The news & observer., 1901-03-16
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE JUDGES
Examination of Witnesses For Prosecution
Commenced Yesterday at Noon and VIII
Probably be Finished Today.
COUNSEL ARE CONTESTING EVERY POINT

read. then the oath taken by Judge
Furches as Chief Justice. This latter
was administered on January 7th, 1901,
by Justice Walter A. Montgomery.
In these oaths the juges swear to be
faithful and bear true allegiance to the
State of North Carolina, and to the consti-
tutional powers and authorities, which
are or may be established for the gov
ernment thereof" and to support, main
tain and defend the constitution of said
State" Also they swear to administer
Justice without respect to persons, and
do equal right to the poor and the rich,
to the State and to individuals" and to
honestly, faithfully and impartially per-
form all the duties of the said office, ;"
agreeably to the constitution and laws
Of the State
All these documents were read by Major
Guthrie. leading counsel for the Mana
gers, and were filed with the clerk.
In addition to the above document
certified copy of letter written by ]. c.
L. Harris, attorney for White, to E. V.
Perry, clerk of the Superior court of
Perquimans county, and dated October
10th 1900, was offered in evidence. Coun-
sci for defendants objected. however, and
the copy was withdrawn, it being stated
that later the original would be intro
duced.
The objections urged to the copy of this
letter by Mr.. Osborne for the defendants
were: First that it was not proved to
be a true copy; second, that it had no
bearing on the guilt or innocence OF
the judges.
In reply to this Major Guthrie for the
hnn vynC O r.
tilted. and second, it was addressed to
an officer in his official capacity and de-
manded that a writ of mandamus be is
sued in favor of White.
Commenting on this letter, and what
it was proposed to prove by it. Major
Guthrie said
THE purpose of this evidence is to
show that demand was made on October
10th for writ of mandamus, and that the
original judgment, issued on May %, did
not direct the issuance Of a writ of man
damus, as the defendants contend in their
Answer. But it is mmaterial whether it
is offered here or later, so We will with
draw the copy now and later introduce
the original"
On conclusion of the reading of the
documentary evidence at 12:45 o'clock, the
first witness, Col. ]. G. L. Harris, was
called. He was not present and as it
was not possible to complete his exami-
nation in the fifteen minutes of time left
before the hour fixed for adjournment,
the court took recess till o'clock.
When the court reconvened for it's af-
ternoon session Mr.. Harris was called and
sworn, and examined by Mr. Watson.
l. ;,,l n &c
case against the State Auditor and State
Treasurer for salary.
"Who appeared with you?"
mo one for White"
"Who on the other side"
"Messrs. F. H. Busbee and Chas. A.
Cook
Prom what county did the appeal
Gomez"
"Perquimans.
Where were the facts made up?''
I'm the city of Raleigh"
Were the Auditor and Treasurer pres
ent?,'
"No"
Captain Cooke, for the defendant object
ed to this question, but the President
ruled it competent.
Who agreed upon the facts?"
Mr.. BuSDee and l. :.
Were you present when the affidavits
were made before Mr. Cade as to its
being real controversy"
Il don't know that / was present at
the moment, but drew the affidavit.
What was done with the papers after
they were sworn to-"
They were sent to Judge Starhuck."
Where was he?'
"At Washington, 1 think"
"The fall term of Perquimans court had
passed."
Yes, but they were sent to him in the
First district
WAS the case appealed to the Supreme
court?'
ut was"
who argued it before that court?"
"Mr. Busbee and Mr.. Cook and t.
WAS the Attorney General ever con-
suited about the case?''
mot that l know Of.
The witness told of the argument of the
case in December, 1899, and the handing
down CT the opinion in May 1900.
when was the next time you took any
steps in it?''
Sometime after the court met in Sep
tember, 1900"
What was that?
81 had talk with the Chief Justice
about it,
Then what did you do?"
Went into open court and made a mo-
tion for a writ of mandamus."
What did the judges say?"
asked if had given notice, told them
l had not, as / considered that l was
entitled to peremptory mandamus; but
they declined to issue the mandamus un-
less such notice was given
Then what did you do?'
Notified Mr.. Busbee, but he could not
be here, so l telegraphed to Mr.. Cook
and he came and next morning he ap-
peared in court with me. ] cenewed my
motion, Mr.. Cook waving the question of
time"
What did the court say?"
Asked If had given notice l told them