University of South Carolina Libraries
in 4 > I . " ? r VOLUME XXXvn CASE ON NOTE < GETS LAUGHTER A. P. Johnson & Son Lose i in Civil Court Case JURY OUT HALF THE NIGHT Plaintiff Wins Without a Single Witness Present in Court The trial of the case of Campbell Jt' 1 ??.M ??/? Wo.? ?* ??*.?? aim ITCOM:III oaicM Mutuica | Co., against A. P. Johnson & Son, ( being a suit on a note given ?by the < defendants to the plaintiff company and which fell due and was unpaid In 3919. The note represented the sum of $200.00 which was paid to Victor M. j Johnson by Joe Nugent, and officer of tho Campbell & Reid business, while the payee was in St. Louis on a horse i and mule purchasing trip, and the draft out of which the money came was sent to the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Johnsonville and returned unpaid. The draft went back to St. Louis, unpaid, of course after Johnson had long since spent the two hundred dollars and doubtless return- 1 ed to his home at Johnsonville. When the draft was not paid af- \ ter repeated dunnings, the claim wa:: < placed in the /hands of H. H. Wood- j ward to be collected. He did not collect it. According to the testimony, < the attorney finally agreed to take a i note from A. P. Johnson & Son for < the two hundred and the interest thereon, amounting in all to the sum of $207.00. To this the parties agreeu and according to the evidence signed up the note -/and left it in the hands of the attorney falling due on Aug- < ust 1st, 1922 with interest from its t date )at the rate of seven per cent \ per annum, and with 10 per cent at- v tomey's fees in case tHe note was not | paid at maturity. i This is the note which was sued. | At the time the note fell due the | parties were notified, as proved by carbon copies of letters written to * them, both to A. P. Johnson who .11 v * ed at Gurley S. C., and to Victor >!. Johnson, who lived at JohnsonviHe. On .August 7, a letter was *ent offering to settle the note for ( r the principal and without the addit- < ion ofany lawyer's fees in case defendants cared to pay before any suit should be brought. This offer was not accepted. Finally this action was brought on tfre note and the defendant A. P. Johnson answered the complaint al- . leging among other things that he ' had paid the note, also in a- separate defense alleging that he denied the making of the note. Victor M. Johnson did not answer the complaint. He was, however, a star witness in the trial of the case. { The plaintiff, the Campbell &Reid t etc,. Company, had no officer here 1 at the time of the trial and no rep- r resentative except the attorney who ?brought the suit. The only testimony 1 in the case on the part of the plaintifT was furnished by the attorney and t this consisted to a great extent in r the carbon copies of letters written by the attorney and letters written to \ the attorney and to his client about c these matters involved in the suit. t While the case was being develop- I ed Uncle Ap took out his turn in v olriv\ r# datvt a vamn f\r 111 <1 rv i j ii^ nw 111 v> iv^inai i\o uvmiuoouu w the attorney for the plaintiff which i caused a laugh several times in the t court room. He stated to the attorney 1 for the plaintiff, in open court, that c this note had been secured by the t attorney while, he Johnson, was r drunk, and that the attorney had s followed him down the street and t bogged him to sign it until he gave s in and wrote his name, or words r to that ?ffect. Johnson said he wap v drunk at that particular time, but that he (the attorney) was drunk t rail the time?stayed drunk. The at- 2 tomey answered this by saying that \ drunk men usually looked upon all f other men as being- drunk; and at this point the court took a hand in the matter and advised the parties that they would do well to discontinue r making: remarks at each other. v In the course of examination, c while A. P. Johnson was on the stand t ii. his own beialf, hesaU that he t h;jtl -nf.ver sitrre'l any infers * r d'?n? a ?' fruMnetf? ip I*on \ !>* in the o of A. P Jo.in**- n c^-^pt t such as had been forged against him " by the attorney for tne plaintiff. This f< caused another laugh. J?ater the wit- tl ntss modified his statement. Then Victor M. Johnson, the jun- t ior member of the firm took the stand f , He said that he lived at Johnsonville c and did business there in horses and g miiles; that he did not deny the mak- n ? * ~ t'linrl An Kllf H A/*l a rafj a inK VI UIC livnc nucil VI MUV VV? -that the note had been paid; that it t had been paid later on after the suit o had been brought when he and his p father went hade out to St. Louis s and bought .another bill of horses and ? that the amount due on the note, or o what thoy said was due on the note, n was included in the bill. Asked to v produce this bill he said that he did a not have the bill with him. a Cross examination failed to shake t this statement. p The attorneys were given ten minu- o tea on each side in which to make their claims clear before the jury. n The jury went out wuh the case a in the late afternoon. At adjouvn- b ithr * 9 in -? ? ONLY A FEW CASES TRIED Court Disposes of Five Reallv Contested Cases in Six iDays On the roster of the cases prepared ly the members of the bar for trial last week there appeared forty-nine