University of South Carolina Libraries
7*l*Sl+. iTBtDARUNGtON NEWS, PX7BU3H1I. IVJSHTTHURSPAT MORMIHO * / HENRY T. THOMPSON. proprietor. TERJI8«*$i Per kmunm In AdraBee. On* Square, A ret insertion ••••••••••••••• $1.00 qqq Square, **coud insertion.,10 gvery eubfleqent ineertion.60 Contract adrertieemente ineerted upon the vMt reaaonaWe ter«s. Karri age Notices and ObitnarIei ( hot • xceeding sit lines, inserted fret. rTTfl * DARLINGTON NEWS. J| ‘ •FOR 08 PRIRCIPLR 18 PRINCIPLE—RIGHT 18 RIGHT—TESTER DAT, TO-DAT. TO-MORROW. POREYER. VOL. XIV. NO 9. DARLINGTON, .3 C- THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1888. WHOLE NO 685. Our job department issopplied with ever* facility necessary to snabie ns to compete both as to price and quality of work, with erer those ef the cities, and we guarantee satis faction in erery particularer charge uethiug for onr work. We are always prepared to All orders at short notice for Blanks, Bil Heads, Letter Heads, Cards, hand bill* Posters. Circulars, Pamphlets, Ae. All job work mnst be paid for Cash on Delivery. My Scottish Home Let tartberna beset their golds* shores. Or praise their ennay ekiee; Oi’e me the land where Oteien won That praise whioh merer dies t Where Tanow winds her Joyous coarse, In beauty to tbs tea ; An’ burnies ria, wl’ Unpin’ din. My Seettish Home I thro’ tbee. Pr* be B through Unde baith briehl *n’ lair. Pro wosdered Runt sad West, Pro seen their hills an’ gowden rales In Sami' era gladness drest- Bnt bill or dale or Wbomln* rpU, Wboss r beent^rmm!^»utl aace compare, Anld Caledon ! wi’ thee. I’re seen the snn in Southern ellmee. OUat thro’ (be silken eloods: Prt seen tbe moon steal safely doon, An kisa the eleepia' wood*. But tune or meonaor eUhjaboeu, E’er ibith Me tirietl air ftbe, Ai when they beam, we’ kindly gleam My Scottish Home ! on thee Oh l gladsome is the roiee of spring. Berne on the balmy air. An’ sweet is summer', genial glance, To henfh tad meadow fair. But winter’* chill* as dear to us — For then, wi’ mirth an' glee, We meet agaie our cups to drain, Anld Caledon ! to ibee. • Ob 1 Scotia, K len of my lore! Briebt be tby wunny gUdes. An* cheerfu’ b* the (teams that course Thy banghs an' peaceful shades. An* was hefa' lEy faithless son, The 1 Lerd or Lai d b e be, Wba’ winna prove wi’ me his love, Lear Caledon ! tor Tbee. J. L M. Darlington, 8 C.. Feb. 22, ’88. An Interesting: Decision A*t!«tcHowin*decMr, recti' Mtod V» K» PSiiKW,*!* «if COII- Mid'-nibl'i iuieicMt, it is bcre given in (nil. Caroline M. Bitliir.in and U. Kd ward Saimaa, as A. J. iinliiias & Bon, idaiutitts, against “ _ B, CB8l» Paa li J’, Esther P. McClen- auBan and E.'*f'. PawfPy. A. Syil- DoyBrnitnami Algernon S. .smith, Ba A. Sydney Smith & Son. F. VV. Wagcner and George A. Wngeu er as F. W. Wagemr 4 Co., L. Blttn, aeL. Stein 4 Co., uud vV. C. Coker, defi-ndants. This is an action brought to fore dose a mori gage alleged to Iihvp been given by Mre A. L. Pawley, deceased,Jto the plaintiff*, upon OtrtBln estate dexcritied in thr OOSIplaint. The detendiiiin, the Paw ley« and AUa. Esther P. Mc- C!enagh*n|hrwlM*its atAaw ot Mrs. A. L. Pawley, their mother, and the other drtendaut* cl.iiui to bold mortgage* on tbe name land, wade by M/a. A. b. Pafley, of whieb they data foreclosure m tbe pres ent action. The issues of law and f:ict in volvedMere referred to Knox Lit ingston, E*q , as *|iecidl i-efrree, to to hear, determine and repott hi* flattings to the court, and the note eomia before the court at tbi* time, for olisarmc upon exception* to the report of the B^lereo made in pursuance of s»id order of re! • n n'-e. Tbe r e were uiotions before the Redpree Jo strike out portion* ot SO«m; of fte ana wets, and demureis td (hirisof sOinO ot them Wilioil were beard by the Referee and de termined in favor of the de'eudauis; these have n«o beeu mad- the «ub- ject of exdp’ionflf>ituf;ifly taken to this eonrt, but have been insisted on, to some exten’, in tbe argu ment here. There was also an ob jection made to tbe absence of Puul S. Wiring as a party, for whose