Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

. A. \ * r - — Gaffney vs Gaffney 16S IS R. A. Hawking yg. Robbg and Williamson 14 08 208 90 78 219 221 8 82 226 10 29 227 18 36 6 18 228 11 42 230 144 22 231 37 00 037 345 20 238 186 99 245 - - * ' - • - A ... and th«y have n 0 authority to data- before we could begin Inyestlgatlng Tbe supervisor and county oommta- ton 88 88 207 fate an v one to order • claim paid, the offloe. sioners have failed to keep, for aavar* - yet practically |800,000.00 has been Tbe supervisor and commissioners al years, any record showing tbe paid out without tbe consent or have long since failed to keep any amount of money borrowed, when knowledge of the board of county account of borrowed money. There la borrowed, when due. amount and eom'nisstoners. In 1897 there were no record hr the office to show when rate of Interest paid as required by Total | 264 47 209 ptr claims paid, of which 20 were the county borrows money, the law to do, and It Is practically 1m- not sworn to, 1 not approved and 17 amount borrowed, rate of Interest possible, with any degree of accur- EXHIBIT “B." 215 not itemized. In 1898 there were paid, when due and when renewed, acy, to obtain definite Information on John M. Moss vs. Benj. A. 613, of which 26 were not sworn to, This carelessness, together with an these matters and the treasurer's Powers, et al | 89 86 216 2 not approved and 6 not itemized, error in the treasurer’s office, came office Is as deficient along this line as R. A. Bird vs. Mary Parker, In 1899 there were 729, of which 60 near causing the county to lose any other. et al 412 64 were not sworn to, 86 not approved $2,000.00 In the settlement between POOR HOUSE AND JAIL. C. H. Gaffney vs. Edna Nor- and 6 not itemized. In 1900 there the treasurer’s last April, though The accountant’^ - report showed thy, et al i .. 827 88 were 674, of which 313 were not section 802 says It shall be the duty that In the year 1898 Contracts were C. C. Harris, et al, vs. W. J. sworn to, 416 not approved and 9 of the supervisor to cause a record made to erect a county Jail and poor Harris, et al not Itemized. In 1901 there were to be bept of all the proceedings of house which cost $12,106.43 and in- W. L. Phillips vs. Game 760 claims paid, of which 72 were the board of commissioners, of which terest amounting to $702.99. Levies Pearson, et al 470 26 225 aot sworn to, 44 not approved, he is herein made chairman, as were made during the years 1898 to M. J. Humphries vs. B. K. and 17 not itemized. In 1902 there well as a record of all contracts en- 1901 inclusive, for this purpose Humphries, et al were 932, of which 162 ’..ere not tered Into with said hoard. Thecoun- amounting to $13,393.18. deducting G. B. Humphries, et al, vs. sworn to, 107 not approved and 19 ty has borrowed money at seven and the cost of these buildings '^pm the W. T. Humphries, et al .. not itemized. In 1903 there were 1320 eight pe r cent, and almost at the levies as above collected fm^v.iis pur- G. B. Humphries, et al, vs. claims paid, of which 174 were not same time the sinking fund commls- pose, left a balance of $583.76, which. W. T. Humphries, et al .. sworn to, 165 not approved and 24 sioners, who are county commission- by an act of the legislature of 1903 Tripp & Gervan vs. Gaffney not itemized. In 1904 there were ers, loaned sinking fund money at was transferred to the Broad river Carpet Mfg. Co 1035 claims, of which 194 were not six and six and one-half per cent. bridge account. j. Eb