lifTerent cases for trial. There was about the same nui/iber eft on the docket that did not ap lear on the dockets. It- might be interesting to show a ist of the cases actually disposed >y contested trials in the true sense >f the word, and then a number of >thers disposed by consent verdict. The only cases :ictually tried out vere: ?1? Campbell & Reid vs. A. P. Johnson & Son. ?2? W. D. Bethea vs. J. A. Lewis, She ilT, and Bank of Lor is. ?3? Rufus M. Dyson vs. E. M. Graham. H. Barnes vs. C. M. Reaves, and y A. Reaves. E. H. Hardwick and others vs. L'rexler Lumber Company. This makes only five cases that vere really contested that could possibly be >tried in the six days durng which the court lasted. Some other cases which turned :>ut not to {be seriously contested ind which were disposed of by consent orders or verdicts, were: Barnhil! vs. Barnhill, Holliday vs. Ropers, Page vs. McCutchen, Auto Company vs. McDowell. All the rest of the long list of :ases appearing on the above menioned roster were continued. There vas no time in which to take them jp and try them. The docket will )e Congested just as much next time is it was this time, and as it has oeen for the past two years oi more. OATHS TAKEN AT A HEARING Show That Witnesses Were Confined to Particular n /% uaic JACK VEREEN MENTIONEB Purpose of Holding a Preliminary in a Magistrate Court The Herald has secured in the last *ew days a copy of the testimony ,aken at the preliminary hearing in ")ogwood Neck township in the ease >f the State vs. N. A. Martin, charged with violation of the prohibition aws. The hearing took place on Oc;ober 20th, before magistrate A. P. rhompson. < It has been stated by several who vere present at the trial that the :ourt limited the witnesses to facts hat they might know as occuring on vlarch 24th, 1922 was the date on vhich rural policeman. D. Frank Belamy, caught Jack Vereen, an aged icgro who said it belonged to Marin. rhe testimony of Jack Vereen, :ording to the statements made to he reporter here in Conway by two nen who were present at the hearing, <ras fuller and much more in detail han what was evidently taken down is shown by the copy of the testi^ * 4/v 4U A ITn?nl/1 li?J Vi - nuiiy drill kaj mic iickviu auu uciuvith published. The ruling of the court that the estimony must be confined to iMarch !4th, 1922, or events since that date, vould indicate that the effort of inding out if the law had ever been (Continued on Editorial Page.) nent hour they were still out and rere charged by the court, with the onsent of the attorneys, to go out o supper with the sheriff whenever hey wanted to eat and that when they .greed on a verdict to write it out n the back of the complaint, seal, his up in an envelope and say nothig to anybody as to what they had ound; then bring the verdict in with he foreman the following morning. The jury tsoon proved to be ten to wo in favor bf the plaintiff. The two avored the Johnsqns said that they ould not understand why men would ;o on the stand and testify ap these len had if what they said were not o. They stuck to this idea all through he early hours of the night while ther people slept or read their newsapers by the family firesides; and till nn until midnight, when, at last ? - O J """7 ? ~ " ? 'vl he two had thus stood out came ver to the side of the ten. On the ext morning the jury returned a erdict for the plaintiff and found gainst A. P. Johnson & Son the full mount due on the note, with the atorney's fees as Claimed in the complaint, amounting in all to the sum f $293.00. The attorneys for the defense lade a motion for a new trial which t the time of this writting had not een argued. port CON WAY, S 7 CTHURI ************************** , I RESPECT F< , % Since the decision of tl j ago to the effect that prol * to make a search without * authorities are using that I * more and more. Time was 4 prowl through the private , * any leave or license. The :: man thus treated, even th< * his place, could not be com % land. I ? This chancre of oroced * causing people to have moi * they had before. Why she % regarding whiskey? There % reason why violations of J differently from other vi< f down which no officer woid * a search warrant. * * hardwicks try timber action Hardwicks Lose in Damage Case Against Harry C. Trexler I One of the most interesting of the I cases tried in the court last week was that of J. M. Hardwick and others against Harry C. Trexler and others trading under the name of Trexler Lumber Company, brought for damages alleged to have occurred to the ? lands of the plaintiffs when the lumber company cut the timber there, from in the years 1916 and 1917. It was interesting mainly for the reason that in the minds of some it ? is a noted question as to how far a ; Lumber Company may go in the ex ercise ot certain rights conferred upon them in the lengthy timber deeds that are used for selling timbei. The Lumber Companies have the right to take what they have bought. They of course have the right to en ter the land for the purpose of taking the timber. They cannot exercise their lights in a careless, neli gent and wanton manner to the injury of the man who owns the soil of the land, or else they are liable under the law for the damages sustained. I The trial of this case brought up points just