benefit tbe mortgage claimed by Bteru k Co. was claimed to have been made; and also it w.is object- «t that A. ta Pawtev** personal lepresea totivewasa n-cessary par. ty. These points were all over- ruled by the referee, and the court jo (hat decision. during the pro of the reference, many objec- lade to tbe admissibility of testimony, nod exceptions a ere no ted by tbe referee oo the minuses, to his lutings upon sueit objection*, aud where they weiu sustametl by him, tbi sfidpuCe of tta witu s*< s sought lib be exCiudetf batf*T>eeii re ported separately to tbe court, aa required by tbe statu e. These rul ings were uot made the subject of , funnsnr, to the circuit be son*? uncertainty as to whether, io such cases where there has been an ex token before the referee, kim in his minutes ami appearing io tbe notes of evidence token on tbe refMwuqs, it M nebe*- anry to repeat^lm eTcdptifm iroer the report has been .MWd, and so htiafl the point more sp-eifl«uliy before the circuit court. (Bee Onap mow vu, Lipscomb, 18 8. C. 223), . as the questions have. 1 extent, argUed before court, 1 shall consider and de- eide upon the point* argued. These embrace, chiefly, objections to the t tF'ZPtlJi,!!:’’ ft’-TA-Tf Blma JKa Ua * l03T| til© IllOrLg3i^(ll| and of Paul H Waring. The ref- ••gnu exdmied both. The eojnsel for plaintiff* are cor- in faying that the deolarati ns X, i mortgagor, Mrs. A. L. Paw ley, may bo introduced to sustain tbs validity of, tbs mortgages, ns being against interest, but her de nude at another time at which they may have been brought out hv defendants to de- _ plaintiffs can not be adduced by feat the mortgage*. When declar ations are admitted at tbe instance of one party, the other is entitled to all that wan said on the same occa sion, or that may bear u|>on and explain the same but the rules nf evidence do not admit of a party’s impeaching his own ailedged deed by his subsequent declaration*. These principles are illustrated by tbe case of Fllen vs Ellen, 18 8. C. 494, cited at bar. It follows that Hie declarations of .Mrs, A. L. Paw ley, sought to lie elicited on behalf of the defendants, a* qualified by what has been said, were pi operly excluded. Tbere is a difference in the case of Jbe declarations ot Paul H. War ing. Be was, or appeared to be, a subscribing witness to the bon I and mortgage claimed by tbe de feudants, Wagener & Co. lie was uot produced to prove the ex<-cu- lion of these papers, but bis ab sence was accounted for by evidence tending to show that be was absent from tbe State, and secondary evi dence was admitted by proof of his handwriting as a suh-cribing wit ness to the papers. The prima fa cie effect ot this was to >( e*tablish the deed U|)On presumptions ” as said by dodge O’Neal! in McElwee vs. Batten, (2 Bail. 127); ‘-1st that it it had not been so lie wo< Id uot bava witnessed it;” and 2nd that it pres ent, ‘‘he would have given all the evidence necessary to support it.” These presumptions may i»e rebut ted, and, as said in the case just mentioned, “nothing can be more satisfactory” than to show his own declarations to the contrary. His declarations therefore are adini»si ble when' they tend to rebut the presumptions arisiug from proof ot his absence from the 8tate, and ot his handwriting. Smith vs. Asbell, 2. Btrob, 145, We came no# to the considera tions of the exceptions to the re port taken by the plaintiff* and by A. Sydney Smith 4 Son, F. W. Wagner 4 Co., and L. Stem 4 Co. defendants. The r-feree has found “that Mrs A. L. Pawley, the alleged obligor and mortgagor, did not execute the alleged bond and mortgage to A. Sydney Smith 4 Son, nor did she execute the alleged mortgages to A J. Sail as 4 Son, F. W. Wag- Bi r k Co., and L Stern 4 Co.” Thin is the subject of the first ex ception. for various reasons therein sp«citted, ^11, however, amounting to no more than that the finding wa« erroneous B«der the evidence. The second exc-ption was in ef lect, that the referee should have lound that the interest of B. C. Pawlev in tbe laud in question, was subject to the mortgages in auy event Tbe third exception rela’es to the claim of plaintiffs, that Mrs. iMc Ciensgban and B. P Pawley are -stopped to deny the validity ot the mortgages and charges the rnlings ol tbe referee in regard thereto to lie erroneous. The fourth exception relates to tbe burden of proof, and the man ner and sufficiency of the proof ot the mortgages. 