton plaintiff
divorced.
White ct al vs Braisted ct al; judgment for
plaintiffs
Francis Allcrton vs. w w. Amos judgment for
plaintiff
G. D. Wingate VS. II. Hollister ct al; continued
J. NJ. Massy vs W. T. Grissm ct al; continued
S. d. Milett vs. J. Abby ct al; dismissed.
S. W Hoke vs. c. L. Frost; continued
George w Cowdry VS. John P. Brown referred
Lucinda Richmond We Peter Schram; verdict for
defendant
/ N. A. & s. f. Night VS. z. Smith ct al; verdict
for plaintiff.
James Gamble vs Jabcz Price ct al; judgment
for plaintiff
Montgomery & Berry VS. John Kinderlinc;
dict for plaintiffs.