The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-08-04
THE TALES WILL NOT AGREE.
EVIDENCE IN CLAIM CASE IN CITY
COURT WIDELY DIVERGENT.

Third Trial of the Suit of John a.
GiIchrist Against Ellis, Young and
Company Occupied Judge Nor
woods AttentiOn-There Have Been
MistriaIs on the Two Occasions
when the Case Has Been Heard.
The Effort Is TO Recover $4,000, Al
legged TO Have Been Collected by
Defendants for the Use of the
Plaintiff.
The case of John A. Gpchrist against
E1iis, Young & Co. occupied the attention
of Judge Norwood and a jury in the City
Court yesterday When court adjourned,
at 7:30 O'Clock, the evidence had all been
introduced and a preliminary point of law
determined. The arguments viii be heard
and the case will go to the jury this morn
ing.
The case is an old one and has already
had two trials in the City Court, in both
of which the jury were unable to agree
and a misrial was declared. The question
in controversy IS the ownership of the
proceeds of two drafts, for 81, 500 and $500
respectively, that The plaintiff alleges were
collected by the defendants for him, but
which, though earnestly besought, they
refused to deliver.
The petition recites that in 1891 w. NJ.
Carney of Alabama was indebted to the
plaintiff in some large amount and that to
collect it with greater ease he drew a draft
upon him, in favor of Ellis, Young & Co.,
for $500 and turned il over to William
Mcqueen & Co. of Adel, Ga, for trans
mission to the Savannah firm He Claims
that he had the draft mailed by Mcqueen
& Co. for the reason that he was suffer-
ing with rheumatism and in very poor and
weak health. Subsequently he drew an
othe draft upon Carney, also in favor of
Ellis, Young & Co, which he gave them
in person. He has not received the pro-
ceeds of either of these drafts.
In answer to these contentious of the
plaintiff the defendants admit the receipt
of the drafts and the collection of the
money. In avoidance of their alleged La
bility, they assert however, that in the
case of the first draft Mcqueen & Co.
were authorized by Gichr,st to direct that
application of the proceeds and accordingly
did direct that they be placed to their ac-
count, which was done. In regard to the
second draft the contention is that Gil
christ himself directed that it be placed
their understanding, they say, that Gil
christ had either paid or loaned the money
to Mcqueen & Co. This understanding
was shared by Mcqueen according 10 his
evidence and strengthened by the fact
that no demand was made upon them by
Gichrst until two years after both of the
drafts had been collected Mcqueen & Co.
had failed in business and the defendants
connection with the defunct firm complete
ly wound up.
Gnchrist denies that he ever gave or
loaned the money to Mcqueen q Co. or
authorized them to use it, and claims that
il is wrongfully withheld from him by
the defendants. To support the varying
contentious evidence was introduced on
both sides, including that of the plaintiff,
in his own behalf. that of Mr. John R.
Young, in behalf of the defendants, and a
vOluminous mass of dispositions and old
testimony that has been given on former
trials of the case. The evidence, by the
way. DIVORCES as widely as do the conten-
tons of the parties.
The half hour before adjournment Was
occupied by counsel in the argument of a
rather interesting question of law. Coun-
sci for the defendant claimed that as they
had admitted sufficient of the allegations
Of The petition to make out a prima face
case for the plaintiff, that they were en-
titled to the opening and concluding argu-
ments the burden of proof to show that
they had good ground of defense. notwith-
standing the prior admission, being thus
cast upon them.
Counsel for the plaintiff denied the ac-
curacy of this propos ton of law most Wig
orously, contending that the defendants
had not admitted the salient and distiuc-
tive feature of their prima fac'e case. and
therefore, were not entitled to open and
conclude. The question was debated with
ability, Judge Norwood's ruling sus.
tain.ng the posi- ion taken by the
defendants. When court convenes
at 3 O'Clock this morning Mr. S. B.
Adams of Denmark Adams & Freeman
will open for the defenats Mr. w. p. La
Roche and Mr.. J. S. Harrison will follow
for the plaintiffs and Mr.. Adams will con-
clude.