The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-09-17
THE UNITED STATES COURT.
"A Highly Interesting Case-Tho Charge
OF Judge Bryah-Adjournmenc sine

GREENvnLE, s. CS September 1H.-Ine
The United States Court adjourned on yester-
day. After the trial Of the case of q. G. Mil
Ter VS.. Crawford Keys, tried On Friday, an ac-
| count Of which is given below, nothing further
of any consequence was transacted, save few
cases ef granting final discharges in bank
ruptcy.
10 dischargipg the juries, the Judge compli-
meuted them for their zeal and efficiency, and
remarked that every verdict rendered by them
had some foundation in law.
Judge Bryan will spend few days in Green
vile, resting from his arduous labors. Dan
iel Horlbeck, ESQ.,, will return to Charleston
| tomorrow.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-DIsrRIcT OF SOUTH
cARoLNA-N THE DISTRICT CoURT-N BANK
RUPIcY.
q. c. Miller VS.. Crawford Keys. MCGOWAN
& Perry, sol. pro pet. Reed & Trescot, sol.
pro respondents.
This was petition By creditors for involun-
tary bankruptcy of The respondent upon four
counts, only thrcJ of which, however, were
relied upon az material, to wit: A mort
gage of some S10O acres Of land to one Tomp.
kins to secure debt of $4,000; subsequent
conveyance of the same in fee, to pay tLis debt,
OF $4,000 more; the delivering up to Keys d
McCuDy Of note for $1,000 to whom respon-
dent owed $7OO-each count alleging that the
transaction specified was made whilst the re.
spondent was bankrupt, with intent to give
a preference. The petitioner claimed two
| notes, and the petition was taken in the outset
by the defence that he had no status in court,
| on the ground that one was paid and the other
was tainted with negro. The testimony was
pretty conclusive as to the first; but the last
was given for balance Of large transaction
| had about the commencement OF the war. only
| portion Of which was for negroes. His Honor
charged the Jury that q note tor negroes before
| Lipcolns proclamation took effect was perfect
| " valid, but that the question did not arise
| in this case probably as the note grew out OF
mixed transaction, and from the original pro-
positions OF the consideration the respond
ents, by whatever basis OF calculation they
might adopt, must owe the petitioner S250,
which was enough to establish his right to be
| in court.
A great deal of testimony was offered on the
question OF Insolvency. The respondent told
petitioner when the latter first demanded pay
ment after the war, that he was (then) wholly
| unable 10 pay-could scarcely live-and the
English rule Of technical insolvency was strong; g.
Nv -
the value of the lands mortgaged, land subse.
quentIy conveyed,l to Tompkins, but the
preponderance Of the testimony made
them hard bargain on the wholes, at
fifty cents per acre; the note deliver.
ed up to Keys & McCully, was shown
TO have been given for atwo.third interest IN o
similar tract in the mountains OF Pickeas. 1t
was further shown that at the time this note
was redeivered. the respondent owed the
firm of Keys & McCully about seven hundred
dollars, that no credit was gwen, and they
went on furnishing hlm with supplies and fer
tilizers, and as one Of the firm said the respon-
dents credit had been perfectly good with
! them and remained unimpaired, and That no
settlement has yet been made. Tne casa was
argued at length and with great zeal and
ability on both sides.
His Honor charged the jury with great clear
ness and very fully. Both parties expressed,
| their satisfaction and declined to ask special
instructions. Without attempting to quote
the charge, tue court SAID, IN substance, that
TO make out the case it was necessary that IN
solvency and preference must concur.
trader unable to pay his debts III the or lnary
course Of business is insolvent prinad tdcte
and it is incumbent on him to show that he
| is not so in fact. The rule does not
apply with the same strctness to the farmer,
and as to them this rule is reversed-the petit
toner must take the onus of showing actual
| insolvency. lDe preference luuSG De an au-
vantage actually given to one or more OF his
| creditors over the others, with the knowledge
| Of his situation and the intent 10 accomplish
this end. This intent" is an element OF the
Objectionable transaction, &C .ordip % the let
| ter of the law, and though one is G. umed to
intend the natural results CT his al the in
tent is essential, and must be shown b. his acts
and the circumstances. When the respondent
sold the land to Tompkins, he believed, at
least, that he was paying debt OF $l0. OO0; and
if he considered these lands OF such compare
lively insignificant value, it would be hard to
believe, upon the estimates Of the relative value
Of bis assets and liabilities that he intended OF
thought he was giving preference to this
creditor. The solution cf the mortgage ls
much more difficult, not only on account oil
the difference Of the sum, but also
because it was merely q security for that sum
and did not relieve his estate Of it by settle
ment in full. The Keys & McCully transac-
ton ie peculiar one, and is to be solved by
the testimony which you have. No credie was
given upon the books, but il from the testi-
mony you are satisfied that the 500 was paid
| by the respondent in full by the redelivery oil
| the $1,000 note. then is not this more than be
could pay to others, and to that extent prefer
ence IL you shall conclude that this note was
redelivered to meet the heavy advances OF pro-
visions and of fertilizers subsequently made as
! we'll as the debt already contracted, then you
may reach different CONCLUSION. These are
| questions which it is your peculiar province to
solve. The insolvency and the intent to give a
preference must concur.
The jury returned verdict of not guilty.
| 1t is understood that the case went of solely
on the question OF insolvency.