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

Tne following synopsis of the decision of
the supreme court 10 the Garre,. e,.Weinbero
case which was prepared for the Columbia
State oy John 8. Reynolds, Eeq., Of the Co.
iumoia bar, will be OF Interest to quite a
number OF our readers:
1onn A. Gartet ct al, appellants, v. Rosa
weinberg ct al, ressondeuts.-E enee.
Grounds Of appeal. Form Of exceptions.
constitutional requirements.
This was an action for the partition of res,
estate. The defendants settiug up title. the
case was tried by q jury, bis honor Judge
Aidr'ch presiding. The verdict being for the
aelendants, and motion for q new trial hay.
log been overruled, the plaintiff. appealed
from the Judgment thereon entered.
The sole purpose Of a question ssked a
witoess beiog 70 elicit testimony showing the
insolvency Of party, such testimony was
aomissiole. General reputation 10 one of the
MODES OF establishing the feet of Insolvency. .
Vleeuoos to witness, whether he "ever
Knew" a certain party Ito have any proper. T..
property besides" The land in dispute were
properly ruled incompetent, az the manner in
which appellants Thus attempted TO show
ownership of such land 10 not one of the
modes recognized 10 this State. But the
error, II any, was harmless error, since the
witness answered the frst question 10 The
negative, and snch answer was not stricken
out-the answer really preceding the objec.
tisn Of counsel.
The admission Of evidence Of certain judp.
ment rolls (appellsnts contending that the
judgments had been fully paid) 60 far az il
Involved question Of fact is not tho subject
OF review by this court. Bat if there was
error to such admission it did not prejudice
the rights Of the appellants.
The record failing to disclose the fact that
the appellanta Insisted upon the exclusion OF
certain records 10 former actions between the
parties hereto (such actions resulting in non
cults 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
10, did not Cndertaks to decide any questions
OF fact arising out Of the issue of title, out
only to rule upon the questions of law pre-.
eented for lts consideration. The preceding
judge evidently did not intend TO exclude
from the consideration Of the jury any evi.
dence offered upon former trial, which was
properly introduced on the trial before him.
II In stating the issues raised by the plead.
ings the presiding judge made mistake, his
attention should have been called the. .eto ,f il
~sa to De made ground of appeal.
Under section 8 Of article 8 Of the consti.
tuition parties to a cause are not entitled to
the opinion or judG uent of the supreme court
upon any point made and distinctly stated
10 the cause and fairly arising upon the
record OF the case " For this court to under.
take to formulate the exceptions, sub. divisions
and branches Of sub divisions, 90 a. to State
distinctly the points which appellants claim
arise upon the record of the case would i'm.
pose upon the cour, q duty cot contemplated
ov the constitution, especially 40 the supreme
court 10 required 10 Ole decisoue within 60
dAys ssom The lsst day Of the court st which