The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-01-15
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
THE AGRIouLTURAL HALL CASE

THE AGRICULTURAL HALL CASE
Tho United States Supreme Court
Refuses The Writ of Error and the
State Will Lose Possession.
The State, 9Th inst.
News was received here yesterday
afternoon that tho United States SUI
preme Court had refused the writ of
error applied for by Attorney General
Buchanan in the name of the State,
after q jury in the United States Cir
cult Court of this State had rendered q
verdict In favor of r.. B. Wesley, who
claimed the property by virtue OF pur-
chase from tho sinking fund commits
sion and this news he's boon confirmed
by the following press dispatch re-
ceived last night:
In an opinion read by Chief Justice
Fuller to-day the Supreme Court do
cided against the claims Of the State
OF South Carolina, in q suit involving
the possession of u pieco of property
in Columbia, Of that State. T.. b.
Wesley Of New York, claiming title
under deed from the commissioners of
the sinking fund, brought suit in the
United States Court against j. E.
Tiudal, Secretary of State and j. II.
Boyles caretaker, employed by Tindal,
for possession of what is known as
Agricultural Hall, with the lot upon
which IL stands, about three-fourths
of an acre in area, valued at $16, l65.
0. w. Buchanan, Attorney General of
South Carolina, interviewed In the suit
and fled q motion that Weslcy's bill
be dismissed on tho ground that tho
property belonged to tho State. The
motion expressly stipulated that it
was made without submitting the
rights Of tho State to tho jurisdiction
n ,,t.fS nd ln-
MED the motion Of the A torney Con-
eral and the jury, on trial OF the same
cause, and returned verdict in favor
OF Wesley. From the Judgment of tho
court upon this verdict tho Attorney
General appealed in the name of tho
State. Reviewing tho case, Chief
Justice Fuller said that the State
Of South Carolina did not appear
as a party OF record and that she had
expressly declined to submit her
rights to tho Jurisdiction of the court
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Agricultural Hall case" is ono
that Is familiar to the public, but in
view OF this latest decision in regard
to it, u brief resume of it's loading fea-
lures will be of interest at this time.
Shortly after the Agricultural De-
partment was abolished as one of tho
State departments, the building known
as the Agricultural Hall, which had
been the headquarters Of that depart
ment, was sold at public sale by the
sinking fund commission. II was pur-
chased by VIM. Ell. Lyles, Esq, as at.
torney for e. b. Wesley, of New York,
for SIG, 165, the terms of sale being one
third cash, balance in one and two
years, secured in the usual manner by
bond and mortgage OF the purchased
promises.
The first payment on tho property
was made by the purchaser and short
ly after he offered to anticipate the re-
naming payments, making u tender OF
cerSain State bonds for such payment.
The tender was refused on the ground
that the bonds were worthless, and i'm
mediately thereafter Governor Till
man took forcible possession OF the prop
erty, claiming that the sale had been
annulled by n fraudulent tender, and the
purchaser commenced action in the
United States Court for recovery Of
possession.
Pending the decision of the case, the
dispensary law was passed, and the
State board Of control obtained it as q
dlspensary depot and it has over since
been used for that purpose.
After the verdict in Judge Simon.
toms court in favor of Mr.. Wesley, two
appeals were taken, one by j. T.. Tin
dal and j. r.. Boyles to the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, at
Richmond. Va, and one by Attorney
General + chanan, for the State Of
South Caro- ma, directly to the United
States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court has just render
ed it's decision as above announced and
the appeal to the Circuit Court of
Appeals has been argued and decision
is expected by February lst, and
should that decision be the samc us
that of the Supreme Court, the State
will have to yield possession OF tho
property according to the terms of the
bond given when the appeal was taken
Columbia Register, 9th inst.
Attorney General Barber says that
the State Is In no way affected by tho
decision of the United States Supreme
Court dismissing the appeal In the
Agricultural Hall case. That decision
had nothing to do with the merits OF
the case. The actual appeal Of the
State in the celebrated case is now in
the United States Court of Appeals,
and IL that Court decides against tho
State, Agricultural Hall will go to the
purchasers. AS stated in the Register
yesterday morning no decision which
can be made Is likely to be in favor OF
\ the FRAUDULENT bonds.
" 1t is likely to be long time before
Wesley will get hold of the property,
II he ever gets hold OF it, The State
haspot lost the case by long odds.
------------uuxs O.