Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-06-13

ting, adopted, signed, and promulgated by them
in their official capacity as the Board OF County
Commissioners for said county, at regular
meeting of said Board, on the llth day of April,
1873.
II. That thereafter, on the.....":.day of.....":,
1873, an action was commenced in the Circuit
Court for York county, by E. l.. Glenn and others,
certain of the tax payers Of said county, against
the said Commissioners, seeking to perpetually
enjon them from issuing the bonds of Y ork county
in payment of the said subscription, as provided
for in the resolutions aforesaid on the ground
that the said Commissioners had no right in law
thus to bind the said county; that the said cause
was heard in the said Court and the Court refus-
ed to grant the injunction, holding that the said
County Commissioners were in law the proper
authorities of the said county to make the said
subscription, and to issue bonds of the county
in payment thereof; that plaintiff appealed to
the Supreme Court Of South Carolina from the
Circuit decree aforesaid, and the appeal was dis
missed, and the remittitur sent down and filed in
the Circuit Court; and that subsequently, to-
wit: on the....":.day Of January, 1874, the bonds
were issued under the corporate seal of said coun-
ty and delivered to the Chester and Lenoir
! Narrow Gauge Railroad Company in exchange
for one thousand shares Of the capital stock Of
said Company, Of the par value OF one hundred
dollars each.
| III. That after the promulgation of the order
dismissing the said appeal, and the filing Of the
remittitur as aforesaid; and without any knowl-
eQSo or lQIOTInaCOn Ol any 1rauQ or lTroRularlLy
of any description whatsoever done or suffered to
be done in the matter of the obtaining or max
ing of said order-especially the fraud and irreg-
ularity charged in paragraph XII of the COM
and upon the Circuit decree; and without any
knowledge, or information sufficient to form
belief, that the people Of York county were op-
posed to said subscription, or that the County
ing of the people Of York county to submit
the determination of the proposed subscrip-'
ton to vote of the people, or that the Coun-
ty Commissions refused so to do (any furth-
ance-for reasons not within defendants know
ledge-of the said Commissioners with the re-
quest Of certain public meeting, held at York.
vile, on the..:...day Of April, 1873 that the ques
would be information of the matters charged or
that there was any collusion whatsoever between
the Chester and Lenoir Narrow Gague Railroad
Company, or its agents, and the said County
defrauded of and admitted exclusive right in
them to vote upon said subscription, that there
was any intention on the part of the Commission
ers themselves to defraud their constituents Of
.......of said bonds.
Nv. That the defendant is, in every sense, an in
nocent purchaser and holder of bonds in posses
Soos & snd ess m aa
mmunities accorded to that class, especially the
right peaceablyt to use and dispose Of said bonds
as be may think proper.
V. That under the act of the General Assembly
of this State. entitled "An Act to authorize the
levy of a special tax in York and Chester counties
in aid Of the Chester and Lenoir Narrow Gague
Railroad Company" &c, approved March 5,
1875 it is provided that the said Act shall remain
in force till all the said bonds have been retired
and, that notwithstanding the said provision, the
said act was, on the..:.....day of....-".....l878,
suspended by the Legislature for the period of
one year.
ted, promulgated issued or done by the State
of South Carolina, or by any of her constituted
authorities legislative or judicial
seeking to set aside, modify or change said bonds
or decisions, does and would impair the obliga-
tion of contract, and Is and would be in conflict
with the constitution Of the United States.
VII. Further answering defendant says that
| the County Commissioners were the proper au-
thorities to make the subscription aforesaid, and
| TO issue the bonds aforesaid in payment thereof,
within the meaning of the act Of the General As
semby of this State referred to in paragraph II of
the complaint .-.
VIII. Defendant denies knowledge, or infor-
nation sufficient tn form belief, Of any Of the
| allegations Of complaint inconsistent with this
answer, and specifically denies the right plain
tiff, or Of the persons named as relators, to de-
mand any judgment against defendants, grow
| ing out Of defendants possession and ownership
of any of the said bonds
Wherefore defendant demands judgment that
the complaint herein be as to him dismissed with
costs.
wITHERsPooN & SPENCER,
| Defendants Attorneys
Mr.. Simonton then read the following mem.
oranda of agreement between counsel as to
the questions of law to be heard and argued
in the hearing before the Court:
Question of law-Are the bonds valid? ..i
lit should appear to the Judge that to the
question of validity of these bonds it is essential
to discover whether the people of York county
nn rnl he ,I>onr rrftn honr
quiesced therein stated in the answer:
| Or, if he shall come to the conclusion that the
| bonds would be invalid, but for the decision in
case of Glenn VS.. the County Commissioners
Then he shall make such order as may be prop
er to try the issues of fact involved in these two
matters.
The above to be without prejudice to the position
of the defendants named in section of the COM
plant represented by Messrs. Witherspoon &
Spencer, that they are bona fde purchasers before
| maturity without notice.
| The case, with thesetwo exceptions, to be heard
at this term on the pleadings, the agreement with
and the record in case of Glenn vs. County Com
missioners. LOUIS LECONTE,
PATTERSON & GASTON,
Plaintiffs Attorneys.
sIMcNToN & BARKER,
JAMES F. HART,
WITHERSPOON Il SPENCER,
J. & J. HEMPHILL,
Defendants Attorneys.
These points having been agreed to, and no
other matters being presented, the argument
was commenced by Mr. CASTOR, of Patterson
& CASTOR, who opened for relators. we.
Mr.. Hart, counsel for Railroad Company,
replied, after which Court adjourned until
Friday, 10 o'clock, A. M. ...
FRIDAY MORNING. ..... D..
On the convening of the Court, Mr.. Simon
ton, representing Guarantors to the Roane
Iron Company, made his argument, and was
followed by Mr.. Spencer, representing iuno-
cent purchasers of bonds. Mr.. LeConte
closed the argument
The argument ofthe learned and able coun-
sci on either side necessarily covered the same
ground as in the former hearing before Judge
Hudson, full synopsis of which we gave in
our report of those proceedings, and deem it
unnecessary to reproduce the same line of
argument, only remarking that the counsel
were probably more elaborate and exhaustive
than at the first hearing.
At the conclusion of the argument, bis
Honor reserved his decision, taking the pa.
pers.
Mr.. Spencer moved the Court for an order
dismissipg the complaint, with costs, as to
R. E. Guthrie and L. M. Grist alleged
holders of bonds, who aver that they do not
own any bonds of the county in aid of the