1 shall consider the last first It is not necessary to cite anthor- ities or to adduce reasons to show that the burden of proving the mortgages in ’.his case, is on the parties producing and claiming un der them. They are required in the first instance to establish their ex ecution by proper proof. Wbeu this shall have been done, they may rest, and would be entitled upon that proof to judgment, if nothing to the ooutiary were shown by tbe opposing party. The burden is tiieretore shifted to those who deny tiie validity of the mortlhges, and so remains nutil tbe proof adduced in support of them shall have been overcome, or at least neutralized. If that shall nave been accomplish ed, the burden agtin shitted to those who MtUrm tbe mortga.es and they mu*t once more restore toe preponderance of the evidence in their favor by retnov mg the eftictof that adduced by those contesting tbe validity of ibe instruments in question. If, after all, tbe evidence shall have beeu takeu, the question rein tius only ou au equal balance, the mortga ge* will fail to be established and no recovery can be had on them. U la not perceived that the referee meant anything more than this in Whaf be has said ou th- subject of the harden of proof, nor that his decisiou hasbe< n rendered prejudi cial to the mortgagees on acco nt ot bts vt“ws ou this subject. As to tU* manner n which a deed, re quited by law to be attested by two subscribing witnesses may be prov ed, the general rule is that such witnesses most be called to prove its axectitioji, or thnr absence ao* fionffted W. Thf* ts a rule “which ihe court employs for its own in i'ractuui, and it is applied irrespec tive of (be intentions of the parties. So resolute are the coarts in insist ing on this rule that in eases where subscribing witnesses are neoessa ry, a party’s admission has been held insufficient tp dispense -with the sating witness, admission be prodootion ot tho •von though such made in open court.” 1 Wharton oo Ev. 723, 725 In King v«. Harrington, Lord Ellenbdrgh said, “I know of none tbat is a greater inconven ience than to depart from a clear established rule of law, tbat a par ty, who would prove the execution of any iiistrainent that is attested, mast lay the groand work by call ing the subscribing witness to prove it if be can lie produced and is ca pable ot being examined. The rule therefore is universal (hat yon mast first call the anbeenbing witness. * * * Inasmuch as they are the plighted witnesses, the knowledge, they have upon the subject is es sential aud u it can be procured mast be forthcomiug.” 4. M. and 8.353. Wlie'her onr courts would go to the tall exient of this rule as above laid down I am not prepared to say, but it does not appear to have beeu abrogated, bn is stated in the latest case on the sahject, (McQow en vs Reid, MSS.) in these words, “When the law requires more than one attesting witness to make the paper valid and there is a real con test over the proper execution, all should be produced, if a live and wiihiu reach ot the court; bat if huv are dead or absent, proof of handwriting will be snfficient.” This is in accordance with what is said by Mr. Greenleap in his trea tise on evidence, (vo 1 . 