The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1875-11-17
AN INTERESTING CASE.

AN INTERESTING CASE.
The following extract is made from
the GrccnriNe Nr,0s of last Saturday.
The attorneys engaged in the case were
NIessrs. Earle, and Sullivan and Stokes
for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Cothran &
Wells, and Perry, for the defendant.
The case was one Of great interest, as
we'll on account of the principles, as the
amount involved.
1t will be gratifying to our people to
know that result SO agreeable to the
feelings Of the community iu which it
was attained, was due in great part to
the efforts Of our townsman, Colonel
Cothran, who, although with one en-
ception the youngest member of the
4Abbeville Bar, is acting we'll his part to
maintain the exalted reputation which
this Bar has deservedly enjoyed in the
State for three-quarters of century.
We publish below a synopsis of Il case
tried by jury, November 10th, which in
wolves legal principles of deep interest to
our people at this time.
The case was claborately argued: and we
believe righteous verdict was rendered
Tax sales are at best a hardship. 1t
means oppressive taxation. Nothing less.
No sane man will allow his land to be sold
for taxes at ruinous sacrifice if he can
help it: and therefore we assume, as the
common law does, that a sale for taxes is
prima face, a wrong:
The case of James NJ. Sullivan VS.. Mary
w. Ware, which has excited more than
usual interest in the community, was tried
in the Court of Common Pleas how being
held here, on Wednesday last.
1t appeared from the pleading and the ev-
idence, that on ihe Sd, of June, 1872, the
plaintiff bought at the sale Of delinquent
bands then made by the Treasurer Of this
county, all of the Oakland plantation of
the defendant, excepting ten acres, for the
sum of two hundred and seventy-nine del
lars. Tho plantation contained about $500
acres, and was worth, at the time, about
$4,000.
On the 7th day of June the County Audit
or made and delivered to the plaintiff a
warranty deed of conveyance. aud this ac-
ton was brought to recover the possession
OF the said promises.
The plaintiff Offered the deed in evidence
and relied upon it as prina lacic evidence
of good title.
The defendant insisted and proved upon
the trial that the only taxes m Arrears upon
the place, were those which were due and
payable on the 18th day of January then
last past on which day, the time for pay
ing without any penalty expired; and ac-
knowlcdged liability to pay such penalties
as were increased by reason Of failure to
pay the said taxes.
These were the faxes laid under the
A a,f Anf nf 4 k-us
made to show that there were arrears of
taxes due for the preceding year, but in
this the plaintiff failed.
The defendant showed that on the third
day Of September, 1872. and within ninety
days from The date of the Auditors deed 10
plaintiff, that having prCcured the Auditor
ceI iiticate Of the amount OF taxes. penalty
and. costs due, she rendered to the Treasurer
in the presence Of a witness the exact
amount so certified to he due, which the
Treasurer declined to receive, but gave to
her his certificate showing that such tender
had been made and was refused
These papers were both exhibited on the
z trial and was ciusCd.
The real issue in the case was whether or
not, under the 4th section of the act of 1872,
under which the plaintiff claimed that the
land was sold, the defendant had the right
to redeem as she had attempted to do.
denied by the plaintiff, and involved direct
ly the consi iucion Of the act of 1858, and the
several acts amendatOry thereof, including
the act of March l., 1872.
It was insisted by the defendant that one
of the provisions of the act of 1868. the
main, act, and the matriN. so to speak, OF
the others, allowed TO delinquent tax payers.
whose lands should be sold on the second
Z Tuesday of March Of each and every year,
af,,,r ,,-hs s.1, fn
lands after sale made, and that on the tif-
Steenth day of January, 1872, when the time
for payment Of taxes without penalty eX-
pired, that she had two years after sale with
In which to redeem-that the act of March
II, 1872. was ratified and approved (bv a
strange coincidcnce) on the very day that
her lands should have been by law sold
that they were not advertised or exposed TO
sale on that day, but were afterwards sold
on the first Tuesday Of June, day other
than that upon winch by law they should
have been sold, that TOO, without the right
of redemption. That the act OF March I2,
1872, never was intended to fake away
rights already vested aud privileges already
conferred on the citizen. and that to do so
would be subvcrsive OF principles TOO So
cred and fundamental to be disturbed and
would be unconstitutional null and void.
The presiding judges charge, was short
ana 10 Gle Eolilt, ailti gave loltH iio uhSoi
tain SOUND. 1t was in substance, that
whilst there m ght seem to be some inron-
sistencv in the several acts referred TO- that
they could be easily rcconcjled-lhat the
act of March 1872. was temporary meas
ure to gather up and sell for taxes. sands
which had not paid the taxes of previous
years. that these burdens should he equally
borne by all citizens, and that the at of
1872, was passed TO effect this, and that it
fully recognises The existence Of the l'.e-
vious acts, and in proof of this, cites the
1st section Of the act, which amends tie act
of 1853. by abridging the time Of redemp-
ton from two years to ninety days; that If
the jury found that the taxes for which the
land was sold, were those laid under the
assessment act of 1871, and those only, that
their verdict should be for the Defendant
that otherwise, their verdict should be for
the Plaintiff. The jury retired, and in a few
minutess brought in verict for the De-
tendant.
LAT recent meeting of the citizens OF
Bordeaux Township various names were
put in nomination as candidates to be re.
commended to the Governor for the vacant
nest of Trial JuStire and Mr. Lewis Har-