Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-10-26
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Arkansas.

Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Arkansas. Prepared erpressIyJorthe True Democrat Z,
 F. ". HoADLEY, ESQ.
 Clnton)
 vs. AppeaI from Fran6lin, etc. Estes,
 This was an action of replevin in tbe cepit commenced by Andrew Estes. Auo 30th, 1850, against Willis A. ]. Clinton in the Crawford circuit court, for the re- covery of certain slaves. The defendant pleaded non cepa and property in himself to winch issues were made up; and upon his application the venue was changed to \ the Franklin circuit court, where, after sev- eral mistrials, the cause was finally tried .t the June term 1856, and verdict and iule ment in favor of the plaintiff, and the de- fendant appealed. No motion for new trial was made, but the case was brouob+ up on exceptions taken by the defendant to the decisions of the court in the progress of the trial in reference to the admissibilitv of testimony, and instructions to the iurv. The court heId.
 l. The connection of individuals in an unlawful enterprise being shown. every act and declaration of each member of tbe con. fedeIacy, made and done during the pen dency of this criminal enterprise and in turtherance of its common object. is in con temptation ot law, act and declaration of them all and Is therefore original evidence against each of them.
 / Declarations of one conspiritor made after the transaction, and merely recting the occurrences, are not admissible against another
 5. When declarations explain and iI- lustrate the aS gesta, they are clearly ad- mlsslble; mere narrative of past events, hay ing no necessary connection with the act done, would not tend to explain it, but the declaration may properly efer to a past event as the true reason of the present con duct
 4. The state and condition of mind of the party Is proved like other facts, to the jury both before and after f act done. is admissible.
 5. Proof of what witness swore at a former trial of the same case, (although he is nonresident of the State) is adnrissi- ble.
 6. Both parties have the right to go rice ly into the proof of what really is the con- sideration for the sale, regardless of the re- citals in the bill of sale.
 {. Fraud may be deduced from facts and circumstances established by the proof.
 Judgment below affirmed. Warlett
 ys. Appeal from PhilliDs. etc. Clay, ct al,
 This was an action of assumpsit brought by James Warlett against Clay & Latimer. late partners, etc, upon an implied war ranty of title in the sale of flat boats laden with coal. The cause was submitted to the suit on the general issue, and verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff excepted to several decisions of the court and appealed.
 THe Court held:
 1. 4 judgment being of itself prina tacie evidence of title being paramount, the burden of proof should be put on the party who is bound to make the title good, and who is supposed to know what title he had when he sold the property and made the warranty.
 ,. If there is sufficient notice to the third party, from whom the property was purchased, of the pending of the suit, the record is conclusive evidence of a recovery upon title paramount; if there was no no, tice, the record is prima jacie eyidence, sub iect to be rebutted
 Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to the court below to grant the appellant new trial.