Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-05-01
A NEGRO BOND CASE.

In the United States Circuit Court, at
Charleston, on Saturday of last week, a case
was tried which involved, to some extent, the
question of the validity of bonds given for the
purchase of slaves. In 1860, Mr.. j. Motto
Allston sold eighty slaves to Mr.. j. l.. Man
ming, for which he received one-third cash,
$4,000, and the bond of the purchaser for the
remaining portion of the purchase money, Sc
cured by endorsement of Mr.. j. S. and Mr..
j. P. Richardson. Suit was brought few
years ago by the plaintiff against the princi-
pal and the sureties to recover the money due
on the bond which was given in 1860, and
the case came on for trial on Saturday. The
plaintiff was represented by Messrs. McCrady
& Son and Hon. j. B. Campbell; Messrs.
Porter & Conner appeared for the defendants.
After the testimony and the argument had
been heard, the court charged the jury that
if they found, from the evidence, that the
bond mentioned in the proceedings was given
for the purchase of a certain number of slaves
purchased by the defendant, Manning, from
the plaintiff, Alston, and that the price agreed
to be paid for the same was full price, and
that the plaintiff delivered them to the defen-
dant in healthy and sound state, such as the
price warranted, then the plaintiff was entitled
to recover in this suit such sum as may remain
due on the bond. That if they found from
the evidence that the price agreed to be paid
by the defendant, Manning, was a full and
adequate price for the slaves, and that when
the said slaves were delivered to the defen-
dant they were unsound and diseased, the
plaintiff would be entitled to recover such a
sum Of money as the jury might think, in ad-
dtion to the sum already paid, would have
been fair price for the persons in the condi-
ton of these delivered by the plaintiff to the
defendant at the time of such delivery. And
if the Jury found that the defendant, Man
ming, the principal in the bond, had waived
any defense of want of consideration, arising
from the alleged unsoundness of the persons
purchased by him at the time of their delive-
ry to him, such waiver on his part did not
preclude the sureties on the bond from setting
up in their behalf the defense of want of con-
sideration, unless they are shown to have con-
sented and agreed to such waiver.
There were two actions, one against the
principal and one against the sureties In
both cases the jury rendered verdict for the
ueIenudilI.
The CONGRESSIONAL BACK PAY.-Sena-
tor Robertson and Representative Wallace,
of this State, put different construction on
the refusal of certain members Of Congress to
receive the increased back pay voted at the
last session. They say that as mileage, sta
tionery and some other expenses are to be
deducted, that the members from Oregon,
Colorado, Nevada, etc., would likely be in
debt to the Government-one of them about
81 900; while another would only be entitled
to STA, after the deductions are made; and
that very few of the members would receive
the full amount AS the Act, however, EN-.
braced increased pay for the President and
other high officials, who have heretofore been
too poorly paid, it was voted for.-Cottm6'a
Phenir.