Nevada County picayune., 1890-08-28
A SCATHING DECISION.
Opinion of Supreme Court in C.
 M. Norwood Case.
From the Hope Gazette.

.-I From the Hope Gazette.
 MT C. (. Iamby, the Demo cratic candidate for State Senator and (. NJ. Norwood, his opponent, have completed their canvass in Nevada county, and from now until after the election will look after their respective interests in Hampstead county, and may possibly make some speeches.
 MT. c. NJ. Norwood is known to the people of this county as an office seeker and as a man who will make any kind of political lie he can, re- gardlcss of his ability at all times to sustain his positions. His contest for the office of Governor is an illus tratiOn of the mans love of bun eombc. He has previously repre- senlcd this district as State Senator but if to any special advantage to anyone except himself we have not heard of it. Though well known as q political agitator, Mir. Norwood as a citizen Is not so well known in Hampstead as in Nevada.
 There are numerous reasons of Il 1 political nature why C. NJ. Norwood should not represent this district in the State Senate, and in addition to these, the law-abiding, taX-paying citizens do not desire as their repre- sentative a man whose business con duct is branded by the Supreme Court of our State as wearing the badge of fraud. =
 The following is the opinion re- corded in lhc Fiftieth Arkansas Re- port, by the late Associate Justice Smith:
 The bill alleged that the plain tiffs, briggs X Co.,. had recovered l judgment against Norwood. as q member of the firm of Nelson X Co. for more than Sl200, and had taken out execution thereon, which was re- turned unsatislcd; that Norwood had bought a lot in the town of Pres colt, and for the purpose of cheating and hindering his creditors, had caused the deed to be made to his wife. The prayer was for the sub jection of the property to the satis- faction of the plaintiffs debt
 The defendants filed a joint an- swer, in which they denied any fraud in the transaction, and averrcd that the lot was purchased and paid for with the wifc's own money. The bill was dismissed at the hearing.
 The testimony developed these facts; Norwood was a country phys ician with limited practice and ut terly without means, until, in the year 1869, he married a widow, who had an interest in her deceased hus- bands estate. From this source he received fifteen hundred dollars. He invested eight hundred dollars in a farm, taking the title in his own name, and lent such part of the re- mainder as was not consumed in the support of the family, upon interest. He seems to have enjoyed a reason able share of prosperity, cultivatlng his farm and practicing his profes sion, until the year 1882, when he removed to Prescott, the county seat of his county. He was then the owner of another small farm, in ad- dition to the one previously men ton. was free from debt, and had one thousand dollars or more due to him in notes and accounts. He was regarded by his ncighboro as a man in easy circumstances About this tune he was induced to sign a bond of S5 ,OOO; and the condition Of the bond not having been performed, he and two others of the surctics made their joint note for sl6Oo in adjust mcnt of their Inability, This note had not bccnpaid down to the taking of the proofs in this cause and an ac ton was pending in the courts upoI lit. In the course of the compIlc2 uon5 growing oui or thls bond ah' as soon as it was asccrlaiued that tl' surcties were in for loss, Norwoo' made suspicious transfer of th' smaller of his two farms and ot lN bo0I, accounts to a friend in Pres colt. In the fall of 1882 he also sol' the other farm, and about the first O October in that year was admitted a a partner in the mercantile firm O Nelson & Co,
 ,On November l8, 1889, he Dc came surety on the bond of the post