Jefferies, as clerk, sworn to, 860 not approved and 21 Section 768 of the Code says that NEW JAIL AND JAILER’S RESI- Admr. Est. M. J. Marsh .. not itemized. In 1905 there were 887 the county board of commissioners DUNCE, SPARTANBURG SECTION. Yvl B. Blackwood, et al, vs. claims, of these 92 were not sworn shall submit to the presiding judge When Cherokee county was estab- Carroll & Carpenter, et al to, 768 not approved and 4 not item- on the first day of the first term of Hshed In 1897. taking into its terrl- John M. Gaffney, et al, vs. ized. In 1906 there were 1030 claims, court in each year an itemized state- tory a part of Spartanburg county.it Air Line R. R., et al .. .. of which 42 were not sworn to, 999 ment of all amounts ordered paid by found fixed upon this section a debt E. E. Holland vs. Lilabel Hoi- not approved and 39 not itemized, them for the previous fiscal year, to contracted for erecting a new Jail land, et al .. Tbe supervisors seemed to have be by him submitted to the grand and jailer’s residence at Spartanburg. \V. B. Wilson vs. Ida Wright, adopted a custom to endorse claims jury for investigation, etc., but this which the section had assumed and et al 500 00 044 as approved by the board, when in has not been done. had to pay. This debt was $2.81618. John McSwain, et al, ▼». fact they were not. This makes 8366 Section 790 requires the county There was collected from this sec- Mary McSwain, et al .. .. claims paid of which 1164 were not commissioners to make all contracts tion for this purpose $4,488.18 and Jefferie* vs. Jefferies, et al 1,424 28 sworn to, 161 not Itemized and in reference to supplying the poor after paying the debt of $3,175.16. in- Blanton vs. Runyan about 8000 not approved by the com- house, etc., and where any contract eluding interest, there was a balance Carry vs. Good mlssloners, for their minutes show is for more than twenty dollars, they In favor of the section of $1,281.28 Lewis, as executpr vs. D. D. that during the past ten years they shall advertise for bids, etc. This which was transfiprred to the sinking Gaston, et al have approved very few claims. In law has been Ignored. The commls- fund of this section by an act of the McCraw, et al, vs. Moore, addition to this six or seven hun- sioners have not kept, as required by legislature and placed to the credit et al 220 32 dred claims were misplaced or lost and law. a separate account of the poor of the sinking fund account for this Miller, et al. vs. Brown, et al they may have been paid In the farm, the chaingang or what the road section. Col. Bldg. & Loan Asso. vs. same manner as others—a great num- machinery cost. There has been an PAST INDEBTEDNESS- Alfred Smith, et al .. .. her of them not sworn to or Itemized, extra levy of one mill for the last When the county wag established W. B. Corn vs. Gaffney Mfg. And the same custom still prevails few years for permanent roads and there was a past indebtedness for Company in this office. About 1200 claims have there has been no separate account sundry matters due by the sections j Eb Jefferies, Admr. Est. been paid during tbe year and in the of this fund and the tax collected for forming^ the county, amounting to Stephen Pearson same manner as heretofore. The law this purpose is used In filling up mud $3,175.97. of 'vhi ,, h Spartanbure owed Minnie Turner vs. L. H. San- requires the supervisor to sign the holes the same ag defraying expenses $1,886.07, York- section $879.72, rnion ders, et al .. warrants on the