The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-20


Both witness and his wife were colored
and they ran farm. There was only one
room in the house while plaintiff boarded
with them, but they put curtain around
his bed for him. They all had their food
at the same table, and more than once
witness and plaintiff occupied the same
bed. On cross.eXamination witness said
plaintiff left the house of Crosby the
white man, when Mrs Crosby was con-
fined. but stayed aiterward. Several
white men had slept at witness's house
aud boarded with him at different times.
Witness thought the word clergyman
meant county or city boss. Plaintiff told
him his father was something OF that
kind. Plaintiff associated freely with a
man named Padgett, who had been in the
pententiary.
Counsel for the plaintiff objected to this
testimony, on the ground that Padgett
was brother OF the Democratic Repre-
sentative. Many good men had been in
penitentiary. The Court held that how.
ever that might be, one of the allegations
in the libel associating with convicted
criminals and the evidence must go for
what IL was worth.
The next evidence read was that OF G.
G. Stevens, lawyer and school teacher,
living near Walterboro, :. c.. while the
plaintiff lived there. Plaintiff was then
Republican, and taught negro school.
lie associated with uneducated negroes,
lived with them, slept with them and ate
at the same table with them. He had no
social standing as man Of respectability
His general character was bad.
Cane Sauls, another farmer in the same
neighborhood, was the next witness. lie
said plaintiff boarded with him some time.
Plaintiff often talked about his past life.
He said he was n native OF England, and
that his father was buried in Westminster
Abbey. Plaintiff said his real name was
Howard but that he took the name Of
Hewlett because OF dispute with his
father. Plaintiff had bad reputation in
the neighborhood for honesty and integ-
rity.
Tho deposition. Of w. A. GdGel was
next read. 1t dealt with plaintiffs con-
duct while in South Carolina, and ac-
cused him Of having rs siocated with me-
grocs and having attended caucus in
the interest OF colored candidate. The
| plaintiffs general reputation was bad as
TO honor, integrity and chastity, he having
ran away with another mans wife. Plain
tiff was n Republican at that time and
took a prominent part in the election.
| lie had no social standing whatever In the
nighborhood. The county was only par
italy settled, with but few railroads.
Witness himself had been in the South
Carolina Legislature three times, twice rs
q Republican and once rs a Democrat.
In cross examination, witness said people
IN ostly thought well OF the plaintiff except
while he was in office rs Trial Justice.
Jasper Rice's deposition vast read next.
II corroboratcd the evidence OF the last
witness. lie described the Republican
convention az Walierboro as n dirty crowd,
with only two white men in u. One OF
these was plaintiff, who, after the convcn-
tion, walked away arm IN arm with n
negro. Plaintiff was admitted TO the
bar and had n very few unimporiant cases.
His standing with the bar was not good.
He left the ncighbothood quite suddenly.
Witness WIS never intimate with plains,I,
but knew his reputation 10 be uncnviablo
and bad. In cross examination witness
did not deny that prominent Democrats
were In the habit OF attending the Rcpub-
lican conventions and trying to create
splits among tho negroes Witncss's
father was once Sheriff Of the county aud
made default while la Office, aud q brother
Of his was very dissolutc aud died in the
woods irornthe effects Of a spree.
The next evidence read was that OF Mary
Crosby. n colorcd woman, wife OF the wit.
ness Isaac Crosby The said plaintiff lived
IN their house and ate with them. They
were all friends together, and plaintiff
paid his board bill. Witness III not cor
robOnic her husband about the lock OF
hair which has caused 30 much scandal In
this ncighbofhoOd. On the other hand
she said that when plaintiff went away he
left nothing behind ~ a keepsake. When
plaintiff was living with them she had not
child. Several other white mon travel.
ing through the country had stopped with
them.
The deposition Of Carlos Tracy was next
put In, and vigorous light M 10 It's adj
missbility cnsucd between the attorneys.
Tmcy's uncle is the man who inst led 10
the charges being brought against DR..
Howard. lle wrote a letter 10 Judge
Lumpkin, Of Georgia, ten ycars ago charg.
ing plaintiff with a variety OF olIcnscs, and
this letter was sent 10 the defendants later
on and inserted in the libel. Tracy senior
having died Ia the interval. A great point
was made by the plaintiff OF the fact that
the letter was inserted In the libollous at
tack as Just received, the date bcing sup
| pfchscus ~ was hAtcupttu bN AUt utltuu'
ants 70 prove that the handwriting Of the
letter by young Tracy, aud also 10
Justify Il by that PERSONS evidence,
which was 10 the effect that the
allegations In II were truo with tie cxco'
ton Of ono which spoke Of universal exc.
Grafton, which was perhaps a ir,ile too
strong. Finally the court admitted q
portion Of the testimony Of Young Tracy,
which was very uncomplimcntary 10
plaintiff, and accused him OF being com.
PEELED TO leave Waltefboro In consequence
Of charges OF misconduct In Office brought
against him. Witness had seen plaintiff
walking along the street with colorcd
man, but excused him NJ tho time on the
ground that lac was English and did not
know any bciior.
Legal arguments were very lengthy In
regard TO this Witness testimony and
consumed thc time hll the rising ol tho
court Tomorrow oml aud documentary
testimony asto the South Carolina charges
will be resumed.
New Entcrprises Incorporated.
Special Dispatch tpThc Appeal