The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-05-10
THE COURTS.

The United States District Court.
This court was opened yesterday morning by
Judge Bryan, and the following cases dispos-
ed of:
John L. Leonard was fined 5000 and John L.
Chaplin $500, for violation of the internalre
nue. laws.
Fifly-three boxes of manufactured tobacco,
belonging to Messrs. Nash & Dulin, and ll244
pounds of tobacco, belonging to 8. B. Latham,
were condemned for violations Of the internal
revenue laws.
The trial OF N. F. Horne, for alleged embez'
element from the mails, was commenced, and
the evidence for both sides was taken, after
which the court adjourned until this morning,
at ten o'clock.
The Inferior Court
was opened at ten o'clock yesterday morning
BIZ Judge Lee. Solicitor E. B. Seabrook being
absent In Orangeburg, General W. ]. Whlpper
was appointed solicitor for the court In his
stead. The cases against the county comms'
sioners were then called up, and the new soil
cItor asked for further time in which to exam
inc into the cases. With The consent Of Col
onel T. Y. Simons, counsel for the defendants,
the trial was fixed for the 18th instant The
court then adjourned until that day.
State Supreme Court.
In this court, on Wednesday, the following
business was disposed or
Ex parte Theodore DELAY writ OF habeas
corpus The prisoner was broughl lnlo :co9it'
Dir. Melton was heard on motion 10 dls'
MIR. Rion submitted the return of the super
intendent Of The South Carolina Penilentiary,
and argued contra.
A. l.. Buchanan, administrator, vs.. +. A.
McNinch ct al, Mr.. Patterson for appellants.
In reply.
II. g. Harris, administrator, Vs. Alfred Sttl-
well. Mr.. Thompson for appellant MT. Will
son for respondent. Mr.. Clawson In reply.
The following is correct copy of the de-
cislon Of the court in the ''scaling" case:
Detherldge ys. Earle. Opinion by Wright,
A. j.: AS several typographical errors OF I'm,
por,ance occurred IN yesterdays report OF
this case, 1t is published In full today.
This was an action on promlssory not9,
dated April S. 1861, payable one day after
date. Tnis case comes TO This court on appeal,
because OF the unjust, erroneous and unwar-
ranted charge of the presiding Judge, which
led the jury to bring In verdict contrary TO
The law and the evidence. I cannot see any
reason why solemn contract with good
and euficieut consideration should be Inter-
fered with because 1t was made previous 10,
or during the progress of the late rebellion,
unless 1t was made with reference TO Con
iederate States notes or thelr equivalent" IL
is not claimed, or attempted 10 be SHOWN,
that the note In question was 30 made. there
fCre 1t was the duty OF the Jury, according 10
the law and evidence In this case. TO bring IN
q verdict for The whole amount found TO be
due.
All persons have rights which all courts OF
Justice viii. respect. Under our system OF 1ur-
isurudence, no State has the right to impair
the obligation of contracts, much less has
court light to assume TO and destroy, or par
italy destroy, solemn obligations made De-
tween citizens. e,
To permit persons to get rid of paying. one
half Of their just, honest and equitable deos
because there has been rebellion IN the State,
is no more nor less than Offering premium
for such rebellion. 1t Is urged by the respon-
dent that, In order TO give this court jurisdlc-
lion to review an appeal, motion for new
trial should have been made TO the court be-
low, When an appeal is taken, In due time
after Judgment is entered by the court below,
and IL isfound, as In this case, such Judgment
Is contrary to the law, q new trial Will pe
granted.
The motion is granted and new trial order
ed to proceed according to the rule laid down
In this opinion.
Willard, A. j., ;oncurred; Moses, G. j., ao-
sent at hearing, but concurred IN opinion.