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