The true Democrat., 1856-03-18

Second.-His nomination we regard as an utter betrayal of the great American movement "a tratorou, attempt to wrest it from it's pur. pose and make it minister to the selfish mbi ton of the leaders and demagogues of the dead organization of the past.
 Thrd.-He was forced upon the State of New York by southern votes against the wish of our State delegates, and from those States which no man pretends can carry their vote for an American President
 Fourth.-fle was forced upon the State of New York against the express wish of large majority of our State Legislature, against the express wish of majority of the State officers, and, we repeat against the express wish of two thirds of our delegates in the convention.
 "Fifth.--ile was not nominated by maiori ty of the States or by the delegates of a maio- rity of the States Several States were per mtted 10 cast their votes through single dele gate, who cast the whole number of votes to which his State would have been entitled. Such votes were cast by parties who had pre- viously protested against the proceedings and retired from the convention" Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Arkansas-Januar Term, 1856, to 7th
 March.
 No. 6.-Fenter ct al.. vs. Obaugh ct al.-ap- peal from Hot Spring-Chancery. Reversed Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No. If. - Jordan vs. Bradshaw appeal from Pulaski. Reversed Opinion per John son, special J.
 No 16.-Pike ct al. vs Galoway--error to Pulaski. Reversed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 17.-Rector vs. Morehouse- error to Pulaski Reversed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 22.-Dunn ct al vs. Graham ct al.-ap- peal from Calhoun-Chancery. Affirmed. Obj nion per Scott, J.
 No. 23.-Brunson vs. Handicapped from Hampstead. Affirmed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 26.-Trammell ct al. vs. Thurmond ct al.-appea from Ashey-Chancery. Affirmed Opinion per English, c. J.
 No. 29.-- Crabtree vs. Mcdaniel appeal from Lafayette Affirmed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No, 36.-Rust, executor, vs. Witherington-- appeal from Union. Reversed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No. 39.-Cloud, commissioner, vs. Danley ct al.-appeal from Pulaski. Affirmed. Opi- nion per Johnson, special J.
 No. 4O-Sadler, admr, ct al vs. Sadler- appeal from Yell. Reversed. Opinion per English, C.. J.
 No. 49.-Brown vs Wright--appeal from Jefferson. Affirmed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No. 51-Prce ct al. vs. Farrelly ct al.-ap- peal from Arkansas Chancery. Affirmed. Obj nion per Scott J.
 No. 54.--Ross ct al, executors, vS. Davis ct al.--appeal from Clark-Chancery. Affirmed. Opinion per Hanly,J.
 No. 1O2.-Davis vs. Ross ct al, executors appeal from Clark-Chancery. Reversed. Obj non per Hanly, J.
 No. 56-Pryor ct al. vs Ryburn-appeal from mpstead-Chancery Affirmed. Obj non per English, c. J.
 No. 57. McNein vs. Arnold ct al.-appeal from Dallas. Reversed. Opinion per Eng fish, C.J
 No 59.-splawn vs Martin-appeal from Bradley. Reversed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No 6O.-Alexander vs. Foster-appeal from Columbia. Affirmed. Opinion per Hanly,J.
 No. 62.-Owens, use, etc., vs Chandler Appeal from Hampstead. Reversed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No 64.--Kirkpatrick vs Wolfe, ct al-error to Ashley. Reversed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No. 69.-Amber vs. Rudel--error to h. dependence. Reversed. Opinion per Hanly, .. Independence Reversed. Opinion per Han- ly, J.
 No 7l.--Wilson ys Brandenburg-erro to Monroe. Reversed. Opinion per English, c.
 No 72.--Grimes, admir- vs. Bush--appeal from Sebastian. Reversed. Opinion per Scott J.
 No. 73.-Halowell, admir- vs. Spring. exec utor-apPeal from Sebastian. Affirmed Obj nion per English, C.J.
 No. 74-Desha ct al., executors, vs. Robin son, adm'r-appeal from Independence At- hrmed. Opinion per Scott, J., and per utu- ly, J.
 No 78.-Key ct al. vs. Henson, adm'r-ap- peal from Dallas Affirmed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 79-Arrington vs. Courey ct al-ap- peal from OuacEita. Affirmed. Opinion per Hanly, J.
 No 8o-Davs vs. Calvert-error to Phil lips: Reversed. Opinion per English, c. J.
 No. 03.-Dobbin and wife vs HubbaId-ap- peal from Phillips-Chancery. Opinion per English, c. J.
 No. 84.-Dobbin and wife vs Wright ct all appeal from Phillips -Chancery. Affirmed. Opinion per English, C.J.
 No. 89.-Clark vs. Crosland- appeal from Crawford. Affirmed. Opinion per English Q. J.
 No. 91.-swinney ct al. vs. Burnside-ap- peal from Scott. Affirmed. Opinion per Eng fish, c. J.
 No. 94-McFarland vs. Shpp, adm'r--error to Montgomery. Reversed. Opinion per Eng fish, c. J.
 No. 95-Goodwin vs. Anderson ct al--ap- peal from Union. Reversed. Opinion per English, C. J.
 No. 96.-Branch vs. Boton--error to Desha Affirmed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 1O7.- Machin vs. Thompson-appeal from Arkansas-Chancery. Affirmed Opinion per English, c. J.
 No. 1l2.-Laurain vs. Barringer - appeal from Ashley. Dismissed
 No. 113. -Edmondson vs. Carnall--error to Sebastian Reversed Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 117,-Jones ct al vs. Foster-error to Columbia. Dismissed
 No. 139.-Bond vs. the State-appeal from Scott. Reversed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 16O-Duncan ct al. vs Clements. surv.. --error to Clark. Affirmed Opinion per Scott, J.
 No, l61.--Cochran vs. Jordan, special admr error to Clark. Demurrer overruled and writ dismissed. Opinion per Scott, J.
 No. 165.-Arnold ct al vs McNeill-appeal from Dallas. Reversed Opinion per English, c. J.
 River and sH eather.