Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-04-26
THE CONCORD OVERTURE.


The action of Bethel Presbytery touching
the question of man marrying his deceas-
ed wife's sister must be concurred in by
two-thirls of all the Presbyteries constitu-
ting the Southern General Assembly. Sew
eral Presbyteries have recently acted upon
this overture substantially the same as the
disposition of it by Bethel Presbytery in
session at this place last week-among them
the Orange Presbytery of North Carolina
and the Chesapeake and the Hanover Pres
byteries Of Virginia. The Wilmington, n.
c., Presbytery decided to maintain the
status quo. Alluding to this subject, the
Greensboro Patriot has the following para
graph, which may explain the origin of this
much vexed question:
Though the inhibition in the Confession of
Faith is treated by many as dead law,
when it's violation is brought to the atten-
tiOn of the Church court the discipline is en-
ago with Rev. Mr.. Mcqueen of the North
Carolina Synod. His case was appealed to
the General Assembly, and the decision OF
Presbytery was affirmed by that court of last
resort. Since that time the question OF
amending the Confession of Faith has been
agitated, and has resulted in submitting the
question to the different Presbyteries, in
the shape Of the Concord Overture"
THE ROCK HILL ROAD CASE.
Judge Kershaw has filed his decision in
the above case, entitled York County VS..
Sam'l NJ. Fewell, which is as follows:
This was an appeal from the decision OF
the Commissioners of York county, laying
out public road through the lands of the
defendant, and allowing compensation there
for, from which the defendant has appealed
The testimony has been taken and reported
to the Court, and the case was heard upon
the papers, testimony and argument OF
counsel.
The first ground of appeal is that the
compensation awarded was insufficient, and
against the evidence.
The law requires that just compensation
shall be made to the proprietor of lands
taken for public uses, and the preponder.
ance Of the testimony here, raises great
doubt as to whether the sum allowed by the
Commissioners is sufficient fully to com.
pensate the defendant. When there is SO
wide difference of opinion as is manifes-
ted in the testimony | think it proper to
refer that question to the determination OF
ant would have right to the verdict of a
jury before he could be deprived of his prop
erty; but at all events, the circumstances
here are such as to satisfy me of the pro-
priety of taking the course suggested.
AS to the objection to the width of the
road, the Act of 1925 upon which the appel
liant rests his objection, was repealedby the
General Statutes of 1872. And l find no
law now limiting the Commissioners in any
case, in laying off a highway, to one of less
than 80 feet width.
If highway leading to Camden in 1926
would reasonably require to be of that
width as may be inferred from the law
then enacted, a highway to Rock Hill, and
so near to that town as this, would reasona-
Dly require as much space, and apprehend
that in the absence of any statute law for
bidding it, the authority to lay off a high
way would include or imply the power to
give it reasonable width.
The propriety Of laying off the highway
and the necessity and propriety of the To-
ton of the Commissioners, that in the alb
sence of manifest unfairness or impropriety,
the Court would not interfere.
The circumstances here are not such, GER
tainly; as would make it proper to overturn
the decision of the special Commissioners
appointed by the County Commissioners.
It is ordered and adjudged that it be re-
ferred to jury at the next term of the
Court for York county upon the testimony
already taken herein to ascertain upon an
issue to be framed for that purpose, and SUBJ
mitted to them, the amount of compensa-
ton to be allowed the appellant, Samuel M.
Fewell, for damages, which will be sustain
ed by him by reason of the laying off and
establishment of the said highway, and that
in all other respects the action of the County
Commissioners and their determination of
the matter involved in this appeal be con-
firmed and made the decision Of this Court.
That upon the finding of the jury upon
the question of damages, the appellant have
Judgment for the amount by them to be de-
termined, upon the approval of the same by
the Judge presiding at the rendition of the
verdict, the costs Of this appeal to await the
determination of the issue herein directed.
J. B. kERSHAW,
April 20, 1883. Presiding Judge.