The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07
ALEXANDRA MCLEOD vs. T. c. cAn1coTr.

This is 2 motion for new trial. The
grounds assigned are that the verdict We
contrary to the charge Of the court. The court
iefs to the jury the question Of the good faith
tending the honest exercise OF hisssnctions in
the SEIZURE Of the cotton. We also left to tie
jury the question whether the cotton Iselt
was part OF that surrendered by the military
| authorities of the Confederate Government
upon the termination OF hcstilitiess
Upon the second question. va think the
finding was clearly right. 1t 1s not impossible
that this cotton was in fact the property Of the
Confederate Government during the rebellion
| and included in the surrender made by the
Generals of the Confeder ate armies at the con-
clusiOn OF hOstilities, It is enough to say that
no evidence to this effect was ofsred to the
jury. But there was some Of contrary ton.
dency. 81
It was, therefore, clearly seizure unvar-
MIR. Calicott was protected by his ois5asal char
acter. We thought he was. if he " IS acting
In good faith, in the exercise of his,authority
10 supervising agent. though nnlstaken as to
good faith-of honest mlstaSe-was teft and
we think, properly left to the jury. Wathoueht
that the evidence taken altogether M4'rrar6sd
q verdict in favor OF tho defendant, spts should
have been quite satisfied had such Z verdict
been rendered. 80
We cannot say that there was no eTideace
that warranted the conclusion OF Ns jury.
Townsend's statement. admitted bsY she Dis
trict Attorney. was that Calicott told him
that he knew he had no authority to make
the seizure, that he was willing TO take
ton. There was testimony also which showed
an omission 10 Callcotts report to the, Secre-
tary of the Treasury of an important part of
the correspondence between himself and the
dence also that when the whole matter had
been submitted to the Secretary OF the Urea
sury. and he bad directed that the cotton
should be released upon the defendant giving
hn nj 10 81 ~1~,hl fNzVs
colt required, as an additional condit;o On of re-
lease, q bond Of indemnity to himself.
The jury might possibly have inerr ed, from
all these things, that Calicott was not acting
IN good faith. He cannot say that CONCLUSION
was wrong.
Upon the whole evidence, and we do not 60
into that in favor OF the defendant, our lconeu.
sion was the other he, way; But, the matter Of
llaIiy within their province.
We cannot set aside their verdict because
the Jury did not agree with Us as to the pre-
ponderance of tho evidence.
The motion for q new trial will be oveTruled
g. A. PERDIcARIs VS.. THE CHARLESTON GAS.
LIGHT COMPANY EFT AL.
The bill in this case was fled by the plain
tn in his own behalf, and IN behalf OF any
others who might come in. and contribute to
the expenses Of the suit.
It is sta led that the shares in the Charleston
Gasight Company's stock, belonging to the
plaintiff and Others, were sequestered under an
act OF the Conlederate Government, and sold
during the civil war. 1t is also stated that in
lieu OF those shares, other shares Of a corres-
ponding amount were delivered to the pur-
chasers, and the prayer Of the bill is, that the
certificates thus issued may be declared in
valid; that they may be ordered to be deliver
Ell up TO be cancelled; that the defendants may
be restrained from bringing suit for transfer;
and that the company may be restH aimed from
allowing such transfer, and from the payment
of dividends.
To this bill there is general demurrer. fled
by part Of the defendants, and motion to
dissolve the injunction already granted.
The only question in the cas-, is whether the
parties are entitled to any relief in this court,
j. tHp; ;asld: assA; ISL " y