like these for consideration. The lands involved in the actio.! are situate in Simpson Creek township and cover an acreage of about three hundred acres, counting the cleared and uncleared lands of the tracts. There were four of the suits all tried together as one case, but so is to have four verdicts rendered finding the damages, if any as proved in each of the four different cases brought. There were four suits because the Sand lvul been divided by J. M. Hardwick owned and in the possession of four different sons of J. M. Hardwick, in one or two of the cases, a tract or portion of the original tract oeing ownea oy iwo ot tne sons jointly. owned by two ?of the sons jointly. The timber had been sold by J. M. Hardwick before he made the deeds which divided up the land in several tract#. The trial was commenced in the early morning of last Friday. At the time of adjournment on Friday evening-, all of the testimony had not been taken. Several more witnesses were still to be heard. The plaintiffs were the first witnesses on the stand. According to their testimony the lumber company crossed the stream of Buck Creek at three different points with their tram roads, filling the stream with logs in crib building style on which to lay the tracts that these places formed complete stoppages to the flow of the water in Buck Creek especially after trash and debris had gathered up and lodged so as to fill the small space that was left for the water to seep through. They also showed that the mouth of Ox Pen Branch had been filled in with trash, logs, bark, and trees as the skidder pulled logs across it; that trees and timber tops were cut down and left in the run of Buck Creek so that the creek was caused to overflow its banks, new channels to be formed; that the water backed up on the Hardwick lands and sobbed throuerh the soil of th* lnnd?r rntfiin* off the crops and damaging the freehold. They also showed that the lumber company took about fifty poplar trees from the land while in their deed they had not bought the poplar timber. This poplar timber was said to be worth five or six hundred dollars to the land. The rental value of the land that was damaged was placed at from five to ten dollars per acre by the witnesses. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff said that in the year 1918 they had a tobacco crop which was lost by the flood as the water could not run off the land; that it was boggy and showed a condition different from what it had ever been before, owing to the water which backed up on the land and could not be drained off. SPAV^ NOV. 2, 1922 *************************** DR THE LAW | o I sk he Federal courts some time * libition agents have a right * lawful search warrant, the | means of "making searches * 5 when these agents would premises of people without % Federal court held that a | 3Ugh whiskey was found on * dieted under the laws of the * * ' X ure will have the result of ^ re respect for the law than * mid different plans be used * was no way of finding any this sort should be treated % olations of law in hunting * d think of going- in without * * * JURY VALUES REAVES TIMBER H. Barnes Sued C. M. Reaves and Also Mary Reaves The case of H. Barnes against Mary A. Reaves and C. M. Reaves, was called for trial on Wednesday afternoon of last week. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had purchased a- tract of land from the defendant several years ago with full warranty as to both the soil and the timber thereon; but that afterwards J. E. Harbour entered on i the land and took the timber off I under a timber deed or reservation of timber by Burroughs & Collins Co. I ...U? 1 1 __?J . ?l wnu niiu soia lo uie said J. Harbour. The ^answer stated that when defendant Reaves had agreed 10 make the sale they thought they owned the timber but did not actually own the timber on the land ami before closing the sale offered to let the plaintiffs out of the trade but re&tsesd to make any reduction in price; but that plaintiffs insisted 011 having the deed as originally contemplated, and that plaintiffs took the land with full notice of the timber title. The plaintiffs asked damages In the sum of $2000.00 for the loss of the timber. The land is known as the Futrill place near Lor is. The difficult question meeting the parties at the threshold of the case was by what rule the damages would be arrived at and measured. After some argument it was decided to gt. ahead with the trial 'and make a ruling on the question as the case progressed. The plaintiff then introduced a number of deeds to show the tittc in a regular claim including the deed Tliaf n rlif/'li ItiiI x..,*., 1IUM '-H.TCII *JWl I !l 111 IIH1 creek just below the mouth of Ox Pen in order to try to correct the damages wrought by the filling in of the CVeek and the branch. This ditch cost six hundred dollars. Other witnesses were called to testify to the condition of the creek after the lumber company had taken up their tracks and left the land. They told about the blocking of the stream in places bv trees and tree tops cut down and left in the bed of the stream. The defendant put up witnesses whose testimony tended to try to show that there were other obstruc- < tions in the run of the creek and also in this branch which had as much to do in their