Kennedy, administrator, vs. Redwine-Purdy vs. The State. up that complainant was never entitled to a homestead, that it was illegal, that there were incumbrances on the land, and that defendant bought bona fide for value. The chancellor ordered that the injunction be granted upon complainant's giving bond to pay the $65.00; but that it might be dissolved by the defendant's giving bond to pay complainant all damages he might sustain from possession or occupancy by defendant: Held, that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in granting such order. SPEER, Justice. KENNEDY, administrator, vs. REDWINE. 1. The verdict in this case is supported by the evidence. 2. A defendant in fi. fa., as a witness for plaintiff in the trial of a claim case arising under levy of the fi. fa., having testified that the property was given in for taxation by claimant as partnership property of himself and defendant prior to a transfer of it to claimant, there was no error in allowing the claimant to introduce the tax digest to show that the property was in fact given in by him as his own. CRAWFORD, Justice. PURDY VS. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. Under a general power to control the manufacture and sale of spirituous liquors granted by the charter of a municipal corporation, an ordinance was passed requiring the closing of doors of retailers on Sunday and every night at 12 o'clock except Saturday night, then at II o'clock, and that the keepers should not permit persons to assemble at their places of business on Sundays, or after the hours at which they were required to close their doors. A retailer was convicted in the mayor's court for permitting persons to assemble at his saloon or grocery on Sunday: Held, that this was no bar to a subsequent prosecution by the state for keeping open a tippling house on Sunday. 35 Ga., 145; 53 Ib., 75 ; 59 Ib., 168. SPEER, Justice. Wood vs. The State-Porter vs. Massengale Brothers; etc. WOOD VS. THE STATE OF Georgia. 1. Exception to the entire charge on the ground that it is " on some material points contrary to law and failed to charge the law applicable to the facts, and was calculated to mislead the jury," is too vague and general. 2. Where long paragraphs of a charge involving a number of propositions of law are excepted to without pointing out the specific errors therein, the exception is too general, and cannot be considered. 3. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence. SPEER, Justice. PORTER 75. MASSENGALE BROTHERS. P. was the agent at Augusta, Ga., of M. & Bros., who lived at St. Louis, Mo., and was to receive a commission on sales. They dealt in futures. On November 13th, 1879, he telegraphed to them to buy 30,000 bushels of wheat, December delivery, for "Roberts," and to draw on him (P.) for margins. In fact there was no such person as "Roberts," and he was dealing for himself. On November 15th he ordered the contract or "deal" closed at a profit. On November 17th a draft for $1,000.00 margins drawn on the 13th, was presented to him, and payment refused : Held, that such transaction was a mere speculation on chances and illegal. In a suit for the profits and commission on such a transaction by P., a non-suit was properly awarded. Code, §2638. SPEER, Justice. THE DAHLONEGA GOLD MINING COMPANY vs. PURDY. 1. Where a judgment of the superior court has been affirmed by this court, its legality becomes res adjudicata, and it cannot be attacked by affidavit of illegality for errors which were or could have been excepted to in the bill of exceptions. 2. No sufficient legal reason for excepting appearing in this case, ten per cent. damages are awarded against plaintiff in error. CRAWFORD, Justice. Tarver & Brother vs. Plant & Son-Zachry vs. Brown et al.; etc. TARVER & BROTHER VS. PLANT & SON. The judgment of the court below being unquestionably right, and no reasonable ground for excepting appearing, in the absence of any appearance for plaintiff in error, on motion of counsel for defendant in error, the record will be opened and damages awarded for bringing the case to this court for delay only. SPEER, Justice. ZACHRY US. BROWN et al. There being no shadow of merit in the grounds of illegality in this case, nor in the exception to its being overruled, ten per cent. damages are awarded against the plaintiff in error. SPEER, Justice. NORFLEET & JORDAN vs. CLARY. 1. The evidence is unsatisfactorily sent up in this case, but from the record before us we are not satisfied with the trial below. 2. The evidence for the plaintiff in this case is not sufficiently explicit to sustain the finding. CRAWFORD, Justice. CHAPMAN vs. HAND et al. I. A non-suit should have been granted in this case. 2. The verdict is not supported by the evidence. CRAWFORD, Justice. Thomas vs. Thomas-Coker vs. The State-Hanie vs. The State. ; etc. THOMAS VS. THOMAS; COKER vs. THE STATE OF GEOR- The verdict in each of these cases was not contrary to law or evidence. 68b 296 113 529 COBB VS. PEEPLES. The presiding judge did not err in granting a first new trial in this case. TRAMMELL et al. vs. MARKS et al.; SEWELL vs. Ed- The court did not err in refusing an injunction in each of these case 3. THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY vs. BLAN- 1. When a telegraph company for a compensation receives a mes- 2. Any rule of the company which seeks to relieve it from performing (a.) The charge for transmitting messages in this state is fixed by the company, not by law. 3. A telegraph company cannot by any rule or regulation of its own protect itself against damages resulting from every degree of negligence except gross negligence or fraud. v 68-21 |