treasurer and the of the chaingang. section $410.18. A levy of one mill Harris, et al, vs. Harris, et al Clerk to countersign it and stamp the There Is no way by which any one for 1897 paid this indebtedness and - 1 seal of the office on It before It should can examine the office and ascertain loft a balance of four cents to the Total $4,810 84 263 be paid. We found 18 warrants paid what the county paid for the road credit of this account. by the treasurer which amounted to machinery bought by the commls- RAILROAD BONDS, YORK SECTION. $4183.32 in which the clerk signed sioners a few years ago. We asked \VTien Cherokee county was estab- the supervisor’s name to the war- the supervisor twice to give us this Hshed, Cherokee township, in York rants. This was during the adminls- information, what the county paid for county, had incurred n bonded debt tration of Wm. Phillips. We found it if it all had been paid for and what of $25,000.00 In aid of the Charleston, 17 warants which the treasurer paid had become of it, If any had been r inclnnati and Chicago railroad amounting to $231.79 that were never -old. whether for cash or credit, and which wag reduced by compromise 17 signed by the supervisor at all, we were shown the minute book $-3,300.00 which tails due In 1911. vorthesss and illegal, yet paid by the which showed where machinery was 0,1 :J‘ inui ! r - / to the 20 treasurer. These matters occurred bought in 1903 for $7,286.00, payable cr i r, ”*t °' 'b' 1 ’ township $2,164.84, during the administration of N. Lip- in five years at six per cent, from which wag applied to the payment of 21 scomh and Wm. Phillips. We found date. Just after this purchase some Interest on bonds and a sufficient 99 warants paid by the treasurer more machinery was bought, but the levy made every year slnceto pay the amounting to $2,995.72 which were minutes did not show at what price, annual interest of $1,631.00 which not signed by the county supervisor. We found that the county com- Has been paid ever y year and a bal- but had bis name stamped on the mlssloners have been over paid the » lice to the credit of this warrant. As an example of how the sum of $168.49; township commls- township on June 19 °2' W H ,C J ac claims were paid we mention vouch- sioners. $46.16; physicians, $50.00; ed ^ 1116 amount in hand of sinking er number 221 in favor of W. H. Ross sinking fund cormnissioners, $154.65; 8S for the year 1900. The supervisor’s county superintendent of education, Of 9Ji>226.93, makes a balance of $-.- name was stamped on the voucher $15.03; clerk of county commission- -”- 2 ® to , , h< : t red t ho ’ *1^770^0 "frrlm where he should have written it, his ers, $11.41; advetlsing, (which should ^hich ad <Jed *0 the $15,770.-8 from name was stamped on the face of It have been paid from other sourc- alnking fund levy, mak ®® a tot _i to show that the board approved It. eg, and not by the county com- c Cj! t c w 1 -] 3 8 ct 0D for thls P ur P° 8e The voucher wag not sworn to, the mlssloners) Cherikee News, for '_t *1^' u.o*. warrant on the treasurer is number matter which the county did RAILROAD BONDS. UNION SEC- 221 and dated April 2. 1900. Tbe not owe, $115.50; The Ledger TION. body of the warrant calls for $40.66, $!h»1.15; magistrates, $4.66; county , while the figures are for $41.68. superintendent 0 f education, which the 1^.08 was placed upon the Union ; 11.66 was paid. The claims is for county did not owe and should have f th *1 sen-ices as clerk of the county com- been paid out of the school fund, J,'.'