2, sec. 16), “Where the genuineness of the in strument is uctually in controversy, beiugeither put iu issue by tbe plead ingor actual notice given pursuant to the rules of court,” the rule ap plies in all its strnctares. In this ease the mortgages were attacks in the pleadings as perjuries. W r e will now see the several mode* of proof resorted to here to estab' lisb these mortgages. Mrs. A N. Pawley was first call ed to testify as to the Salinas mortgage. She testified to her sig nature as a subscribing wit ess, apd said she saw Mr. Cash Pawley sigu tbe bond in her presence. That *he subscribed the mortgage to Sa linas 4 Son as a witness and saw Mr*. A. L. Pawley sign it in her presence and tbat J. B. Douglas was. present. She was then examined in regard to the mortgage to Wagener 4 Co. She testified tbat she signed it ns a witness and that Mrs. A. L. Paw ley signed it in her presence and in the presence of Paul H-Waring, who signed it with her as witness. She was then examined touching the mortgage of A. Svdney Smith 4 Son, and said she signed that as a witness, aud saw Mrs. A. L. Paw ley sigu P, and tbat she saw J. B Doublas also sign it as witness, aud that Mrs. A. L Pawley was present when tbe paper was signed by her and Douglas and thought her hushahd, B. Cash Pawley took the p tper wht n it was signed, and that Doaglas was in the buggy with him. She also said her husband took the Salinas mortgage wheu it had been signed. B Cash Pawley was then; exam ined as to the mortgage of Stern 4 Co. This mortgage purported to have heou made to secure a bond of P. H. Waring to Stern 4 Co. This witness certified'that k be,sign- ed it as a witness. That he also signal tbe mortgage as a witness; that he witnessed its execution by his mother, Mrs A. L. Pawley, that he got her to sigu it, aud that it was done iu tbe presence of Ed- wafd P. Pawley, his brother, whose signature appeared to it as a wit ness. There was then testimony by this witness tending to show tbat P. H. Waring was absent from tbe State, and'safficient prima facie to establish that fact. J. B. Douglas, Jr., whose name appeared as a witness to the Sali nas and .Smith mortgages with Mrs. A. N. Pawley, was (hen brought into the presence of the reteree, and upon being questioned admitted tha r his signature appeared upon tbe bond, but denied having seen Mrs. Pawley, the obligor, sign it. Counsel then propo-ed to prove the bond by secondary evidence. The r-fereo declined to take cogni z me- of what had been said by Douglas and refused to receive > secondary evidence to prove tbe bond. J. B. Douglas, Jr, was then sworn in order to comply with the ruling of the r-feree, and obtain a resort to secondan evidence He admitted his signature to the sever al p pers but denied having seen them signed by Mrs. A. L. Pawley. Sa.\s be supposed they were liens aud signed them as such, at the re quest of B. Cash Pawley, and sub auriiied the probates after they had been filled up by Mr. McNeill un der the nnpres-dou that they were iieiis. The purpose of this 'coital is merely to trace tbe method of proof pnrsAed, aud my eonelasiou is, that the course pursued was tbe proper one; that the absence of Waring, and tbe denial of J. B Douglas, Jr., opened the door io the 'admission ot secondary evidence, aud that there was saffleient secondary evi donee addnoed to establish the | mortgages, prima faoitj if true. It remain* now to determine whether this prima Jade case was overcome or aeotraliaed by the oth er evidence in tbe case. 1 think it was. Tbs more 1 have examined and considered the case, the stron ger has been my conviction that these disputed mortgages are not the acts and deeds of Mrs. A. L Pawley, n r is anyone ot tDem so established. Tbe reasons assigned by tbe referee are quite sufficient to justify this conclusion, and many others might be assigned They will occur to any unbiased miud upon reading the testimony and considering the circnmatauces in tbe light ot the character establish- ed for tbe principal actors iu this most unhappy series ot trausac- tious. The testimouy a* to hand writing aud the comparison of sig- nainrea have not served to strength en the case of the mortgages, the unfortunate victims oi misplaced confidence, 1 cm come to oo oth- er conclusion than that reao'ied, that the mortgage* claimed by the plaintiffs, by Wagenei 4 Go., by A. Sydney Smith 4 Sou, aud by Stern Co., were uot executed by Mrs. A. L. Pawley. The first exception is therefore overruled. The second exception is well tak en. The interest of B. Cash Paw ley in