The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-08-24

a
nsu nature demanding qualifications OF peculiar
cnaraStsr. ior the performance ofwhIch Nc.
OanpoeE was particularly fitted
(4.) Fourth. That the services were ON
portune. and Of great value 10 John Fraser&
TO-, oy reason ofthe fact that they thereby
gained what, at the time, was Of greatim.
portance to them, the Immediate posse ssIOn
and control OF their properly, which, if de-
ferred TO later period, might have subjected
IL to the payment of government claims to an
amount equal to, or even greater, thanit
value. l,--s-..s.sss
(5.) Filth. That the compensation for? thIs.
service was due and payabls upon the restora-
tion OF the property 10 November, 1885, and Z
was worth at that date, according 10 The
proof, from i've 10y to ten (1o) per CENT OF the
Value OF the properly.
These iacls, according to the testimony pre-
sented in The case, and to which no reburtng
testimony was offered, would, In our view,
nave Justified recognition of the ~ per cent.
as Claimed by Mr.. Campbell. E,T5
But there was something beyond this which
demanded our consideration. Mt. Campbell,
while insisting that his services In this mat
ter 1oeTe ao0Tth the larger compensation claim
ed, did siguiiy his willingness TO accept one
half OF the lowest Is per cent. and one.third
The average proof OF value, as cash, on 30fh
November, 1865, and the; mediatofs ieel.i,has
they are jastined IN reducing hia claim, on
The ground that he was, competent 10 decide
for himself the amount Of Compensation he
was willing to recelve.9 -: 49,. .,siel ss5sst
Second. And now We come to the second
point presented for our consideration. Suit
was brought by the various firms OF John
Fraser d Co. against Mr.; Campbell, which. TOR
various reasons that appear 70 be. technicator
professional, and not familiar To- us, have bsen
divided Into three.
We have thought we could best discharges
our duties to all concerned by dealing with
them as If they had never been separated, and
were all embraced In q single suit aud we
would add, In this connection, that our con-
struction OF the powers with which We were
Invested by The terms Of The articles OF SUBJ
mission OF all matters of differencrs between.
the parties In litigation, required that we =
saould consider together all the nlatiers In
controversy, resortIug 10 separation only 10
the interests of lair and equitable .aoj .
ment. -. -
labor aud sollcitude to the details and Psricu-
lars of the various transactions covered by
these suits, because, as IL seems 70 US, the per
sonal Irritation, crimination and scriMony OBJ
ssrvable 10 the pleadiUks have chiefly arisen
from this eourcp. The testimony as to the,
claims and counter claims has been most carfi-
fully examined and scrntin'zed, and We have
epdeavor.d 10 arrive at such conclusion as
10 all matters In dispute. as would resuir In I
exact and impartial justice to all The parties
concerned, and would leave us nothing 10 re-
prrt In any future review OF these .proceedings.
Tn. snits of John Fraser d Co. are: for
money ut different times, or 10 speak more
properly, from time to lime paid OF advanced
TO Mr. Campbell for various purposes, such as
nurehass OF railroad stock, onijolnr aceonnt,
for expenses 10 Washington In 1855. DO, i&e.s
An additional claim, not sued Sn, was aLso
brought forward, Uf about twelve hundred
dollars, Tor office rent, and an itam u nifty:
dollars, payment Of which Mr.. CampDrltid idlaJ
not resist; and this claim is therefore dAotoed.
Against thess suits Mr. CamPoelL -
defence, set up coun'er claims Tor gene-
raj and appciai services different from,
aud entirely independ mt OF, the special
service sued for BY him; and In addt.;
tion to this. claims for money OF his, IN pos
session uf John Fraser j. Co., for money oot-
rowed by him Tor their land advantage, :opi
his liability, and 30 tortn, exceeding lsrkely IN
amount what was sued for BY John Fraser d
In reference to these claims and counter,
claims, ir was indispensable for q clear UNDER
standing OF them In the furtherance OF Justice,
that testimony should BIZ taken as To the rem
dltlon of the services CHARGED fur, aB well aa
to their value. They Were matters that could
only be determined on proof, the more espe-
claly as those who were called upon TO aolu-.
dicate them we're incompetent TO decide
from their own knowledge or experience In
such affairs. +.5
The services were professional, and they
could only be established ootn as to thelrim-
pOrlance and the amount OF compensation, by
those who, from familiarity with such subjects,
we're alone competent TO arrive at proper con-
cusions In relation to them.
In dealing with thus portion 'ot the differ
ences between the parties, we called TO- our
aid the best OF talent, Integrity and impar-
t,ality, that our judgment suggested, aud Our
ions no uc ION. hpS6n GnHf
m0ny. .,iag, = :.iiasi .,.le.
In relation to the counter-clalms OF Mr.
Campb founded upon The money OF bis In
possession OF John Fraser d Co., and money
borrowed for their use and advantage, we
were again compelled TO depend enurely on
the proof adduced. There was noining 10 tae
circumstances surrounding these transaotlona
that could, in our view, justify any opinion
independent OF testimony In regard 70 them,i
at the lime of their occurrence; and here, aH
before. we had to depend upon the eVidtnc6s
of those who were parties fully cognizsnt OF
all the details accompanying the negotiations
that founded the basis OF these Claims, ano
upon whose statement In relation TO th1m'ooh
the parties to this controversy had expressed
their willingness to rely. -. Gisi.i. 81.
as we have before stated, these claims and
counter.clalms have been carefully ana closely
scrutInized, for the two-fold purpose OF doing
equal and exact justice In the ascertainmenG'
OF amounts due upon tnem, AND Iof tqe rceto.
ration, II possible, Of the personal relations o!
the parties. As 10 the latter, we have found
no sufficient cause for permanent damaging
charges, or suspicious on either, slde. Ino
Irritation and asprrity 80 common 10 olner-
ences about money as 10 be almost naturat,
have produced in this case the usual conee-
oleoces but with the fnal settlement OF tRoee
differences We think that all irritation snouto
be obliteraled.
Uo
npon comforting with the parties ss 70 tneir
personal relations, they very promptly acqul::..
esced in our views, and That, taerefores Rere
will remain, out OF past differences, no opsla-
Gle to their dealing with each other as III TINS
controversy had never existed.
As before slated, We have consldereo, as
one, all the questions submitted 10 US ana
thereupon We find that there was dne 70 Ml.
Campbsll on The 30Lh day OF November last,
Hnon the Iour suits, alter charging him with
the sppca items not sued for, tne sum OF
sft1.two thousand nine hundred and thirty
two ls-l00 dollars.
Adger, John E. Carew, by Virtue and authority
of Inc terms of submission unto us, do hereby
..adIust and determine the matters OF dtnrr-
sncr," and do hereby 'sdispose Of the said !our
suitsa auoye recited between the ead parties,
and we award that there Is due from aud That
the said George a. Trenholm, Theodore ".
Wagner, James.T. Welsman and William y.
Trenholm do pay unto the said James -.
CsmpSel the sum OF iTty-Lwo thousand nine
hundred and thirty two dollars and eigntsen
cents, (s52 s32 18.) with interest Thereon iroM
the Both day of November, 1871. at tne rate "
L