}. 0 -? le^vln^thli deht^t missioners and for $11.41 more than $252.16; B. G. Clary, error In addi- ‘ l ea ” D K th is debt at $11,4j7.68^ the law allowed him. The claim was tion, $1.00; T. G. McCraw, error In * n h ’ ch bears 6 per cent Interest never approved by the county com- addition, $1.00 KiZ ±^1“ 75 missioners o r supervisor. If this This makes a total sum of $909.21 have heen^ plBce^ upon toiB soction ,424 28 30 69 246 6 40 247 6 47 248 220 32 10 00 249 14 00 250 1 07 253 113 72 257 161 68 31 46 260 14 11 00 11 00 25 13 00 EXHIBIT "C.” Number. Title of Case. Amount. 13 Spence r & Campbell vs Carroll & Carpenter . .$ J. C. Hynds Mfg. Co. vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. Wheeler & Wilson vs. R. S. Lipscomb .. .. J. R. Tolleson vs. B. A. & J. F. Patrick .. .. J. R. Tolleson vs. B. A. & J. F. Patrick .. .. Wm. A. Smith vs. Ag nes Huskey Wm. H. Mullins vs. J. G. Galloway & Son .. Watkins. Cottrell & Co. vs. J. G. Galloway & Company Frank E. Block & Co. vs, W. D. Thomas .. Schiff & Co. vs. W. D. Thomas .. George Benhard & Son vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. Loricb & Lorance vs. J. B. Ross J. C. Hynds Mfg. Co. vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. R. A. Jones vs. T. J. Davis N. Lipscomb, Co. Sup. vs. J. Logan Gibson .. Henry S. King & Sons 267 270 274 24 28 29 38 39 40 41 43 69 71 284 285 It 00 293 12 00 12 00 11 76 50 12 00 11 50 17 60 295 301 303 312 327 328 329 £”0, “kbSr.be ■‘rouni; .^7 oui^V Bh We iim; otto county 'nitoalnUr „ M. H funds Is to continue the office of the rnissloner’g office In which most of 8aId bo n nd » * Stuard .. county commissioners ami the super- the amount was Illegal, the balance ^ 8 ' pa, . d ’ 80 w A - Henderson ts. visor also might as well be abolished should have been paid out of the tojhe credit of thls_ seettonjn Jthe Coley M . Stuard as paid the statement marked ir also migni as wei» oe aooiisneu bhouiq uavc uccu «««■ ui — ~ . . .. .. .. the sum of $7,410.83 has been school fund, none of It should have bands M tbe 8 ^°£ t fun f d 101 Moses Wood vs. Chero- 1 out in which the supervisor been paid through this office. A ^^- ‘“fe^t accounL of $1,189 kee Land Company .. was not only not ordered by the statement marked exhibit “F” Is ap- and $7 ’ 069 ’WJf 0 ® ^^ HI C. H. Peak J. H. board to draw the warrant but never pended hereto showing the number “X* * the Cred,t ° f thlB signed them. an d in some instances, of the claim, the year paid, to whom ^ 113 knew nothing of the warrants. paid and the amount over paid. RAILROAD BONDS, SPARTANBURG — There may have been a great many COUNTY TREASURER. g Dartail b ur „ section at the 116 fraudulent claims against the county The resolution providing for this - - Che*okee county owed which were paid. Several hundred of investigation required that an ac- u gU e!i to ald Tn constract- the vouchers were missing and then countant, who was not a resident of cer tain railroads amounting to 124 on account of the method of paying the county, be appointed by your 0 f wS? ch *19 79165*hS claims there is no way to detect committee to investigate the finance --023.89. of^which $19 791.65 ha. 139 framl. A Person walks into the of- ^Jbe county^J.