The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1900-10-17
Decision in Garrett " einberg Case

The following synopsis of the decision oi
the supreme court in the Gsrre,-Weinbere
case, which was prepared for the Columbia
State by John S. Reynolds, Esq.: of the Co.
lumbia bar, will be OF interest to quite a
number of our readers:
John A. Garret ct al, appellants, v. Ross
Weinberg ct al ressoudents.-Egidence
| Grounds of appeal. Form Of exceptions.
Constitutional requirements.
This was an action for the partition of real
estate. The defendants setting up title, the
case vas tried by jury, his honor Judge
Adrch presiding. The verdic, being for the
defendants, and motion for q new trisl hsv-
ing been overruled, the plaintiffs appealed
from the Judgment thereon entered.
The sole pnrpoee of question esked p
witness beiog 10 elici, testimony showing the
insolvency Of b party, such testimony was
admissible. General reputation is one of the
nodes Of esta blishirg the fsct Of Insolvency.
z les,ious to witnese, whether he "ever
knew" certain party 'to have any proper
ty" and whether such party bad "any other
property besides'' the land in dispute we're
properly ruled Incompetent, as the manner in
which appellants thus attempted 10 show
owsership of euch land is not one CT the
modes recognized in this State. But the
error, II any, was harmless error. since the
witness answered the first question in the
negative, and such answer was not stricken
out-the answer really preceding the objsc.
ten of counsel.
The admission of evidence of certain judg.
mens rolls (appellants couteuding that the
judgments had been fully paid) 30 far as it
involved question Of fact is not the subject
of review by this court. Bat if there was
error 10 such admission it did not prejudice
the rights Of the appellants.
The record failing to disclose the fact that
the appelIanta Insisted upon the exclusion OF
certain records in former actions between the
parties hereto (such actions resulting in non
suits for failure to give security for costs)
the admission OF such records 10 evidence was
rot error of law.
The supreme court, 10 former appeals here
in, did not rodertske to decide any questions
OF fact arising out of the issue of title, out
ooly to rule upon the questions of law pre-.
seuted for lts consideration. The presiding
Judge evidently did not intend 10 exclude
from the consideration of the jury any evil
dence offered upon former trial, which was
properly introduced on the trial before him.
II in stating the issues raised by the plead
logs the presiding Judge made mistake, hls
attention should have been called the.eto If it
waa TO be made a ground of appeal.
Under section 8 of article Of the const5-
tuition parties to cause are not entitled to
the opinion or judgment of the supreme court
upon soy point made and distinctly stated
10 the cause apd fairly arising upon the
record Of the case - For this court to under
take to formulate the exceptions, Subdivisions
and branches of sub divisions, 80 as to State
distinctly the points which appellants claim
arise upon tbe record Of the case would i'm.
pose upon the court duty not contemplated
oy the constitution, especially as the supreme
court is required to 6le decisions with'o 60
days from the last day of the court st which