AN INTERESTING CASE.
{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4084, "word_count": 776, "ccnet_language_score": [0.991100013256073], "ccnet_perplexity": [865.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



At the late term of the Superior Court of Wake
County case of some interest was tried, and the
question as TO how deeply one may be intoxicated
and still make valid deed, was defined and set
tied by the verdict rendered. The case was BRIEF
ly this: A father made to two of his daughters
deed of gift of two negroes to each in trust for
their use and benefit. The deed was duly proved
and registered under the act of s06, and soon after
one of the daughters intermarried with the deten-
dah in this action. Dying without issue, her hus-
band claimed the negroes under the said deed /;
and an action of Trover was brought by the faith
er to recover their value The leading point in
the seemed to be to the validity of the deed
the plaintiff alleging that at the time of its execu-
tion he was so drunk that he did not know what
he was about 1t was in proof that he was an
habitual drunkard; that on the day the deed was
drinks that after he had taken, on the same day,
five or six drinks, he refused to endorse for SON.
in-law who had previously involved him; but that,
in the evening, when he was full, as one +f the
witnesses expressed it, he dio consent-no one be-
ing present but the Trustee and the witness to the
instrumental execute said deed for the benefit of
his two daughters. It was also in proof that his
other children had been provided for, and that he
had repeatedly expressed desire that his property
should go equally to all his children; and that
when drunk he was strange maxwell pos
scssed, except when 6eastly drunk, of remarkable
caution and acutcness 1t was also proved that he
had previously asked persons to draw such deed
as the one in question.


The witness brought forward by the defendant
to prove the Decd stated that he was called in by
the Trustee, " no told him he wished him to wit
ness that paper that he took the deed to read it.
but was not "scholar enough" to do so; that he
did not hear the deed read to the donor, but that
the trustee asked him if he acknowledged it, where
upon the donor, who was sitting by the water-stan1,
rose from his seat anI made for the bed, and as
he went or as lie fell upon the bed, said umphhu-
meaning that he did acknowledged it. The witness
then signed the deed, The counsel for the plain
tiff dwelt upon this affirmative grunt the origin of
which we shall give presently.


1t was admitted by the plaintiffs counsel that if
the deed were good the defendant would be enti-
tied to recover, but it was argued that totally
invalid and Intellectual for that the plaintiff at the
time it was executed was laboring under such a
suspension of his rational powers as to be incompe-
tent in law to make binding instrument. The
counsel on the other side relied upon the deed it.
self, and argued upon the proofs that the donor
1cas not in such situation TO be incompetent 10
make a good deed. His Honor Judge Settle,
without repeating all the evidence, told the Jury
that the deed, to be valid must have been made by
person competent 10 make it that such an instru-
ment, TO be binding, must pass from one who
knows what he is doing and That it was for them
10 say, upon full examination of all the facts,
whether said deed was the act ofthe donor or not.
The Jury retired. aud in few minutes return
cd verdict in favor ofthe defendant So the deed
was sustained, and that too by q most respectable
and intelligent Jury. The case was managed most
ingrnio ousIy and eloquently by Mr. Badger for the
plaintiff, and by Messrs. G. W. Haywood and D.
K Mc2ae for the defendant .-.r


1t is related that the Old Boy, (vulgarly called
The DeviD who, from the patient Job down to the
impatient sailor, is no respecter Of persons, was
present on certain occasion at a shipwreck, and,
as usual, was busiIy engaged in securing his share
of the spois. With sailor in each hand and one
in Ills mouth, he was asked by an imp if he wan
ted any more, to which. being unwilling to drop
his prize, he replied umph-hul How m my drinks
his Majesty had taken or whether he was fuIr'
in the legal sense that occasion, this deponent
saith not.