The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1872-03-06

might have been tempted to use, with
the risk of taking life, and thus COM
hitting deed which he could never
atone, and must ever regret. We trust
all who were in the reach of his Honor's
voice will heed his suggestions, and be
convinced that to carry pistol is proof
of anything else than true courage,
which is regardful Of the lives of others,
at the same time that it is careful in
protecting its own.
In sentencing one Of the prisoners.
Andrew Quarles, for petit larceny, His
Honor urged upon the Trial Justices
and Town Councils, the necessity or
enforcing the vasrant laws, which were
designed to effect wise purpose and
which if properly enforced would pre-
vent much crime.
In the case of the atste vs. Jeptha Il.
IIamblsn, convicted of grand larceny in
stealing 6 COW, Mr.. Cothran made al
able aud We think, avery conclusive
argument in support Of motion in ST.
rest of Judgment, on the ground that
cow stealing is a statutory offence, and
not grand larceny, and hence the De-
fendant could not be convicted and pun
ishcd for the latter offence. The au-
thorities seemed fully to sustain his po-
sition, that when the statute changed
even the punishment Of \ Common Law
offence, the prisoners must be indicted
and convicted under the statute and not
at con.s,ea :a%. ..- ....-... ..
In the case Of the State vs.. Thomas
4. Williamson, School Commissioner,
for malfeasance in office, Mr.. Meow
an made very able and learned argu-
ment to show, that the bill of lnGict-
ment not having been found before the
repeal of the Act of 1929 under which
the Defendant was indicted, he could
not be tried and convicted under the
statute, in violation of which the alleged
offences were committed. The point Of
the argument was, that the prosecution
was not pending at the repeal OF the sta
tute of 1929, 60 as to come within the
saving clause of the General Statutes.
The case was continued under advise
ment.
Two cases of Rubeas Corpus we're
heard by his Honor, involving the Gus
tody of illegitimate children, and
brought by the mother against the nat
ural father. They were eases of colored
people, and in the first his Honor grant
ed the petition on the ground that the
mother is the proper guardian OF Tile
gitimate children, but in the other case
it was clearly found that the mother had
hired the children to the father, during
the present year, and for that time His
Honor held that the father had the
right to their custody. ....
In two cases brought respectively
against Mrs. Mary Long, and Jas. r.
Latimcr, upon bond given to the Com
missioner in Equity, for land sold dur
ing tho war, proof was atldaeed Of the
true value of the land according to the
ordinance of the Convention, and tho
Jury so found. The law seems not yet
entirely settled upon the point as to the
true construction of the Corbin Sealing
Act, in cases of this kind.
An interesting case was that of Man
tue 4 Co., against DR.. Stewart, of Nine
ty-Six, upon an alleged partnership
claim, which the Doctor resisted on the
ground, that it was contracted by his
partner, on his individual account-not
being for drugs or anything pertaining
to the drug business, but for groceries,
in which the partner T. G. Holloway,
was doing a separate business. The
case was stoutly contested pro. and
con. by Messrs. Thomson and Cothran,
and resulted in verdict for the Defend
ant.
NIcCravy vs.. Davis was case Of tres
pass to land, in which the Plaintiff and
Defendant were represented by Messrs.
Burt and Cothrsn, respectively. After
being engaged Monday ard part of
Tuesday they found for the defendant.