The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-13

UNITED STATES CoURr-JUDas BRYAN, PRE-
s1p1Na.-The attention Of the court has been
occupied for several doys by a case which has
excited some interest, and in which verdict
was reached yesterday. The history Of the
case is briefly as follows:
In August, 1868, @. F. Hampton administra-
tor of the estate of Colonel Frank Hampton,
deceased, negotiated with George A. Trenholm
for the sale to him of lands, negro slaves and
personally, being Certain reservations Of per-
sonalty e1cepted) the entire estate which had
belonged to Colonel Frank Hampton in his life
time, and which had been allotted to him in
the partition of the estate of his father (Col-
onel Wade Hampton, the elder.) The proper
ty lay. on Gills Creek, in Richland District,
some five miles below Columbia, and is
estimated at 5000 600 in gold in 1860.
DIR. Trenholm bought this property for $780,.
600, of which $150, 900 was % be secured BY his
bonds, guaranteed by John Fraser 4 Co., pay
able sin good and lawful money" at the termi.
nation Of the war, with interest at five per
cent during the war, and seven per cent. after
the termination OF the war, then wasing; and
$3.50 900 was to be paid in cash Confederate
treasury notes.l
The administrator not being able to make
title, application was made to the Court Of
Equity of Richland District 70 confirm the con-
tract of sale, which was done, and the commls-
siouer ordered to make titles, and Mr. Tren-
holm to giv= his bond and to pay the cash, as
stated in the contract set forth in the proceed
ings. The cash agreed upon, viz: 1000 Of
Confederate currency, was paid, and the
bonds OF Mr.. Trenholm, guaranteed by
John Fraser g. Co. delivered in execution
OF the agreement, and in obedience to the Or
ders Of the Court OF Equity. MIR. Trenholm
vent into possession of the property, which
was held by him until the close OF the war.
These bonds held by the administrator as the
investment OF the funds OF the children OF
Frank Hampton became due at the termina-
tion of the war, which date was assumed by
the defendant and not disputed by the plain
tiff to be the 81 April, 1866, the date of Presi-
dent Johnson's proclamation OF peace. Two
instalments OF interest were paid by the de-
fendant in the present currency since the war,
one in 1855 and the other in 1866. In 1868 pay
ment of the bonds being disputed, they were
put in suit In the United States Circuit Court,
(the plaintiff beng at that time resident Of
the State of Mlsslssippi.) The defence set up
was: That by the proclamation of Lincoln, OF
1st January, 1873 slaves in South Carolina had
been declared free, and slavery, after that date,
was unlawful and contrary to the policy OF the
United States Government, and, therefore, 30
much Of the consideration OF the sale as repre-
sented the negroes, was illegal, and, to the e1,
tent Of the valuation put upon the slaves, that
tho sale was without consideration.
The case having been appoin ed fot trial In
the United States Court on the 9th May, was
tal en- up on Wednesday last. The testimony
being closed, the argument was opened for
the plaintiff on Friday BY MIR. w. K.
Bachman, Of Columbia, followed, until
defendants. Governor MaRrath resumed his
argument on Monday, and wss followed by MIR.
Memminger on the same side, until the hour
OF adjournment. On Tuesday, L. 6. Barker,
ESQ.,, replied for the plain if, and at IL o'clock,
yesterday his Honor Judge Bryan, charge
the jury. His ruling was to the effect, that the
proclamation of Llncoln abolished slavery IN
80 nth Carolina, on the 1st January, 1868; that
the holding OF slaves in this State, after that
day was against the proclamation, and the pol
lev OF the United States Government; that the
proclamation was q law, which afected the
title OF the property; that the children
in the negroes in September, 1868, and that the
Commissioner in Equity, under the decree oi
the court, could not and did not convey any.
thing $50 far as the negroes were concerned)
to the defendant and that the value Of the
nocro slaves purchased by and delivered tc
him OF that date was to be thrown out OF the
transaction, and the amount determined by
the jury to be their value, was to be deducted
from the total amount OF the purchase.
The Jury. after an absence Of some length
brought in verdict for the plaintiff in the sun
of $16s,973. Notice was given by the counse
for the defendant Of motion for new trial.
In the District Court, the Judge approved Of
". and Fl. L. MCGOWAN as assignees. VIM,
W. Oliver, indicted for violation of interna
revenue Law as to distillation Of liquor, plead
guilty, and was sentenced to seven months
Imprisonment and pay fine of $17OO. Tit
United States against Alex. N. Newbcrry, or
postofice bond. Verdict for plaintiff Of $479s
principal and 1886 interest. In the case of the
same against Lewis Mann for violation Of in
ternal revenue law, it was ordered that bench
warrant be issued to bring defendant in fol
punishment. Isaac Herbert was discharged
finally in bankruptcy.