The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-05-22
The Summert0n Trial No a Trial.

article appearing IN the last issue OF
the TINES, under the caption of s'The
Summerton Trial. contained some
inaccurate statements, for the correc-
ton of which I ask the use Of your
columns; so much of the article re-
ferred to as I propose to notice, is as
follows:
On Saturday, the 18th of May, the case,
IS Rush Cole U.s. Julia Bradford. came up
for hearing, before Trial Justices Benbow
and Mahorey, in the academy building.
Mr. Rhame appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr.. Galluchat for the defendant, the old
colored woman above named, who has oc-
/; ;-7es;iipis5 eT pis55 the house over twenty years.
The case excited considerable interest and
attracted quite a crow1-TMenty' four free
holders were summoned to appear as55i'lssors rs ::
But, when the first name was called in the
effort to empanel this jury, Mr.. Galluchat
interposed objection to the trial proceed
ing, in consequence Of having been brought
under the wrong statute; the case presented
being for 'torcible entry and de-
detainer," when it should have been
for tenant holding over" After a
somewhat prolonged discussion between
justices, and counsel for plaintiff. the OBJ
lection was sustained and proceedings dis
missed, which finale sent the old woman on
her way rejoicing.
The statement in the first para
graph of the article above quoted,
that the defendant was an old woman
who had occupied "the house" for
over twenty years, is obscure; but if
the words, the house, therein contain
ed, referred to the premises, the pos
session of which Mr.. S. r. Cole claim
ed, then; in the first place, the state
ment is not true, and your informant
on that p0iaa5s~was p0ia5 egsregiously mis-
taken; in the second place, I submit
that, as no testimony supporting the
statement referred to, was adduced
on the occasion, it should not have
found a place il any account of the
proceedings intended to be reported
in your article, as such statement was
calculated to prejudice future pro-
ceedings in the same matter, unfavor-
ably to Mr.. Cole.
Until I saw your article, I was not
aware that the proceeding which you
have incorrectly termed a ''trial, ex-
cited so much interest as is claimed
in said article, and I failed to see the
'crowd" therein referred to: beyond
the eighteen free-holders, (not 'twenty-
four" as you have stately, I do not
think there were more than four or
five arhite persons present; there We're
present, perhaps, ten or dozen COL
ored persons, among whom were the
relations Of Judy Bradford; these
composed the "quite crowd" men
toned in your article, and l think,
that, unwittiugly you have magnifed
the Importance of the, so-called, trial.
There was nothing to distinguish
this proceeding from others OF the
same kind, so as to lift it into the i'm
portance suggested in your account
of it.
When the name of a proposed jury
man was called, Mr. Galluchat, repre-
senting Judy Bradford, notified the
Trial Justices that he objected to the
proceedings, and on being asked to
State the grounds of his objection, he
said: That there had been, in his
opinion, mistake in bringing the
proceeding under section 1917 of
General Statutes; that to his mind,
they should have been brought under
section 1919 of said Statutes. HAY
ing been retained by the relator, Mr.
S. R. Cole, only few days before the
time appointed for the hearing OF his
application for writ of restitution OF
the premises rented from him by
Judy Bradford, had not seen any OF
the papers issued in the cause, and
after the objection interposed, | ask
ed to be allowed to examine such pa
pers, and upon an inspection of the
summons, discovered that it contained
an inalvertent statement-presuma-
bly, clerical error-which under a
condition of facts different from
those which the relator expected to
prove, would have brought the pro-
ceeding within the provisions of the
sections of the General Statutes 229O
to 229S, embraced in chapter xc. there
of; considering the summons, there
fore defective and incurable, I there
upon, in behalf Of Mr. Cole, moved
the Trial Justices to dismiss the pro-
ceeding. There was no prolonged
discussion" between plaintiffs coun.
sci and the Trial Justices, but after a
short consultation between them
selves, there being no objection to
my motion, they granted it, and the
proceeding was dismissed on account
of the defect in the summons which
had brought to their attention. The
proceeding which the Trial Justices
Intended to institute under section
1917, was the correct one for the
purposes intended to be accomplish
ed, and only fell through on account
of the oversight have mentioned.
. There was no trial, on the occasion
referred to of any issue in the pro
ceeding, and the condition of all par
ties to it, remains in statu qeto.
Very respectfully yours,
JOSEPH F. RHANE.
Manning, S. G..
Nav 18th 1889.