The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1848-01-27

n =
Il lie pailnei through y hich lie oaen hsd
hInktn.
This ss N Pendrfsrasi unexpected ies-
Iimnls. and he mri i aiih liasls slrnial.
-lisrn you nran. = sid IN snagsslrair.
Wiih s.asre slrTnntss. 80 change The vii.
hers 9ili pu1ass :"
.Dh. ns- -. nog thai. bat he must he
mistaken"
bul ] have sWor sissi saM i. = said
the witness, with : Eusl'r.l face, and iinn
soirr.
Il pair Il oxen rould not ger through
fener IL shiril snls one rail was on'."
urged pendrrgr,s1. turning 10 Inc masis-
liaIe.
Bot 10 leave small opening in fence
is only 10 induce an animal "a make lar
gel one, esprrially il Nilhin The enclosure
there j. anyIhing 70 tempt h. 7PPeiilr.
Vi mans fences are nnl whole, Nho il
to hlamr hut himself! II three rails .re
snnugh iar fence. Why do We have tire.
and sometimes sesenl Or. why do we
hare isnees a. All Z" said PeieIk.
p
The mag:slrsIs did nui Sc tie rase -
clear now. hy no meaQs. IN taes III ieii
puzzled by Il. There had been lrrspsss,
bat WHO was nns, 10 blame for II. was
hard 10 tell Ii two or lhiee rails had
hstR ani 0f the itnce. or none II al, The
case would have been clear enough for RI
lher defendant or plainiili. Bot lie one
rail puzzled him. An OK could not get
through fence with only one rail oai,
bui il the fence had hesn whole, there
would have been M irespass. Prnlrr.
grasi was 10 blame lnr moi keeping his
iencr IN order. and Peters was 10 blame
for letting his oxen run lonse. Alter TAX
ing dry To consider about the matter, he
ranrfud-sl-ss-ala@Ini1Ss ihe case ~ regnir,
ing Peters y pay COSTS; ihns dividing the
matter between the tw" liIigsnts--ihe one
suffering The lnss Of The corn, and the 9TH
sr brsring the cosl Of proseculion.
OF course his decision satisfied neither
parry. There was an apresl taken and
security given for costs. From kind and
obiiging neighhors. the two men nav be-
came hilier enemies, and determined to do
each other as much injury as was posi-
BILE. A retaining fee Of 400 was paid by
each, 10 secure The services &c lawyer.
by whum each was assured that his case
was perfectly clear. aud that the cour,
would decide in his favor without mo-.
ment's hesitation.
Press the maiter through with the
least possible delay" said srndergrasi 10
his legal representative.
+" Ynu NAV trust me for that" replied
the lawyer. with bland smile.
Let there be no unnecessary delay I;
wish The case tried a, lac FIST term
Peters said Ia his lawyer, and received in
reply, that all should he as he desired.
Il was nearly THREE months before the
trial could come on. But, somehow or
another il was put of inr another Term.
Their respective lawyers stated 10 them
the reason plainly enough in legal phrase.
hut The meaning of what they SAID was
ABOUT as apprehensihle 10 them as Greek.
One thing, however, was clearly UNDER
stood. and that was, the demand al $40
from each for costs that had TO he paid,
in order to get the suit continued.
. Meanwhile the heligercns showed ,hrir
teeth TO each other whenever they hap
pened 10 meet.
1t was G year before the ease came fair
~ to trial, and then it was .hrnwn out,
and earh party required To pay his own
costs, the Judge severely rrprmandIng
both complainant and defendant Tor ever
suffering matter in which both had a
share OF blame. and which nugh, 10 have
been seuled smicahIy in Ave minutes, 10
come into court. The cost to each, in
GLIDING lawyers fees, was jus, 500.
This result by no means improved the
state of feelings that had lnl whole year
existed between the parties. Ppnd-rgrast
had lost as much as his whole field Of corn
would yield, and Peters more than his
woke of oxen was worth. Both were
lreued, angry. and unhappy, and made
their families extremely uncomfortable.
A brief calm succeeded to tins strife Of
passion, and then there was war again.
Peters commenced suit against Pender-
grasl IN recover the :sl00 costs and fees
e had been compelled to pay. On this
tial he proved that the son of Pendergra~t.
Who had been sent by his father to his
Vhouse on an errand. after dark on the
same night the oxen DESTROYED the corn
, had, in leaving hIs premises, left the gate
l open, through which his oxen lad made
their way out upon the public road, after
5 wards through Prndergrasts broken fence
e nlo his corn-held. The witness who
n proved this was explicit in his testimony
Il and no rross-questioning of the defendant
counsel could confuse him or cause hin
n 10 waver in the least from his first dis
d unctlv given evidence. All efforts 10 in
). validate this unexpected testimony wer,
II in vain. Ii had 10 be admiued.
o Peters gained the case after a year q
= disturbing and Improbable lillgatIon.-
e Bat renLergrast appealed. Another yea
.. of susprnSp, and The higher court confirm