The Caucasian., 1896-03-12
BARNES VS.. CRAWFORD.

The Case Heard In wake Csssfy Ceass-
Some Ysess sad Inesdsats-Ths Verdict |
Of the Jury Appealed FROM
The case OF Barne. Va. Crawford, |
which Was heard in wake Superior |
court last week excited considerable ,
interest.
shorn of technicali,ies and made |
plain the case 10 about as follows:
W. ;. Barnes is Secretary Of the State
Farmers Alliance. W. 7. Crawford 10
ex-Con2ressman from the rinth dis
trict-haying been elected in lsso.
During the campaign OF tha, year
(is.0J the Alliance submitted To All
Congressional candidates card on
which wa. printed the Alliance de-
mands adopted at 1T. Louis IN 1889,
and the candidates were asked TO sign
their names TO these demands as an ev-
| idence Of their approval of them, pre-
vided they could approve them. This
card included the sub-treasury plan,
| il being stated on the card that q ma
| jority % the sub Alliances in North
| Carolina had approved the bill intro
duced by senator Vance, embodying
that plan, and the candidates were
asked to approve il provided IT was
| not shown to be unconstitutional. Mr..
Crawford signed his name TO every de-
mand on the. card as aDl evidence Of
his approval OF them. He was elected
in that campaign 0s?0).
In the campaign of 1892, Mr.. Craw-
ford was charged by Mr.. }. {. Brown,
| the Populist candidate, with having
signed the demand card with the sub
treasury plan in it. Crawford denied
Ia. l.A tn ha -
He denied having approved the sub
treasury plan. He said he had only
signed the National Alliance demands,
claiming that the sub-treasury was
not a national demand at the time of
his signing the card 1s90), for this
plan was not incorporated into the na-
tiOnal demands until December 1880
after the campaign of that year had
closed.
Brown wrote to Mr.. Barnes for the
card. Barnes wrote that he could no,
send the original, but sent him copy
certified on oath. When Crawford saw
this card at HendersOnville, he de.
nounced it as a fraud, a forgery, and .
!, lie and some witnesses say he coupled
Barnes name with it and denounced
him as a fraud and fOrger. Barnes
then sued Crawford for slander. Craw
ford, in his defence, said that even If h
had spoken those words they were no
slanderous, because forgery of mer
demand card is not in law forgery
TheSupreme court sustained Mr.. CraW
- ford in his view Of the law, and tina
: = matter was dropped.
!, :. In August, 1894, Mr.. Crawfor
!, wrote letter to the Ruther
,. fOrdton Herald in which b
= charged that Barnes had traveile
over the State and slandered him, an
- :, said if Barnes had been an honorabl
u man, he would have repudiated pal
= of the card as not being the Alliane
70 demands, and used other Offensiv
'e language to Barnes in the letter, SON
:, of which he said, in his defence, /
" intended for the Progressive Farme
- Mr.. Barnes had had a copy OF I'll
70 card signed by Mr.. Crawford publlshe
~ in the Progressive Farmer with an
-, fidavit to the effect that it was a tr'
- ;, COPY. In regard to this and an ed
torial in that paper, Mr.. Crawford sa
it was "as Internal lie as ever W
penned."
For the language used In TINS l
stance Mr.. Barnes brought suit again
';s Mr.. Crawford for libel.
ho The hearing last week was befO
M .n Judge McIver. Messrs. r. 0. Burt
~, and J. w. Peele represented
ns Barnes, and Messrs. F. II. Busbee
10 Armstead Jones represented MIR. Ora
,ie ford.
m moie Mr.. Crawford's counsel argued tt
~ the letter he wrote to the Rutherfol
i've i've ton Herald was "private letter" a
that Mr.. Crawford was not
-. a. sponsibe for its publication. The s.
rsn telligent" jury accepted this statemt
to as fact, and when they rendered tn
NV verdict they said that MIR. CraWf'
ncss "did not procure to be published
NC the Rutherdfordton Herald the mat
or. set forth in the complaint" Conce
zoo ing other matters of publication
tho which Mr.. Barnes complained, the ]?
.ne on said Mr.. Crawford did publish tn
,aos matters but arithOut any malice.
@ less that was beautiful jury! Still furtl
otn th this "intelligent" jury said that sc
tnr alleged libellOus matter was writ
W. by Mr., Crawford for the sole purI
a. of refuting grave charges made agal
90 him, and not with the purpose OF
"a iurying Mr.. Barnes. And then
t';n Jury declined to answer quest
p' on as to "what damage if any, Mr.. Bar
on was entitled to recOver?"
Cid As in many other cases that c.
oiI before the courts, there was an
nose - Sc mensity of verbosity and baldert
pme in this one.
the The plain, unvarnished issue
~ this: Mr.. Crawford had denied s
tb;s ing the sub-treasury plan, and
r. 10 the lie to any statement saying
he did sign it. The original
dars which he signed was produced on
,;no and 1t contained that plan In
, 4hS black and white. This card was
,ond evidence on which Mr.. Barnes asse
soo" that Mr.. Crawford had signed tina
,;,o mand, and for saying this Mr.. G.
vovs ford denounced Mr.. Barnes 81
IN ment as "fraud, forgery and
- old 1t is hard to tell from the verde
0N the jury whether they though
Crawford signed that demand or
- though they saw his signature "
. 'ora he did not deny) attached to i
rar;- is also hard to tell whether
thought Mr. Barnes statement
>, true or not. If they had, it
can that they would have awarded
>. 1e damages; but they did not do this
anil they know what they do think,
oson' are ahead of any body else.
very Mr.. Barnes took an appeal
N' Supreme court.
!, There is more catarrh in this
l. ton of the country than all
,r diseases put together, and unit