The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-03-22
Henry Davis
vs..
Edward usrndnn.
I9IO7.I
HANDY.

This ariion was brought under the
Statute Of 1870 IN relation to- pleading la
hctiOhs NJ law, isr the Z, cuyeiy OF CERTAIN
slaVes. With lue &C., from the defendant,
IO which the defendant pleaded general
denial II the allegations Of the complaint.
Ou the trial, the plaintiff offered ia
evidence, n cupy Of deed from the
County Court OF Bawldwin county IN the
State ui Alabama, whs 70 it was recorded
aud be defendant OBJECTED 10 its intro.
daciiuil, ep The KTOqHa that il WAS nut
duly recorded according TO the laws Of
that State. The objection was sustained
and the copy excluded. the plaintiff ex-
cePtrd. THE plalntltf then proved the
execution sc the deed by tie proper Wit
nes-es, and offered Il in evid, nee rs an
original desd. not recorded in support OF
his title. Offering tO pIove at tgIs same
time, that the plaintiffs daughter EiIzi-
beth Hannah Morgan had died ia the
year lS49, l,-aving no child. aud that her
husband subsequently, died in the saline.
year. To the introduction of this evi-
dence the del, ndant objected on the
gru,ud lhll tue deed showed title out Of
the plaintiff and did not tend 10 main.
tain Ilie is. ue on his part, and the obirc-
lion was stlslainrd and he deed excluded,
tbs llalnIlH rEerp'iRR,
These rulings are the ground Of the
two tirst eTrIrs assigned. We will pro-
cred TO consider FIRST the second ruling
winch is the 6ist error assigned
It's to BE- observed, that the objection
tO the evidence applies rather 10 It's sui.
/ hcIcpcy 10 shUw ufle ih the plaintiff. than
pD its admlsSibhiiy; aud hence at il
would have been more Ia accordance will,
established practice for the CouIt to have
admitted the evidence, and afterwards Ia
have pssal'aihoed UPON 10 sutfcieMcy to
sii"w title "a the plaintiff. in connection
wi b ANY other evidence which the ulain-
iii might have abduced. But inaSmucll
a. lhr plaintif relied upon the deed ~ =
disIinca aud sufficient ground of his title
no pr Judlce was done TO him by consider.
ing g!4a question whether he had title IN.
der the deed upon an objection 10 lis I'D.
instability. The question. therefore
which ID material To be considered is
whether the deed shows title in the plain.
till. The deed was executed by the
plaintiff in the action. IL Is deed Of
gill by Which the donor "lends" TO his
daughter kllzabeth Hannah Morgan, wife
OF George X. @. Morgan. the slaves in
controv' rSy, for her to have the use o.
them and their increase during her life
aud At her death. should she have child
or children. when they arrive 1T the az,
of twenty one years or marry, then IT,,
slagrs e " lhrlr i,ghls aud prnprFT,
forever, hiit should hts daughter die lrav
ing NO ehHd In that case. the said nrgro.q
arr TO he considered as I,art of my This
s-rtate - hIuch n ii this deed had neve
l'seii made. and the ,aid negroes 10 h
EQUALLY divided among her survivini
nraplF> bra sl>teis vino are naglSs
land y eahsF or them b. dead, the chill,
or ehildlrn 10 have that portion tina
woult be going TO their father or mothr
II thy we're alive. ! wish il 10 be full
und, rstood. thai the above named ne
sr''es arenot g b. tpl5rcl q cay eontlao
! khas.ErE .Asds BY my lhisl daughlr
kllsahFih Hannah Morgan, or her hu'
band the pr b. arising from their laba
alone he i 81 have. resrFviug 20 mys,l
; the power Of control a. trustee for M
danehtsf during my life. aud after M
dTA.n % 'nch peFsoa 9F Peysops 81 una
J Ittseantended that the clause. that i
the event Of the daughters dying lenviI,
; no chil,i. the slave. arctic b. con.idrrp
as part af hia entaia "A much a. II II,
J de~ll had not been made. I" o,s.rnl,.d ~ :,
vesFthr title ~ the donor ulsp her dea,
, lea6ing no child 10 ghr exclusion of ~,
interest In her surviving brothers an
, sisben..
BuE il Is evident that this Il not n
TIE eanstgueten q the elaupA Tor In