The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-01

sense Of duty or no. You can weigh the
whole evidence and determine that matter for
yourselves.
The only remaining point upon which it ls
proper to instructyou is this:
It Is claimed by counsel that If, in the event
you should find for the plaintiff, You may as
sess what are called vindictive damages. The
Court cannot say that to you. II you find for
the plaintiff it win be your duty to assess the
value of the property at the time OF the con-
version, on the 21st OF October, 1865, with law
full interest from that date.
In response to request from the counsel
for the plaintiff, the Chief Justice added:
If there is anything in the evidence which
satisfies you that the defendant acted without
any color OF law-wifully and in fagrant disre.
gard OF his duty-then you have right to as
sess vindictive damages. But 1t is tor you TO
say whether there is anything OF that sort IN
| tho proof.
The jury retired and soon after returned
with the following verdict
"We find for the plaintiff $11, 700 6S CENTS
VIM. Ravenel, Foreman"
We learn that motion will be made to set
aside the above verdict.
Edwin Parsons ct al vs.. Southwestern Rail
road Bank. Case continued.
B. l.. Livingston vs. W. Jordan. Porter and
Conner for plaintiff; Simonton Barker for
defendant This was an action Of trespass, to
try title and to recover tract Of land, in Ker-
shaw County, known as the Wateree planta-
ton, belonging to Mary s. McRae and Julia
BIcRae, residents of Baltimore. 1t was alleged
that the plantation was gold during the late
war, without their knowledge or consent,
under decree of the Court Of Equity. The
title was given to D. G. Robertson, and part of
the money paid in Confederate currency. When
the young ladies came to take charge they
found the plantation disposed of, without their
having received dollar. They brought this
action on the ground that no one in the Con-
federacy had a right to act or bind them to
their action that the title passed by the
Court of Equity was illegal, and having receiv-
ed nothing for their property and having been
dispossessed of il illegally, they are entitled to
recover.
On the part Of the defence it was shown that
the sale Of the plantation was In pursuance
of contract made between the purchaser and
Hon. F. J. Moses, agent for the parties at the
time. The contract was made between Mr. D.
G.. Robertson and Hon. F. J. Moses. Robert
son paid his money part cash. One or both
of the young ladies', it was represented, were
infants. It WAS necessary to make good the
title, and as early as 1861 the parties went
into court Of equity. The young ladies were
not only represented by counsel, but by a pro-
chain ami, the next friend, their own step
father. The proceedings were conducted with
| his consent, and closed under his instructions,
and the position they took was that ina smuch
as the proceedings were authorized by their
next friend, and were conducted by eminent
counsel for the infants, the title passed from
The Commissioner in Equity to Mr. Robertson,
who afterwards sold to Mr.. Jordan; that what
ever may have been done with the money, that
is question between the McReas and their
friends. -. :
A number of witnesses were examined iu the
case, among whom was CHIEF Justice Moses,
who acted as counsel for the parents Of the
plaintiffs.
The Chief Justice charged the jury as fol-
lows:
Gentlemen of the Jury-This is an action o
|
very little in it for you to pass upon. The
question Of fact lies within very narrow COM
| PASS. The only question Of importance in the
case is question Of law.
It is very clear that this contract made be-
tween Mr.. Moses and MIR. Robertson did not
| authority from them. No person has q right
| to intervene as volunteer for minor child
| and make contract for the sale Of minors
estate. This is 30 clear that it needs no ar9u-
m0nt.-Is, however, III apparently In this case,
person does intervene and make such con-
sent OF the parties on arriving at full age, or
through proper proceedings IN court Of
equity.
have heard, OF any such subsequent consent Of
these parties. You have heard the testimony
Of Chief Justice Moses. BE stated distinctly
there was no intercourse between him and
these minor children in relation to this con-
tract. It was made solely at the instance Of
their mother and stepfather. 30 far as their
consent goes, therefore, 1t may be laid out OF
the case. The next question is whether there
State Of South Carolina to make decree con-
firming the contract, or for the ssle OF the mi
nors estate. Upon that point we entertain
very serious doubts. Undoubtedly an infant
may bring suit by next friend in Court OF
Equity; and the court has jurisdiction IN such
suit to make an order giving authority to
sell the estate Of the infant. There is no ques-
ton upon that point. In this case, however,
the suit was brought by the stepfather, rep
resenting himself as next friend Of the minors;
but he himself resides in Maryland, beyond
the Jurisdiction OF the court in which the suit
was brought. Though represented as the
guardian OF the minors. he was not such in
fact. He had ceased to be the guardian Of
one, under the laws Of Maryland, for more than
two years, and Of the other for nearly two.
And one Of the heirs became of age, accord
ing to the laws Of South Carolina, within four
days after the suit was brought, and the other
Ions before the final decretal order, under
which the defendant claims title; and neither
wa, ever brought formally into court
As we have already said, We doubt upon the
question Of jurisdictions; but for the purposes
OF this case will rule that jurisdiction to con-
firm this contract made in behalf Of the minors.
or to pass the final decretal order under which
the title was conveyed, did not exist. The de-
fendant, If dissatisfied, may move il arrest Of
judgment, or for 3 new trial.
Under this ruling, gentlemen, your verdict
must be for the plaintiff; for, if there was no
Jurisdiction in the court, the defendant cannot
protect himself by its decree.
II is proper to say, further, that although we
put this case, for the present, upon the abb
sence Of jurisdiction in the State Court to con-
firm or order the sale, there is another objec-
ton to the defendants title equally fatal.
The jurisdiction Of the State Court over the
plaintiffs, whatever it was, terminated when
the civil war broke out. Upon that point we