The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1894-04-11
Goes Against the State.

The celebrated agricultural Halr'
case occupied the most Of the attention Of
the United States Circuit Court in
Charleston from Wednesday morning
until Saturday afternoon Of last week.
The title of the case was Edward B.
Wesley, plaintiff, against j. e. Tindal and
J. r. Boyles, defendants.
The suit was simply an. action at law
for the recovery Of the property and in
no way involved the question as to the
validity of the Revenue Bond Scrip"
The case was heard before Judge Simon
ton and jury, and resulted In verdict
for the plaintiff for the possession of the
land in dispute, as described In the com
plant, the jury not remaining in their
room over five minutes.
The history Of the case Is as follows
In pursuance Of an act of the General
Assembly, approved December, 1890, the
commissioners of the sinking fund ad-
yertised the property for sale at public
auction on the 1st Of February, 1892, and
the same was knocked down to William
H. Lyles, Esq, attorney, for SIG, ,165. The
terms of sale were one third cash and
balance in one and two years, to be Sc
cured by bond of purchaser and mort
gage of the premises sold, with privilege
to purchaser of anticipating the deferred
payments If he 80 desired.
Mr.. Lyles, shortly after the sale, re-
uuested the deed to be made to Mr.. j. w.
Alexander, who was simply acting as
trustee for fIr. e. B. Wesley. The deed
was made to Mr.. Alexander and he exc
cuted the bond and mortgage to W. T. @
Bates, State Treasurer, as required by
the act, it being stipulated In said bond
and mortgage that the said Alexander
should have the right to anticipate the
payment thereof. Shortly after the de-
livery OF the deed and the bond and
mortgage, Mr.. Lyles, as attorney, tender.
ed to the State Treasurer Revenue Bond
Scrip" in payment of the bond and mort
gage. The Treasurer refused to receive
the same, and the matter being reported
to Governor B. r. Tillman, he immedi-
ately took possession of the hall and re-
fused to surrender the same, and put one
George W. Coullette in charge thereof,
and declaring at the time. and In bis
subsequent message to the Legislature,
that it was conspiracy to defraud the
State.
The original action was brought by j.
w. Alexander against B. r. Tillman and
George w. Conllette. That action was
discontinued. because pending the suit
the defendant, Coullette, died, and be-
cause it was discovered that Governor
Tillman had turned the property over to
before the suit was brought. The
Register, in an editorial, termed the dis
continuance of this original suit "another
sweeping victory for the administration"
Subsequently J. w. Alexander con-
veyed the premises to Edward B. Wes.
ley, who, through his attorneys, Lyles d
Muller, demanded possession OF the pro-
perty, and upon being refused possession
brought the epresent action.
The defendants, though their attorneys,
raised numerous technical points, such
as irregularities in the advertisement and
sale, the right Of the Secretary of State to
make the sale, the right to insert the
name OF the grantee in the deed, after 1t
was signed by the commissioners Of the
sinking fund, and his right, or the right
of the State Treasurer, to receive the cash
or to deliver the deed, etc. But their
principal defense was that Of fraud, 1t be-
Ing admitted that Mr.. Wssley's sole
object in buying the property was
to test in the United States Supreme
Court the validity of The "Revenue Bond
Scrip"
All evidence of the tender Of the scrip
was ruled out upon the ground that 1t
was not q part OF the transaction; that
the contract of sale was complete az soon
as the cash portion Of the purchase mon
ey was was paid, and the deed, bond and
mortgage were delivered, and the fact
that Wesley rendered scrip In payment
of the credit portion of the purchase mon.
ey could In no way affect the validity OF
the sale.
The State, through the Attorney Gem
eral, intervened by way Of suggestion,
taking the position that the State was the
real party in interest; that the defend
ants were simply holding for her, and as
the State could not be sued the action
would not lie.
His honor held that under the authori-
ty of the United States vs. Lee, and the
very recent case Of Stanley Ys. Schwalby,
this position could not be maintained.
That after the sale had been made and the
deed delivered no officer of the State had
the right to take possession Of the prop
erty and refuse to surrender the same.
That the defendants must show that
they were in possession by some valid
authority.
Yesterday morning representative OF
the State informed Governor Tillman or
the result of the case and he at once,
without the slightest hesitation, announ-
oed that the case would be appealed to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
The building which the jury has given
to the purchasers Is that now occupied by
the central State dispensary, and II the