GAINESVILLE, (GA.,) SEPTEMBER TERM, 1846. Present. Their Honors, LUMPKIN, WARNER and NISBET, Judges. The following gentlemen were admitted: Howell Cobb, Athens, Georgia. Clarksville, Athens, Watkinsville, 66 Jefferson, 66 MILLEDGEVILLE, (GA.,) NOVEMBER TERM, 1846. Present. Their Honors, LUMPKIN, WARNER and NISBET Judges. The following gentlemen were admitted: Pulaski S. Holt, Eatonton, Georgia. Macon, NOTE. The cases adjudicated at each of the foregoing Terms, are reported in the body of the work. No case was left undisposed of. The following is appended, being a correction of cases cited in some instances by the court, and in others by the counsel. The page at the left hand indicates where they may be found. Page 5 Read Jackson ex dem. Merritt and Stanton vs. Gumaer, 2 Cowen, 552. Maigley vs. Hauer, 7 Johns. Rep., 341. 20 66 35 Rex vs. Loxdale et al. 1 Burrow, 447. In the same line, where for when. Barker vs. Talcott and Shaw, 1 Vernon, 473. Smith vs. Adm. Cheney, 1 Hill Rep., 148. Bowyer vs. Bampton, 2 Strange, 1155. Allen vs. Imlett and Nichols, 1 Holt, 641. Denn vs. Dolman, 5 D. and E., 651. Also, Thayer vs. Rock, 13 Wend. 53. Pain vs. Keeston, 1 Moo. and Rob., 20. Ewer vs. Jones, 6 Mod., 26. Also, Dover vs. Maestaer, 5 Esp. R. 92. Calder et eux, vs. Bull, 3 Dall. Rep, 386. Kaughley vs. Brewer, 16 Sergeant and Rawle, 133-4; Lynch vs. McHugo, 1. Matthews vs. Wallwyn, 4 Ves. 118. Butler vs. Warner, 11 Johns. Rep., 57. Scott vs. Elmendorf, 12 Johns. Rep., 318. Shed vs. Brett, 1 Pick. Rep., 401. Grugion vs. John Smith, 6 Adolphus and Ellis, 501. Brigham vs. Marean, 7 Pick. Rep., 40. 325 342 358 66 370 66 330 391 66 Reynolds vs. Shuler, 5 Cowen Rep., 323. Lynch vs. Dunsford, 14 East. R., 494. Hutchinson vs. Bobo, 1 Bailey's Rep., 546. Townsend vs. Corning, 23 Wend., 440. "Episcopal Charitable Society vs. Episcopal Church in Dedham, 1 Pick. R., Fugna and Hewett, vs. Carroll and Martin, 1 Ala. R., (by minor,) 123, &c. vs. Caruth, 1 McCord's Rep., 507. 4 Munford, 196 Monroe vs. James. Also, Bonny vs. Ridgard. "Thompson vs. Tolmie, 2 Pet. Rep., 157. Beeston vs. Collier, 4 Bing., 309. Dawes et al. vs. Shed et al. 15 Mass. Rep., 7. REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDICATED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. MARCH TERM, 1846. No. 1.-DOE ex dein. TRULUCK et al. vs. PEEPLES et al. Motion to Dismiss Writ of Error. THE Bill of Exceptions must be drawn up by the party, or his Attorney, within four days after the trial in which the decision complained of has been made; and must be certified, and signed by the presiding judge, within that time. The certificate of the judge below, in this case, being without date, the court will presume in favor of public officers, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, that they discharge their duty in compliance with the law." The errors complained of should be plainly and distinctly specified in the bill of exceptions. The giving of bond and security, upon the carrying up of cases to the Supreme Court, is optional, not compulsory. The bill of exceptions will operate as a supersedeas only where bond and security has been given, or affidavit filed, in conformity with the Act organizing the Supreme Court. Where no bond has been given, or affidavit filed, the opposite party is at liberty to proceed to enforce his rights, in the court below, by execution, or otherwise. This cause was called up in its order, when AKIN, of counsel for defendants in error, moved to dismiss the writ, on the following grounds: 1. Because it did not appear from the record before the court, that the bill of exceptions was made out, and certified by the presiding judge, within four days after the trial, as required by the Act organizing the Supreme Court. 2. That the bill of exceptions did not show the grounds upon which the decision below was made. 3. That the bill of exceptions was too general and uncertain. 4. That the original bill of exceptions had not been returned into this court by the clerk of the court below, as required by said act. 5. That no bill of exceptions had been filed. 6. That it did not appear that bond and security had been given, or affidavit filed, as said act required; nor that the plaintiffs in error resided out of the county in which the decision complained of was made. The bill of exceptions, and certificate of the judge of the court below |