The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-27
WANTED TO PROVE DATES
RATIFICATION OF THE REPEAL
ING ACT.
COMPLAINT ALLEGES THERE WAS FRAUD
Principal Point Relied on is that the Out es
of Corporation Commissioner are
Different from Those of Rail-
Rad Commissioner.


The Abbott Beddingfield case was not
argued in the Superior court yesterday,
as expected
At the opening of the court the de-
PENDANT filed his answer to the COM
plaint of the plaintiff. Counsel for the
plaintiff asked time to examine the
answer The court granted the request
and went into the trial of an unimport-
ant suit. which unexpectedly consumed
all the time of the court up to the din
ner recess.
When the court convened again Mr..
Holding. of counsel for Beddingfield,
stated that no agreement had been or
could be reached as to the facts; that
on account of this the defendant would
he compelled to put witnesses on the
stand: that these witnesses lived at
quite distance, and that they might be
able to get here he asked postponement
of the case till Saturday morning.
Judge MacRae. of counsel for Alb
bolt, said he could not be here at that
time and Monday would suit him better.
Mr.. Argo, his colleague suggested that
if the case We're postponed for that
length of time it could not be heard
at this term of the Supreme court and
had better not be tried at all until
July
Both of them said the answer Of Bed
dingfield contained such limitations of
fraud in regard to the time of ratifica7
ton of the act repeating the Railroad
Commission as would never permit of
their agreeing on the facts.
Judge Brown thought the Supreme
court would be in session next week,
and if the case were heard Monday i'll
the Superior court there would be ample
time to argue the appeal in the. Supreme
court. He therefore set the ease for
hearing next Monday morning at 10
o'clock.
Tie statements in Beddingfeld's an
swer in regard to the ratification of
the repeating act, and to which coun-
sci for the plaintiff objected. were as
follows:
THE defendant. on information and
belief. alleges that the said Act to re-
peal the Railroad Commission was
passed and ratified by the said General
Assembly on the 4th day of March.
1899; and that at the time of the said
ratification the ratifying clause thereof
showed that the said act had been rati-
fed on March the 4th, 1899.
THAT subsequently thereto some per-
son to him unknown, unlawfully and
without authority, presumably for the
unlawful purpose of changing the date
Of the ratification thereof. placed the
figure 6 over the figure 4 in the ratify-
ing clause thereof.
THAT he has personally inspected the
enrolled and ratified act now in the
office of the Secretary of State. and the
figure with the figure 6 written over
the figure appears Doth being clear
and plain) as the date of the ratification
of said act.
THAT he saw the said enrolled bill
on the 4th day of March, 1890. after
it had been ratified by the Senate, and
signed by the president thereof, and
sle ratification was dated March 18th
1899. That on the same day he saw
the said bill so signed by the President
of the Senate. on the desk of the Speak
or of the House. ready for ratification
by the House Of Representatives; that
the ratifying clause bore the date of
March 4th, 1899: and that the figure q
did not appear in the ratification at that
time: and he is informed and believes
that on the same day, March 4th. 1899,
the said bill was duly ratified by the
House of Representatives and signed
by the Speaker.
THAT the Journals of both Senate and
House of Representatives show that the
said bill was ratified on March 4th,
$780,
The principal point, though, on which
counsel for the defendant depend to
win their case is that the duties of