^P. »®™ a ™> fl °£ c d e 2 29.24 due’ In 1908 and $10,003.00 due 140 Lindsay John R. Webster vs. M. M. Tate, et al .... Columbian Bldg. & Loan Asso. vs. Mrs. D. J. Hopper, et al Slater, Myers & Co. vs. D. D. Gaston W. Brown Wylie, as clerk, vs. James J. Whisonant J. F. Whisonant vs. J. 12 00 10 00 11 00 • 00 60 1 00 331 332 334 335 343 2 26 60 350 354 355 60 356 W. B. Wilson vs. J. If. Peeler and J. 8. Cobb Lawn son McSwain, et al, vs. Elisabeth Mo- Swaln, et al Fannie Corry, et al, vs. Sophie Good, et si .. Jennie Roberts vs. A. J. Goforth, as guardian R. 8. Lipscomb vs. D. J. and C. C. Hopper, as Adms. J. D. Jones vs. John W. Jones, as Admr., et al K. A. Ruppe, et al, vs. J. Clarence Hames, et al B. F. Turner vs. S. A. Blanton Susan Turner vs. W. Ernest Turner Gaffney Mfg. Co. and Town Council of Gaff ney. et al W. O. and J. C. Lip scomb vs. Anthony Daw kins, et al J. W. Humphries vs. Lizzie Sarratt, et al .. George w. Moore vs. E. J. Warren, et al .. J. t. Darwin, et al. vs. Mary M. Moore .. .. A. O. Allison vs. Har riet V. Petty W. B. Wilson vs. E. J. Abbott A. H. Polloob vs. Mar- cellns Moss W. 8. Jolly vs. Martha A. Jolly Thos. L. Brown, et al, vs. J. L. Brow-n. et al .. Christina Gaffney, et al, vs. Sam’l Jefferies, et al J. J McClure vs- W. A. Smith, et al J. J. Scruggs, et al, vs. Lizzie Scruggs, et al .. J. E. Ezell & Co. vs. Southern Railway Co. C. E. Robertson, as Admr. vs. Edna Robert son D. J. Hopper, et al, vs. Sam L. Hopper .. .. Elizabeth Perry, et al, vs. Sam’l Jefferies .. M. C. Perry, et al, vs. Gaffney Carpet Mfg. Co. W. W. Lewis, as Ex. vs. D. D. Gaston, et al S. A. Nantz. et al. Vs. J. J. Gaffney, trustee, et al Jane Thompson vs. Eas ter Jefferies, et al .. J. J. Scruggs, et al, vs. Jno. C. Mills, et al .. W. B. Wilson and W. B. Rodd/ vs. Wm. H. White S. T. McCravy vs. A. H. Foster, et al .. .. C. C. Harris, et al, vs. Jacob Harris, et al .. John Thomas Ruppe, et al, vs. J. Clarence Hames, et al W. A. Camp, et al, vs. Andrew Bonner .. .. Henry Bayard Thomas vs. Mary Lillian Thomas Eliza W. Westervelt vs. Lula W. Smith A. Whisonant, et al, vs. George W. Moore ,. .. Smith Hardware Co. vs. W. H. Richardson .. j. A. Willis vs. J, W. Wilson Thos. Spencer, et al, vs. Albert Cook, et al .. Carrie A. Petty vs. Har zel Petty, et al .. .. Carroll & Carpenter vs. W. A. and M. L. George O. P. Blasstod vs. D. R. Bird W. L. Settfemyer vs. S. C. ft Ga. Ex. Ry. Co. J. J. Scruggs vs. W. W. Thomag and W- O. Up- scomb N. G. Littlejohn vs. W. Sam Lipscomb •• .. Mollle Marsh, et al, vs. Annie Marsh George C. Herndon vs. Lucy Love, et al .. .. Joseph G. Webber vs. Nancy Ann Norman 141 142 147 burg fectiou of $225.94. There Is a c- dit t 0 this section in the hands of the sinking fund commission in inter est account of $1,823.55 and $8,181.98 iom sinking fund levy, making totai and the supervisor pays the cmm. wc .‘ c . "I’V “-TTt There ha s been paid $13,121.48, without any authority of law. He our report is not a 8 complete as It , . balance due hv Soartan- doesn’t know whether the labor has should be in reference to these mat- - Y been performed, or if performed, he ters, and our report has been delay- doesn t know that the amount claim- ed some three months on this ac- ed is reasonable. T bis is one reason count. why the law should be followed and BROAD RIVER BRIDGE- the commissioners pass on all claims We find that ® r ® ad J 1 .