The Durham recorder. [volume] (Durham, N.C.) 1879-19??, 1891-12-09

oae OF the Thinnest Pretexts we Ey
ar Heard for Prosecution.

lHC lnuNn NehhIA VI 1851 ~ 49, |
State Board Of Agriculture VS.. the
Durham Fertilizer Company and s,
w. Parker, was called, before Judge
Winston, at Oxford, about noon Sat.
urday.
+. H. Busbee, r. H. Battle and
Hicks & Hicks appeared as counsel
for the plaintiff. w. W. Fuller and
w. A. Guthrie were the counsel 70
the defendants.
The first act in this judicial com,
edy was upon the issues to be sub.
mitted to the jury. After the an
nouncement Of readiness for trial, by
both sides, the counsel for the plain
tiff asked to be allowed to amend
their complaint This was opposed,
as it was regarded as a most unusual
judicial proceeding. Two complaints
had already been filed in this case,
The jury was drawn after much
care by both sides and the trial be-
gan.
Mr.. White, the depot agent, was
the first witness for the plaintiff. He
stated that he was the agent at the
time. A car load of fertilizer came
to Oxford from the fertilizer eompa
ny, late one evening. Farmers were
waiting to carry some of it home. a
train man opened the door and al
lowed them TO load and 80 honae,
He was not present when it was tax
en- out Ct the car. The remaining
bags were stored in Parker's ware.
house for safe keeping.
Just here it is necessary to state
that the case hinged on this point:
The complaint alleged that S. W.
Parker had possession Of the goods
on SALE as an agent of the Durham
Fertilizer Company, while the proof
was, the goods were not held by Par
ker for the Durham Fertilizer Com
pany at all; but he simply held them
as a storage warchouseman for J. +.
Cole, President of the County Ali
ance Of Granville County. At the
time the goods were seized they be
Ienged TO tie Farmers Alliance, that
bought them, and not TO Parker or
to the Fertilizer Company. And this
fact could easily have been ascer-
tanned before trial and savei all this
talk and litigation. 4 pretty how
dy-do! The Beard Of Agriculture,
established by law, to protect the
farmers, and yet the first and only
goods il seizes BELONGS To THE FARM
ERs THEMSELVES. a pretty guardian
that. who sues bis own ward ani
tries 10 eonfscate the very property
he was appointed 70 protect. Way
didn't the Department seize thegoods
belonging to those MANUFACTURERS
referred to b. the June Bulietini
George s. Terrell. the fertilizer in
spectOF, was the next witness. He
was in oxford some time in June.
Found some sixty bags Of fertilizer
in Parker's warehouse, untaegd, and
detained il. lie drew samples, seal
ed them and carried them TO Raj
eigh. He was there later and found
the tags on a pile Of shingles in tie
warehouse, and be thought that ar
Parker helped him TO tag the bags.
He made the affidavit that the goods
were on sale in Parker's warehouse.
On cross examination b. Sir. Fun
er be said, in regard to Parker help.
ing him 70 tagthcm that be Believed
he did. Then he said he believed be
didn't.
Mr.. Terrell. from the time you
put on the frs. tag on the fist bog
until you put On tie last tag On the
last Gntagged bag, was Mr. Pari;eT
presentE-
This question seemed 70 confuse
the witness no Little at fint, bu; be
finally answered:
mo"
Here the testimony stopped: and
Il was all that was introduced. There
was no evidence - connect Parker
with the transaction, and the Judge
suggested 10 the plaintiff that he did
not seem 70 be sustaining his fFst
issue.
Previous 70 this point, the counsel
for the plaintiff had, by intination.
shown that their case was weaken.
ing and their grounds untenable.
Here they weakened some more.
Il was then agreed 10 talk them
Ter over. aad the Judge adjourned
court until Monday, 10 hear what
further would come up. When the
court adjourned il was the opinion Of
many that the case would not 20 u
the jury.
The ease in a nutshell Is simply
this: The Durham Fertilizer Com.
pany sold the fertilizer to State ag.nt
Worth, Of the Alliance. II was snip.
ped 10 the Alliance agent AZ Oxford