The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-04-08
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAIRO
LIMA.

COLUMBIA, April 0.
The court met at 10 o'clock. Present Ghe
Justice Noses and Associate Justices Willard and
Wright. The following cases were heard:
EX parte J. L. Barnwell, plaintiff vs. D. C. vii
son l. Co. Mr.. DcTrevie for the motion.
Daniel Blake ads. Charleston and Savannah
Railroad Company. Mr.. Memminger for the mo-
WIN. R. Burger VS.. W. R. Carpenter. Mr.. Frost
for plaintiff
till.
guees and wife vs.. G. J. W. Mccall ct al; W. II.
Smith CT al, rs. Adams, Frost & Co.; Edgar w.
Charles vs.. c.. Coker & Bro: ct al; T. p. Side rs.
Adams, Frost Co.; \. J. Hammond and W. G.
Griffin; e. L. Walker, assignee, vs. Lewis Covsor;
Ann Griflln AMI N. l.. Barham VS.. e. A. Addison
CT al: w. j. TruStie vs.. A J. White. ruSirce j. A.
Mcdonald, administrator. VS.. ID. w. Brown cX-
ccutor; same ads. the same; Biggers Mohley W.
T. X. CuretOl ct al; Amos Cooke vs.. a. Il. Morse
ct al; Il. s. Gillian vs.. WIN. McJunken:
James Quinn ct al VS.. J. +. Hart; William
n. McKeeez ads. Arnold and wife ct nj Jo.
seph Crews ct al ads. Farrar Brothers {;
james Williams ads. Kho1a Williams; Thomas
Allen VS.. clcr Gentry; T. S. Bagset va Ellen
Barssdale; Silas Johnston, Commissioner in Equi
". VS.. I. II. Crooks ct nj; Is. Vaughan vs.. w. f.
l.. Suhcrt ct nj vs. Administrators or WIN. Lyon
CT al; Trustees OF the DC La Howe estate vs. Hell
chers and Bechcrs, administrators; J. T. Owens
and wife VS.. J. A. Allen ct al; James McCrarey
and wife vs. Taggart and Taggart IL. D. Lcsesne,
executor, ct al vs.. Benjamin Aston; j. McKcegan
VS.. ID. McSweeney; cX parte j. MckecSan: n. A.
seaorook ct al VS.; ,d WIZ Gregg Ct sl LI ): D. Sea-
al ads. G. E. Holmes; I. II. Langston VS.. South
Carolina Railroad.
The following are'continued:
NJ II. Nichols, for another. vs. Wiley lin ct n, !;
E. s. Bolln ads. Jane Bozlyn; Daniel Lash VS.. F.
W. Fairey. administrator; Ann Berry VS.. F. w
Fairey, administrator; A. b. frederick vs. A. +.
O'Brien, eNecutor;L. w. Smith vs. T. H. Cooke,
John Earberton vs.. V. d. v. jameson.
Tile following cascswere restored to the docket
i. F. Prinse ct al ads. George L. Holmes ct al;
". Ii. Smith VS.. Adams, Frost d. Co.; q J.. Lige
VS.. Adams, Frost Il Co.
The following decision is published:
JIM Wumack vs. Robert Austin. executors, ct
al. release or discharge by q ward recently ol
age, Is not prfn,a fdcie invalid.
To avoid Il discharge by ward to his guardian,
made shortly after arrival at age, proof or actual
fraud or dishonest Intention Is not necessary
Where there was no friend or advisor present
al the supposed settlement to represent the ward,
though he was Intelligent and possessed much
sclf-relance, and no proof that he had knowledge
OF the value or the securities transferred, and
such Information was not communicated TO him,
the release will not be held an estopp to fur
thcr account.
Where the will directed an investment ain some
PUBIC Ill SLoChS Vi tllo VI
Charleston. or Of the State OF South Carolina"-
stocks OF banks In the City Of Charleston, held,
not to be within such description.
Where the Instrument under which trustee
acts pfcscribes the mode OF investment, and 1t Ia
shown that there was opportunity to follow it, if
loss ensnes from bis investing In different man.
ner, lie will not be excused blythe fact that lie
acted with honest intention, and that the invest
ments he made were regarded with favor BY pru-
dent men.
Investments In March, 1868. In Confederate
States bontls not such .safe public securities" as
the will looked TO In the use or the terms.
The decree the Circuit Cours sustained, so far
as it dlsaiflrnS. the investments Of the guardian
in personal bonds Is not within the description or
the securities intended by the Will. Opinion by
tile Chief Justice.