opinion with tho bad drainare as the work of the lum ber company had done. Surveyors testified as to the obstructions of the stream and the levels at different places on the land and in the Buck Creek Swamp. Photographs were introduced in evidence showing various places where the run of the creek had been blocked with trees and tree tops. The defense put up witnesses to show that the poplar timber mentioned had been cut over across Buck Creek on land known as the Norris land; and that it was not cut on the Hard wick land. A long list of letters were placed in evidence showing the compliant made by the Hardwicks about the damage that had been done to the land. Also letters from the lumber company in answer to those. The proof showed that when the lumber comnanv left the nlace thev diri null nnt some %f the obstructions hut that they did not take out all of the block- t ades made by them in the run of the t creek and at the mouth of the Ox rj Pen Branch. f The plaintiff sued for both puna- ci tive and actual damages alleging a c wanton disregard of the rights of the r land owners in taking this timber in that manner. t The case went ahead on last Satur- i day morning, it soon becoming evi- c dent that it would bo the last case tried at the term. It appeared that t the case with the four different argu- c ments to be made would take up t the enthre <iay of Saturday. t vnhl JOHN BARFIELD WAS NOT AT HOME Officers Raided His Place and Found a Still up in His Loft V. D. Johnson, rural policeman, went with Federal prohibition agents last Thursday to Causey, S. C., where they raided the premises of John liarfield. They were acting: under a search warrant issued from the magistrate court. Barfield was not at home hut his wife and three or four children were 'here. He is a white man. At first the officers thought they had searched his place in vain ;.\s there was nothing on the lower floors or outbuildings to indicate a still or a large supply of the products of such a plant. Continuing their search into the loft of the house they struck a find. It consisted of a keg of sour mash being made ready for the still, and one atu' a half gallons of white whiskey. Going still further into the mysof a dark corner in the loft, hey discovered the still .and its complete outfit, showing that it had been used evidently in the swamp to make whiskey and then taken up and brought to the house where it had been hidden until another time came round to make the rum and to b< <afc from detection while another lot of the sour mash was being made read y. Rarfield could not be taken into custody as there was no way to locate him. He was gone. His family could not tell anything as to when ie would return or whither lie had gone that morning. A warrant will be pushed against him, however, if he can be found. DAMAGE CASE THROWN t)UT In the case brought by VI. M. Hardwick against Harry C. Trexler and others, and tried last week in the ^ 1 v.v/iii i ui common picas, the jury found the cases, four in number, ail in favor of the defendants. There were four of the cases. In several of them the sum of two thousand iloUars >Vas asked as dam-' ages for stopping up the run ot Buck Creek and the mouth of Ox Pen Branch on the Hard wick farm in Simpson Creek township. under which the timber had been reserved before the land came to the Heaves. This was a reservation in a deed from Burroughs & Collins Co. to J. M. Grainger, Burroughs Collins &Co., in seiiing the land to Grainger reserved the timber for the period of ten years. Grainger sold to Land am1 Security Co. and the latter to C. M. Reaves. Then the land was sold by the trustee in bankrupty of Mary A. Reaves. They also introduced a timber deed from Burroughs & Collins Co, to J, .ft. Hi*vbour for thiol limber that they had reserved, Tho trial of this case.-went ahead on the issues last Thursday morning, exhibited a blue print showing the tract of land in detail. The first witness sworn was J. M. Johnson of the firm of Johnson & Roberts civil engineers, who exhibited a blue print showed the trace of land in detail. J. E. Harbour testified that he took oir about one million feet of timber from this land under his deed, from Burroughs & Collins Co. The witness was not allowed to testif> as to thfk vnlna nf this MmW K??* ? .--w t v?i v?v v* MiMyyi | l/v* only to tell the values of the latu! before and after the timber wa taken regarding the purchase money of the land as the basis of compan son. There was much argument of counsel over the admission of thi testimony. The witness said that he would place the value of the timber at 33.5 per cent and the land without the timber at 6*1.6 per cent jf the $7000.00 for which the property both land and *imber "wa* purchased by the plaintiff. H. Barnes, ,the plaintiff testified i He lives at Proctorville in Robeson County N. C. He bought the land which he thought included the tim- 1 ier for $7000.00; that the comparative value of the timber was one i lalf of the value of the land this < making $3500.00 for the land and < ihe same amount for the timber < hat stood on the land. ^ i Several more witnesses on the i >pposing side were sworn as to the /alue of (the timber and then the 1 ssue if the value of this timber was i submitted to thejury. The nature of 1 he case required that other questions 1 irriving in the case should be decided j >y the court. I The jury went out on Thursday i ifternoon to fix by their verdict \ he value of the timber on the land, i rhey were tied up when the court \ idjourned that evening 'but on Fri- < lay morning they brought in a verlict finding the value of the timber i it SI250.00. 