the mortgaged premises should be adjudged to the credi tors and subjected to their demands, upon pro|>er equitable principles. The exception claims that it is sub ject to the mortgages, audit may be intended tbat the mortgages are to take the same according to their several priorities. This question was not argued ou circuit, at lea-t, in that aspect of it, ai.d it will uot now be determiu d whether the mortgagees are to share in it equal ly or according to the priority of the liens the mortgagees were sap- posed to have. The probability is, that the division will be pro rata, but it is not intended to conclude the patties should they wish to make the question indicated. The matter has not been aigned, and it may be tbat those who were first in point ot time will be first paid. 1 cannot see any application of the doctrine of estoppel as against tbe he r* of Mrs. A. L. Pawley, oth er than B. Cash Pawley, render the circumstaqces of this case. Before Mrs. A. L. Pawley knew anything of the frauds contemplated by Cash Pawley, they bad ail been accom plished, and to speHk would not have prevented their consuiuatiou. Tbe same remark will apply b Mrs. McClenagban and Edward P. Pawley. Moreover they, as heirs, bad no present interest iu the land aud were uot legally bound to speak. Genoble vs. West, 23, S. C. 154. This disposes of the third excep tion. Tbe fourth has beeu already considered. No exceptions have been taken to the decisions of the referee in re gard to the mortgage of tbe defend ant W. C. Coker, there being no contest as to that It is ordered, adjudged and de creed, that the report of tbe ref eree bearing date tbe 8th day of October, 1887, be ccntirnied in all res|iects except aa herein modified. That the defendant W. O. Coker, have jndgment of foreclosure of bis mortgage on tbe said laud* for tbe amount ascertained to be due to him thereon by tbs report of tbe referee, and that he be allowed the snm of ten percent, on said amount as counsel fee under said mortgage, as fonnd by the report to be pro per, and tbat counsel have leave to apply tor snob order of sale of the said premises as may be desired for tbe satisfaction of said mortgage debt and fees. That the portion of B. Cash Paw ley in said land as heir at law of Mrs. A. L. Pawley, bis mother, after aatisfying tbe mortgage debt in fa vor of the said W C. foker as aforesaid, be subfected to tbe pay ment of the debts contracted on the faith of the supposed mortgages in favor of the'plaintiffs, A. J. Salinas dk Son, and the defendants A. Syd ney Smith k Son, F W. Wagner 4 Co., and L. Stern A Co., in such manner and upon such principles as may hereafer be determined, after eonnsel shall have been heard tn regard to the manner in which tbe same shall be realised and ap plied or distributed. That the costs of these proceed ings be paid by tbe plaintiff* aud the defendants A. Sydney Smith A Son, F. W. Wagner A Co., and Stern A Co., np to the filing ot this decree, in proportion to tbeamouot of their several demands under tbe supposed mortgages, herein declar ed nail and void. Tbat any party to tbe cansebave leave to apply at tbe foot of this decree for all orders necessary or ptoper to carry tbe tame into effect Notice. All person* Having claims again*! tbe eetat* of B C. Baker, Sesessed, will pre sent lb* Mm* properly attested, sad all indebud will moke payment to ADELINE A. BAKER, Ada's. Feb. 21st 1888,—At. Notice. Having purebased the stock of goods of our father, Mr. S A. Woods. Sr., we will con tinue the business in all its branches, at his old stand, un der the firm name of Woods & Woods, and will endeavor to merit the liberal patronage ex tended to him by a generous public. s, a. Woods, C. R. WOODS. Nov. 21, 1887. & Mans’: Palace Par. At the old stnnd en PJCARLE STREET. Mnnne hoe juet returned from tbe North, where be was appointed epeeial agent tor THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE’S PRIVATE STOCK PURE RYE WHISKEY, A* in* nbrnnd ae hae ever bees brought to Darlington. He i* nit* agent for REDMOND’S CORN WHISKEY. Sep 