^-Jl! d ® e amount to this credit of this section , presented for payment. What is the cost the county, principal, $7,071.76, tin 005 5° ^ use of township and county commis- interest, $1,502.44, making the total c IWKI .. r ’ p. JNn rnMMicQiowFRQ loner, „nle„ It I, to look after and ooat of the brlae We »nd '•INKING FUND COMMISSIONERS. protect the county’s interest Gener- that levies were made and 1900. a sinking iv-, . commission for ally the amount asked for Is paid fo r he years 1902 to 1906 Inclusive, C()llIll> , vas established. WTien the county built the Broad tor this debt amounting to $9,371.o0, river missioners tie over $1, - , - ----- note as evidence of the debt. The total amount credited to the bridge note was the not sinking county about overpaid a few hundred dollars. raid the sinking fund commission ^ , o wiT _ „„„„„ We have searched and searched debt $564^24 out of the ^ fhf> si * nk ,“ K fund commission the r arnomii a,Keu iui ^ 1 « 0 07, -n Hx rokee co.intv was established, jen the county built the Broad for this debt amounting to $9,371.o0 SinC( , the establishment of the corni er bridge the sinking fund com- and there was transferred from the therp t) ^ jnto the hands of ssioners loaned the county a lit- poor house and Jail account to the ^ ponu ,, issio ,, to A; , riI , 1907 over $7,000.00. taking Uh- county . ,h„ foll„.ln R amounts to the credit 155 156 W. Duff and R. R. 357 John R. Wester, et aL Brown 50 vs. Arthur Tate, et al J. F. Whisonant vs. B. 358 R. M. Northy, et al, va E. Thompson, et al .. 6J John F. Northy, et al Wm. M. Jones vs. J. J. 359 A. Elnora Wells vs. Whisonant 1 00 Loula Ann Wells, et al Powers, Little & Co. 360 Elizabeth Hartford va vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. 75 C. W. Whisonant, et al Powers, Little ft Co. 362 Susan Turner, et al, vs vs. D. D. Gaston 75 Lula Turner, et al .. Powers, Little & Co. 361 Bank of Blacksburg vs. vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. 75 W. A. Hayden, et al .. R. B. Davis vs. Dock 363 Mary J. Humphries vs Price 75 B. K. Humphries, et al Inman, Smith ft Co. vs. 364 W. L. Phillips vs. Car- Spake ft Blanton .. .. 26 rle Pearson, et al .. .. Carroll ft. Carpenter vs. 365 N. E. Crawford vs. D. I. G. Patrick 23 D. Gaston Stoner, Marshall Co. 368 James Allison vs. Sarah ft D. L. Brown 26 Sutherland, et al .. .. A. Bertsch ft Brother 369 Primus Sarratt, et aL vs. D. L. Brown .. .. 26 vs Lorenza Sarratt, rr er .re.. • bands and from levies for sinKing luna ve been unable is a surplus of $1,381.06 of the bridge ammnt tho fo | lowlng am0 unts: Sink- lever ha* been account after payment of the bridge fund 8 p artan5urg se ction, $8,- for graft as debt in full that is not available for ^ interest, $1,823.55, total, $10,- iv. The treas- any purpose until it is released by an t r ntnn ao/ . tlnn 005.53; sinking fund Union section, 17R $7,069.00, interest, $1,189.74, total, ‘ any money and we to find any. There never such an opportunity there is in this county. The treas- any purpose ury, as long as the treasurer pays act of the legislature. warrants issued without the authori- BORROWED MONEY. ^^ ^ ^ ty of the county commissioners, has From the report of the accountant >,'-"7™ interest" i'2 236 26""total /o check on the county funds. If all to the commissioners it appears that total ln the claims were passed on and ex- the county has b<)rrowed $68,400.37 handg of S | nk i ng fund commission of amined by the conmissloners a great an«i at the time this Investigation was jyc 270.81. many of them might he rejected or made the treasurer s books showed reduced In amount. Claims have that the county owed $7,0o0.00, but been paid by the supervisor which in April, 1907, the county corn mis- were for cheese, crackers, candy, or- sioners borrowed irorn We county anges. etc., furnished to the county sinking 'Lund commission $15,000.00, Chaingang. and out (W