The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-09

hands when the above letter was re-
ceived, but did not issue until definitely
advised, as above stated.
Q. Did you show that letter to any of
the other members OF the court?
A. 1t was copied, with his dissent and
sent to each member of the court, at
Judge Clarls request
Q. Is it a part of the record of the
court?
A. The clerk was directed not to make
any record of it.
@. Why?
a. am not able to say But it was
stated that there was nothing before the
court except the written application of
plaintiffs attorney to the clerk
q. Did you go to the Marlborough House
after you got the letter?
A. Yes
@. What was the date of your receiving
that letter?
A. got the letter from Judge Clark
on the 18th of October. The letter was
copied and sent TO the members of the
court. The dissent was copied with. the
letter. The judges have copies of both.
On October the 18TH the directions re-
ferred to on the docket, were given.
@. How many times did you say those
gentlemen conversed with you atter that
letter was delivered to you?
A. | do not remember the exact num-
ber of times.
@. When was the writ prepared?
A. Some time before the conversations
referred to.
O. Did they all board at the Marlborough
Hotel?
A. Yes; Judges Faircloth, Furches and
Douglas, boarded there Judges Clark and
Montgomery reside here.
@ Without going into further details
and particulars, state the result of your
conferences with the court?
A. The plaintiff's attorney applied to
the court TO have mandamus issued upon
the judgment rendered in this case, but
he presented no motion in writing, and
his application was not entertained; and
it was then suggested from the bench,
that he apply 10 the clerk of the court
Thereupon he made written applica-
tion to the clerk, which was submitted
TO the court for directions as TO the
clerks duty, on the 10th of October, while
the court was in session in conference
in the Supreme court room, all the JUS
tees being present, and each individual
judge expressing his view, and the clerk
was advised that it was his duty to
issue the writ upon the judgment. by
Judges Faircloth Furches and Douglas
Judges Clark and Montgomery contra
And in accordance with the advice of
the majority. the writ was issued on the
following day
The clerk furnishes the following. at
request Of committee:
Copy of judgment in White V. Auditor
ct al. (recorded on page 3S of the min
utes), rendered at February term 1900.
of the Supreme court,
This cause coming on to be heard Il
is adjudged that the plaintiff is enti-
tied to the salary and compensation pro-
vided for in the Act of 1899. chapter
~, to-wit, the sum of four hundred dol
lars per annum, and five cents per mile
travel when engaged in his work. and
extra expenses not to exceed fifty dollars
per annum, and that the same be paid
by the Treasurer of the State out of the
Oyster Fund appropriated by the Act
of 1897 and the Act of 1890. admitted TO
be now in the Treasurer's hands; Pro-
vided, however, that the expenses of the
commission do not exceed the sum of six
thousand dollars per annum.
1t is further adjudged that the GER
tifcate and warrant shall be issued in
the manner indicated in the opinion filed
in this action, and that the defendants
pay the costs of the appeal
wv. 7. FAIRCLOTH.
Chief Justice"