1 This did not end the case as cer- ] ,ain equitable tissues still regained < n the case to be passed on vy the < :ourt. i Following this Hhe court took up 1 he case of J. M. Hardwick anct \ thers against Trexler Lumber O < 'or damages >in taking timber from < heir lands. NO. 2S~ DYSON BURNING AIRS IN COURT Many Witnesses Called by Opposing Sides at the Trial , GASOLINE AND KEROSENE Mixing of the Oils Was Admitted But not the Sale as Alleged The ??ou rt of common pleas tried last week before Special J inline W. C. McLain, the most interesting case of the entire week, which was that ot K. M. Dyson, as administrator of the estate of his wife, Effie Jane, against E. M. Graham, in his individual capacity ami trading as the Aynof Mercantile Company. The trial was started on Tuesday morning, following the Vlecision ox the court as to :i demurrer interposed by the attorneys for plaintiff the several defenses of negligence of the husband imputed to the wife which they alleged contributed to he injury and <death of Mrs. Effie. Hyson. The court held that this alleged negligence of R. M. Dyson, tiie husband, could not be charged oc imputed to the deceased wife, so as !o bar the recovery of damages, unless they were 'engaged in the pursuit of some enterprise common to both of these parties and common to the infant \Edison Dyson, and that the acts of the said R. M. Dyson were under the control of, or commanded "by the deceased Mrs. Dyson. The defendant amended his answer so as to conform to the court's order and the trial Jt>6'?iin about 10 o'clock on Tuesday evening of last week. .The testimony of the witnesses brought back to the minds of the people the Horrible burning to death of Effie Dyson, wife of R. M. Dyson-, at the home of the little family at Aynor, S. C., on the early mornirtg of the J2f>th of December in the. year 1919. Her clothes , caught on Are from rt,he. explosion , a can of oil that was alleged to have been carelessly mixed with gasoline and sold by Aynor Mercantile Company a? kerosine without any warning as t* the n&turte of the contents. *1- - OHiiOV Iictj Ul iUC ICM1IUUI1J showed that on that morning the weather being Cold, husband and wife awakened and noticed the sun was shining- and said that .it was time to arise. They irot un about the same time, the wife picking up her shoes, and stooping over not far from the fire place in the front portion of the home putting on her stockings and shoes, while R. M. Dyson went to the wood box and Jaid som<? wood across the andirons; that R. M. Dyson then took up the oil can containing the remains of purchase of three gallons after the wife had cooked on an oil stove for several days out of it, and uncapped the spout leading from the can and spurted some oil on the wood; that a (lame shot up into the can and the bottom blew out casting flames of burning oil against the left leg of Mr. Dyson and enveloping and igniting the clothing of Mrs. Dyson. R.. Dyson said on the stand that thertfc. had been no fire kindled on thehearth since the hour of nine o* clock on the morning of the proceeding day; that when he had laid the sticks of wood and poured the oil hec had not seen any tire, but that there must have been live coalSw of, lire beneath the ashes or else the flames would not have exploded the can as they did. There was some testimony on the part of the defense" that R. M. Dyson had told CW. I. Hatcher, following the burning that he and his wife had been up before day that morning with the baby and kindled a fire, but this was denied by Dyson. *4 There was testimony on the part of witnesses for the plaintiff that they had purchased oil supposed to be kerosene .at this store and had tried to use it as an illuminating oil in lamps and that the lamps* had exploded with a bang in some eases, bursting the lamps wide open, and that in other cases there was a "popping" at the burners and they became afraid of the oil and would not use it further. Other witnesses on the part of the defendant testified that they had bought oil from the *ame store about the - same period and that they &iad no trouble with it, It was admitted by the defense that the ojls had become mixed by someone having emptied a drum ot cerosene in the gasoline tank; that this product was sold to several for crasoline and would not answer for that material and had to be taken from the tanks of a number o? cars; that the kerosine oil was then pumpid from the gasoline station and placed in a Icerosine drum and rolled >ff at the side or bark of the store. There was a conflict among the witnesses as to what was done With the mixed oils after they had been.' pumped into the drum. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the [>il was placed in the kerosine tank inside the store and sold as kerosine with ^results as related by witnesses, while the defendant said that he Had >nly sold it to those who wanted aa iil for washing out motors and clearn(Continued on Back Paget) . i