The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-10-28
TIE I EHE!E MANNING TINES.
WGBsaGGASaH;as{E, (, G!l5es e. i3s!,
COURT.


Thars;lay morning the case of Julia
+. Hoschettc against Ann f. Cobia ct
al was resumed. This was case
to ascertain il the plaintiff was enti-
tied to an interest in the lands de-
scribed in the complaint. The YER
dict OF the jury gave plaintiff one
fourth interest. NJ. G. Galluchat,
Esq, represented plaiCtif, and J. F.
ahame, Esq, the defendants.
Mary A. Richardson against Edwin
and Nathan Wells, suit for dover.
The jury found in favor of plaintiff
on issues of facts, and the case was
continued on issues Of law. Earle Il
Purdy for plaintiff, Rhame and Noise
for defendants.
J. P. Brock against j. O. Brock,
executor; verdict for plaintiff, s3l.S3.
J. S. Wilson, Esq, for plaintiff; Earle
& Purdy for defendants.
The only case of general interest
tried this term of court was that
in which the last will and testament
OF the late John W. Wells was heard
on appeal from the probate court:
The attorneys representing the will
were Joseph F. Rhame, Esq, Gen.
E. w. Noise, and Maj. Marion Mo-
ise. The contestants were represent
ed by Gen. Joseph Fl. Earle, R. O..
Purdy, Esq, and II. c. Galluchat,
ESQ. When the case was ready for
trial Judge Norton required the at
torneys to frame an issue, :'Will, or
no Will" The attesting witnesses to
the will were sworn, and their testi-
mony was about the same as taken by
the Judge OF probate. The propound-
ers OF the will rested their case, and
the contestants offered no testimony.
The legal battle then began.
Mai. Noise opened the argument
in behalf of the will, and read from a
number Of decisions and legal author
tiles sustaining his position. He was
followed by R. o. Purdy, Esq, who in
his argument endeavored to convince
the jury that from the testimony the
testator had failed to comply with the
law when the will was executed. Gen.
Noise came next, and in advocating
that the viii should stand, did so in
his usual eloquent style. NJ. c. Gal
luchat, Esq, made good speech, and
in his argument endeavored to con-
vince the jury that the ends of justice
woald be best met by breaking the
will so that the brothers and sisters
Of the late John ". Wells, who are
the lawful heirs, can get the property
DOW in question.
General Earle made the final argu-
ment for the contestants. He went
over the testimony, and laid particu-
lar stress upon the failure of the wit
nesses to remember where and how
they signed their names as witnesses.
He contended that from the evidence
the law had not been complied with,
inasmuch as it was not shown that
the witnesses signed their names in
the presence of the testator and Of
each other, as is the wording of the
statutes. He made splendid speech.
Joseph F. Rhame, Esq, followed
with the final argument for the will.
He took the ground that the law did
not require the witnesses to sign IN
the presence of each other at the time
the will in question was executed, !,
hence, under the law as it existed
then, the will was proven beyond a
doubt. He quoted a number of au-
thorities on that point. Then he de-
voted himself to the jury, and argued
the case under the law as it stanos
now, which does require the witnesses
to sign in each others presence, and
IN presence of the testator. His
speech was full of force and had a
telling effect.
After the arguments the Judge eau
toned the jury not to talk to persons
about the case. He then adjourned
court until next morning.
Promptly at nine o'clock Friday
morning court was called, and the ju-
rors were in their places. His Honor
charged the jury that as matter Of
Z law they would consider this case un-
der the law enacted in 1882, which re-
auires the witnesses to will to sign
in the presence OF the testator and in
tie presence of each other, and as to
the facts, they had heard the testimo-
ny, which they would consider in con-
ncction with the law, and form their
own conclusions. The jury then re-
tired, and after remaining ont about
thirty minutes returned with o YER
dict IN favor.of the viii, thus sustain
ing the decree Of the probate court.
Gen. Earle argued at some length
$ sanction for new trial. Mr.. Rhame
ana Maj. Noise made brief arguments
resisting said motion. The court re-
fased to grant the motion. This will
end the case unless an appeal to the
Supreme Court is taken.
For the benefit of those not famil-
lar with this case we give its history
briefly. John ". Wells, a well-to-do
white farmer of this county, raised q
family OF negro children consisting Of
two boys that lived with him until
his death, which took place in the
early part Of last year. On the sec
ond day of January, 1875, he made a
will leaving plantation to these
boys. This will was witnessed by
three intelligent gentlemen. After
Mr.. Wells died, the will was admit
ted to probate in common form.
Soon after the white relatives of the
testator required the will to be prov
en- in solemn form. The heirs-at-law
oc Jobn Lv Walls raro rocr,,lorlv