The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1892-03-03
JENKINS VS.. BROWN.
Suit for Alleged Defamation of
Character.

The case that has attracted most at
tention at this term OF court was that
OF W. II jenkins. of Henderson. against
Mai. 7. J. Brown. Of Winston. for al
legged SANDER. The high character and
wide reputation Of the defendant made
it appear Ito those who knew the many
As If some mistake had been made in
bringing a charge against him Of having
wilfully and maliciously slandered any
one, and speaking for ourself. knowing
Mai. Brown as we do. we could not
believe that there was any foundation
in fact upon which to base it.
1t appears that at a meeting Of the
warchousemen Of Winston held in the
office of Brown & Carter some time
last spring, the Burgwyn-Jenkins diff
Guilty was talked of, a newspaper artl-
Gle stating that Jenkins was in jail
having led to it. Mr.. w. NJ. Hinshaw,
manager of the Farmers Alliance ware
house in Winston at that time, said
Maj. Brown addressing him as he
came in, asked if he had heard the
news, and when questioned as to what
..
has gone wrong jenkins. the manager
of the Alliance warehouse in Hender-
son. has stolen the money Of the con-
Germ and run away, and they now have
him in JAIL or words to that effect.
Soon thereafter Mr.. Hinshaw wrote to
Mr.. r. A. Bullock. secretary of the
Alliance warehouse here, and quoted
Maj. Brown as having used the Ian
guage above ascribed to him. Upon
this the suit was brought. Mr.. jenkins
suing Mai. Brown for $25 900 damages.
Maj. Brown denies having used this
language and says his remarks made
at the time were misunderstood by
Mr.. Hinshaw. What he did say, as
testified to on the witness stand, was
this: The Burgwyn-Jenkins matter
being under discussion, addressing one
Of the gentlemen present, he asked if
that was the jenkins they met at Raj
eigh when the warehousemen appeared
before one Of the Legislative commit
tees in regard to some proposed
changes regulating warehouse charges,
&C.. and remarked that he had formed
a good opinion Of him. and that his
speech before the committee had helped
them. Mr.. w. B. Carter, Maj Browns
partner. replied that it was not, that it
was H. I. jenkins, leaf dealer, and
turning to Col. A. B. Gorrell, said
that gentleman knew him, that he (H.
7. Jenkins had sold tobacco with him
(GorrelD aud with us Brown s. CARTER
also. Maj. Brown swore that this was
what he said and all that he said; that
he never uttered the words attributed
to him by Mr.. IIinshaw, nor anything
in the nature of them. and was sur
prised when this suit was brought
against him. After he had been mott
fed by service of summons, he pro-
cured a paper signed by Mr.. Hinshaw
stating that since talking with Maj.
Brown about the conversation that oc-
CURED at the meeting OF warehouse
men, and from his knowledge of that
gentleman high character and envia-
BILE reputation, he was satisfied that it
was II. T. jenkins and not w. H. Jen-
kins that Mr.. Brown meant was in Jail.
The above are the facts brought out
at the trial last week. Mr.. Hinshaw
was the witness for the plaintiff. Maj.
Brown testified in his own behalf and
was corroborated by Mr.. w. B. Carter,
Col. A. B. Gorrell and Mr.. James 7.
all gentlemen of the highest
character, competing warehousemen
and engaged in honest rivalry for the
trade of their market. They stood I'M
and with the preponderance
of evidence so clearly and undisputably
in favor of the defendant the prevail
ing opinion among the spectators be-
fore the case was given to the jury.
was that it was a tarcical affair and
should not have been brought into
court. Prominent lawyers and inteli-
gent men Of all professions freely ex-
pressed themselves to this effect.
There was conflict in evidence on
another point and this seems to have
been the one the jury decided the case
in favor of the plaintiff on. Mr.. Hin
shaw swore that the conversation and
remarks made by Maj. Brown occurred
in the camp room while the other wit
nesses said it was in the office, a small
room 20 feet square, before going into
the camp room, some IS feet away,
where the business meeting was held.
Plaintiff was represented by Ed
wards & Workman, Pittman & Shaw
and 7. T. Hicks. Maj. r. B. Glenn
and Clement Manly, of Winston, and
A. c. Zollicoffer appeared for the de-
PENDANT. Col. L. c. Edwards made
the opening argument. Our people
are familiar with his style and know
his ability. He has long occupied a
high position in his profession and his
power of conception in grasping, hold
ing and presenting his ideas to Jury
is remarkable. Col. Edwards speech
was all that a logician could make of
it. his language chaste and classical as
that of Aacaulay, and his style easy
and graceful. Many intelligent per-
sons pronounced it the ablest speech
they had ever heard him deliver, his
effort reminding one Of the ante-bellum
days, when Badger, Ruffin, Miller,
Haywood and other master minds
swayed juries by the power of their ell
oquence and logic. He was at his best
and it is now generally conceded that
as an advocate he has no superior and
few equals in this section.
Mr.. Glenn Manly, of Winston, a
brilliant lawyer, an able advocate anu
an eloquent speaker, replied to Col
Edwards. He made a fine legal argu-
ment. and his effort was highly spo-
ken of by the ablest lawyers present
1t was a calm, dignitied, manly appea.
for right and justice, and showed depth
of thought and breadth of learning
Mr.. Manly evinced a perfect familiarity
with the law, and laid down his propo
sitions in clear and ingenius manner
| that would have reelected credit upon
the skill and ability of many older
men. His argument glistened with
the logic Of reason, the force of tn.
law and power of eloquence. This wa:
Mr.. Manly's first appearance before {
Vance county jury. and our people
were fayOrahly IMPRESSED with him