29, ’87. ly. mm\ TO LOAN! —THE— SCOTTISH LAND MORTGAGE COMPANIES Will make loans on Cotton Planta tions in sums ranging from tl,000 to 12,000. Apply to E. KEITH DARGAN. Feb. 9, ’88—2t NEW Grocery Store. The nttention of the public la called to fact that I bnve ranted that desi rabje stand on tbe Publio Square occupied unit I recently by A Hausmaon, where I am pre pared to supply tbe trade with a eboie* line of Groeeriee and Liquors. Give me n call. HENRY HENNIG. Dee 29. '87. LAW CARDS i. t. WABD. I. O. WOOD* WARD A WOODS. Attorneys It OouBiolors it Law, DARLING TON, 8. C. Wil praetie* is oil State and Federal Court a.I 4. B. BBTTLE*. C. t. BBTTLBt Nettles & Nettles, Attorneys It Cousolors at Law, Darlington €. H., 8. C. • ■* Will practice in.all tbe State and Federal Courts. Prompt personal attention given to collection of claims. Sep. 2, ’86 ly. B. W. BOTD, OBO. W. BBOWB BOYD & BROWN- attorneys and Counselors at Law Office in rear of Dar ingtou Nation al Bank. DARLINGTON C. B., h C. PROMPT PERSONAL ATTENTION TO ALL BUSINESS. Feb. t, *87—ly. C. T. VAftGAK Attorney at Law and Tried Justice. Practices in the United Stolen Court ond in tbo Uh aud &ib eiro-'ite Prompt alien • lion to ol bueiooso entrusted t* him. Ofloo in Ezobango Btroot, next tbe 4 DAB- LUOTOB NBWO Ofloo. The Gash Company. OANSON & BROOM. -A.E.E HIJL'VIIfcTQ- aM LIVELY EARLY We stand by unr ni-ttto, under-boy aud under*. 11, ami stake onr t biincc* on liie merit of our values, which ate ami always will be the veiy la-st. Our wonderful nucces* for the p.ist »ix month* induces ns to put forth renewed effort* to still further extend and augment onr now rapidly iueiea-ing business. We plead not for patronage on account of Friendship, nor solicit ens oul tinder the worthless oxcu*c ot favor, but with oni money to back us and our shelves and counter* jammed ,and loaded «ith unequalled bar gains, we are determine*! to sweep tbe ti« Id. nsriEw yoirik: Our Senior Partner writes that he has fowarded some Land*lide* Pulse quickening bargains that will *how the cash buyer the differenco between our cash plan and tbe credit system, the distinction between onr 10 per cent, profit and the old regulai 50 ami 75 per cent. NOTICE A FEW MINOS SPECIMENS. A Ladies State Prison made *hoe worth 81.50 for $1.20. A Gents $2.00 Gaiter or Lace Shoe for $1.50. All other grade* equally as cheap a 12| White Contiterpsse for $1.10, cheap at 1.50. And from Sheriff’s Sale a big line of men’* and youth’s hat* and pnuta at about one h.dt their actual worth. LOOK FOR OUR In a few weeks Enouncing the arrival of our new Spring and SUMMER NOVELTIES, * 7 Very Respectfnil GANSON & BROOM. Valuable Information! GOOD NEWS FOR ALL ! All Preparation for an Immense Fall and Winter Trade At the Store of J, COMB OF PEARLE STREET - A3STID - 9 A large assortment in every department to keep pace with steadily increaeing trade. A complete stock of SHOES, CLOTHING, DRY GOODS, BOOTS and SHOES, ' HATS GENTS* FURNISHING GOODS, &c., &c., Surpassing that of any previous season in point of excellence and style. My goods always sold at a low price heretofore, are now within the reach of all, and the most fastidious can be satisfied. The stock of aLOTHUfTO- . Embraces a full line of MEN’S, YOUTHS’, BOYS’ and CHILDREN’S Drees"and business suits. XJUTST G-0033JS! This department consists of DRESS GOODS, ALPACCAS, SILKS, SATINS, VELVETS, TRIMMINGS And everything to be found in a first-class establishment of this kind. The BOOT AJ2TID SHOE BEBA.BTME1TT Contains styles to suit the wants and pockets oi all and aa to comfort and durability are unsurpassed. H T S To please the fancy of all classes of purchasers from the low crown ebeap article worn by tbe laborer to tbe ping hat ot the fashionable Dude. A ftill line of Groceries and Canned Goods. In fact my stock is eomple e in every particular and it will pay all to 1 au d examine it before purchasing «l*ewh**re. No troubU to »how ode. Remember tbe place ami the ouinc, J, ROSE3SFBEBO, S w Cornei Pearlo Street aud Public Square. September 15,1887. 9. . ...