this paid the State sink- There have be<n a great many ing fund Bam mission the $7,000.00 warrants paid by the treasurer which due by the county and the county were not signed bv the c lerk. A great now owes $15,000.00. Till amount many warrants have been signed by was borrowed for ordinary county <( the supervisor In blank and fl’.le 1 out purposes, and the levy for 1907, for EXHIBIT ‘‘A.’ by parties whi) knew nnthlnir < f * this purpose, is three mills which is The State vs. Mary E. Moss’ nature Or character of the claim, not enough to pay this debt but if estate f whethe r valid or not. the two mill levy for roads is to he It. a. Hawkins vs. T. J. Camp- We neve r saw an much careless- included, the debt and interest would hell nesg exhibited any where as in f* is be paid out of these levies with a Merchants ft planters Bank office. Out of ail lb** voucher in the small balance to begin next year vs. G. M. Cline office not one of them were properly with. This will necessitate borrow- A. N. Wood vs. R. A. Haw- Ailed. we b-d to spend about three Ing again to meet the current ex days clearing ui< and flting vouchers penseg of the county for next year. Respectfully submitted, G. W. SPEER, Chairman. \V. G. AUSTELL, Secretary. N. W. HARDIN, Counsellor. Gaffney, S. C., Dec. 17, 1907. kins Sarah Jonei vs. W. D. Gas- 32 12 t 60 2 80 16 80 vs. D. J. Hopper, «t al 191 W. J Blanton vs. O. 3. Kmdiick 192 M. M. Freeman vs. 0. C. Hughes, et al .. .. 198 The D. F. Briggs Co. vs. S. B. Crawley ft Co. 205 J. Eb Jefferies, as Admr. of James G. Moore vs. Hugh Moore 206 J. D. Goudelock vs. Frank Patterson .. .. 60 It 00 426 429 60 441 442 Co. vs. Oeo. P. Petty .. I 00 410 Josephine Hickson vs. AlUson Hickson, ct al 420 J. F. Wfolsonant vs. W. t00 A. Hayden ........ 421 Car. Loan ft Trust Co. t 60 vs. J. E. Ezell, et al .. 426 American Tel ft TeL 60 Co. vs. Carrie A. Petty, et al Bridges ft Blalock vs. J. W. Rhyne Sam W. Clary vs. Cyn thia McCraw, et al .. Mamie Poulnot vs. Western Union Tel. Co. F. N. and S. D. Moors vs. A. Harris W. C. Hamrick, et al, vs. Perry Dukes, et al 60 440 W. T. Smith, et al, va. J. V. Smith, et al .. .. Edgar Gordon, et al, vs. L. A. Gordon, et al .. A. J. Settlemyer vs. An dy Champion Charles McAllister vs. T. I. Walker, et al .. R. A. Jones ft Co. vs. O. S. Kendrick .. • • G. B. Humphries, et al, vs. W. T. Humphries, et al Jno. C. Blackwell, et al, vs. Maud Blackwell, et al ; J. A. WfUlls vs. 'West ern Union Tel Co. .. J. R. Healan, as trustee, vs. R. A. Westbrooks G. M. Morrow vs. Gaff ney Mfg. Co Belle Ervin vs. W. H. Smith, et al, as Ex. .. Cynthia McCraw, et al, vs. Cynthia Moore, et al Zulla E. Carlton vs. W. Gaston W. A. Davis, et al, vs. A. N. Woo d Alice Dukes, et al, vs. Postal Tel. Co J. v. Phillips vs. Amer. Tel. & Tel. Co High Point Pants Co. vs. D. R. Bird Columbian Bldg, and Loan Asso. vs. Seal Rice, et al Carroll, Carpenter ft Byers vs.. Abe Smith, et al Annie W. Earle vs. H. A. Killian Merchants ft Planters Bank vs. Fannie Gaines, et al *W. S. Hall, Jr., vs. W. 448 474 476 50 483 1 50 486 2 00 488 21 67 489 6 25 E. Ray. et al 490 Hugh W. Fisher, guar dian, vs. Clarence San- 3 50 ders, et al 491 Merchants ft Planters 8 ’00 Bank vs. Nannie W. Bell 2 60 498 R. A. Jones vs. Dorenda Dowdle 300 C. A. Turner vs. Lola SO Turner 502 A. W. Doggett vs. Ln- 3 65 cile Doggett 304 T. R. Thomas, et al, vs. ? 50 Susan Turner, et al .. 505 Vlnlty Lipscomb vs. 50 Amer. Tel. ft Tel. Co. 518 Susan Turner, et al, va. 50 Lula Turner, et al .. 520 M. B. Willis vs. Maud 1 66 Hayden, et al 521 W. R. Dillingham va. 4 88 Sarah Ann Scruggs .. 531 Thos. D. Goudelock va. 11 00 W. 8. Sparks, et al .. 536 Nannie p. Kendrick va. 50 John H. Wilkins .. .. 537 J. Eb Jefferies vs. Mrs. 60 E. C. Jefferies, as Admx. 538 J. M. Phillips vs. M. 50 A. and M. N. Ferguson 543 Lizzie Davis, as Admx. t 16 vs. Roy Davis, et al .. 60 530 H. S. Lipscomb va. Mary Ann Gore .. .. 545 G. M. Moss, et al. va. O. P. Broom, et al .. 2 00 546 Lucy Hagins vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co. .. 6 76 547 Otis Fletcher Willis va. Cherokee Falls Mfg. 8 75 Company 4 50 548 Bank of Blacksburg va. J. F. Whisonant .. .. 549 Martha Lavis vs. John 4 OO M. Smith 550 James E. Martin va. 6 75 Mary Martin, et al 9 12 551 W. B. Blackwood,* et al, vs. J. L. Blackwood, 7 60 I et al 562 Colonel A.‘"Martin, et ai, vs. J. R. Martin, 6 25 et al 553 B. F. Lemmons vs. H. 165 John M. Moss vs. Ben- et al 3 00 jamin A. Purser .. .. 3 00 374 A. Sydney Smith va. 172 R. A. Bird vs. Mary 1 James B. lavis, et al 2 60 Parker, et al .. .. 1 00 377 O. E. Tate, et al, aa 173 G. W. LeMaster vs. J. Admrs. vs. Mary Phil- W. Lowry, et al .. 60 lips, et al S 09 174 D. F. McClure vs. W. 395 J. S. Moore, et al, va. C. Lipscomb 1 00 St. John Butler SO 175 Drewry, Hughes ft Co. 397 L. M. Hartford J. vs. D. D. Gaston .. .. 50 Eb. Jefferies, as Admr. 60 176 P. B. Love, et al, vs. J. 398 C. N. Avery vs. South- G. Love, et al t 00 ern Railway Co S 16 178 J. T. Darwin, et al, 400 Postal Tel. and Cable Mary M. Moore .. .. t 60 Co. vs. Perry Dukes .. t IS 179 J. V. Ruppe, et al, vs. 403 S. M. McNeil vs. Fan- Sarah Ann Ruppe, et al 1 60 nle E. Ross 1 60 181 John J. Nichols, et aL 404 Carroll & Carpenter vs vs. J. B. Hullender .. 1 50 W. M. Grubb 60 182 W. O. Petty vs. D- D. 405 D. W. Alderman ft Sons Gaston, et al 1 eo Co. vs. F. C. Hickson 60 183 W. N. Turner vs. Boyce 406 C. W- Whisonant v«. Eli L. Turner 1 60 Smith, et al 1 60 184 Pearl Christman, et aL 407 J. Eb Jefferies, as Admr. vs. Chas. Christmas, vs. J. J. Scruggs, et al 4 60 et al 60 408 W. A. Hopper, et al. va. 182 I. s. Witherspoon, agent. C. R. Hopper, et al .. 1 60 1 00 410 Tbeo. K. Miller, et ml vs. Lizzie W. Bflown, 60 et al 411 F. G. Stacy, as Ex., vs. 60 Penlna Stacy, et al.. 412 Bailie McCraw, qt al, 60 vs. T. G. McCraw .. .. 414 Morgan Iron Works vs. F. C. Hickson 2$ 98 416 Cynthia McCraw vs. Bam W. Clary 1 60 417 American TeL and TeL D. Wheat, as receiver F. G. Enger vs. Cline ft Caldwell J. L. Alexander vs. J. Bb Jefferies, as Admr., afid T. R. Trimmier .. W. A. Moore vs. W. D. Byars J. I. Sarratt vs. Nation al Roofing Co 574 Lucy Hagins vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 575 J. C. and W. O. Lip scomb vs. j. m. Lem mons 577 Lawrence O. Patterson vs. Maud Hayden .. .. 578 Lillie A. Thomas vs. An nie & Elizabeth Thomas 586 Jacob Epstein vs. D. J. Holt 589 John W. Worth vs. Mar/ Worth, et al .. 590 Lucy Hagins vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 592 Armour ft Co. vs. M. L. Ross, et al 594 F. E. Dibble vs. School District of Blacksburg 505 G. T. Harris vs. Rich- Mond Stay, et al . . .. 596 White, Dunham Shoe Co. vs. Sam W. Clary 597 Wm. C. Rouse, et al, vs. J. I. Sarratt $98 R. B. Bryant vs. Gaff- i ney Mfg. Co 699 J. Jorans Spencer vs. Sam’l Jefferies 1 00 C00 Mcllwaine, Knight ft . Co - vt - 8am w Clary and C. H. Moore .. .. Qulnn-Marshall ft Co. vs. Sam W. Clary and , C. H. Moore 50B08 Car. Loan ft Trust Co. vs. Abe Smith sad Mar tha Garrett P. N. Parr vs. Robt B.