Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1901-04-27

Later Hill bought it at much lower
price than that originally contracted
for. The suit was for difference. The
fury found for the plaintiff in the sum
of $5435.
The greater portion of Wednesday
and until Thursday morning, was de-
voted to the case of w. Brown Wylle,
trustee, against the Commercial and
Farmers Bank of Rock Hill. This case
is a most interesting and important
one, involving the fortunes of several
prominent and highly esteemed citizens
of Rock Hill. 1t grew out OF the fall.
ure of the Commercial and Farmers
Bank of Rock Hill. r. Lee Kerr, as re-
ceiyer for the Rock Hill Cotton Manu-
featuring company, had deposited tne
funds realized from the sale OF the mill
in the Commercial and Farmers Bank.
Alleging that the Commercial and Far
mers' Bank was in imminent danger OF
insolvency, the creditors of the mill Pc
titioned the court to transfer the depos-
it to the National-Union, or some other
bank that would be safer than the
Commercial and Farmers. In order to
circumvent this move, the commercial
and Farmers Bank, gave bond in the
sum of $4,000, guaranteeing the pay
ment of all the checks drawn upon the
funds Of the cotton mill by r. Lee Kerr,
receiver. The bond was made to w.
Brown Wylie, and was signed by A. e.
Smith, A. H. White, w. c. Hutchinson,
v. Brown McFadden and r. Lee Kerr.
When the bank went into the hands of
a receiver, Judge Benet issued an or
der instructing r. Lee Kerr, receiver
to draw his check for the mills bal
ance in the bank, in favor OF w. Brown
Wylie, trustee, and instructing w.
Brown Wylie, trustee, to present that
check to the officers of the bank. X
Lee Kerr, receiver, drew his check for
q balance amounting to $26,2OO, and w.
Brown Wylie, trustee, presented the
check to D. Hutchison, receiver OF the
bank, who claimed that he had no au-
thority to pay. Then, following the fur
ther instructions Of the court, w.
Brown Wylie, trustee, Immediately
brought suit against the signers of the
guarantee bond referred to. Thos. +.
McDow, Esq, brought the suit, after
associating Mr.. W. B. Wilson. The de-
PENDANTS were represented as folloWs:
Major James F. Hart for the receiver;
C. E. Spencer, Esq, for A. H. White;
Finley & Brice for V. Brown McFad-
den. w. c. Hutchison, r. Lee Kerr and
A. E. Smith failed to put in answers.
The defense put up no testimony, al
though most of the defendants were
put on the stand by the plaintiffs. The
bond was there to show for itself. The
SIGNATURES of the defendants were all
right; but among other things, 1t was
shown that the alleged witnesses had
not really witnessed the signing of a
single name. Mr.. V. Brown McFad-
den testified that he had not read the
bond. but had signed 1t under the i'm
preston that it was mere petition to
the court to allow the mill receivership
lr 30 tn in Va ho
took the case at 10 o'clock Thursday
morning, and remained out all dayuntil
about II o'clock at night when it re-
turned with a verdict for the plaintiff
in the sum Of $21, 1,577.50. The long stay
of the jurors in the room gave rise to
the opinion that there would necessarily
be a mistrial. Yesterday it developed
that when the jury first went into the
room there were two for the plaintiffs
were confused by the fact that the al
legged witnesses Of the bond had not
actually seen it signed. After long
wait they got fresh instructions on this
question, and the ten promptly came
over to the two. It was the intention
of the jury to find for the plaintiffs in
the full amount claimed, and it's failure
to do so was the result Of miscalcu-
lation. Mr.. Finley, for the defendants,
gave notice of a motion for new triak
The next case taken up Thursday
morning, was that of John r. London
against the Landsford Power company.
The plaintiff claimed $4,000 for five
years service as president and general
manager. He collected and disbursed
rentals. advertised the property and
otherwise enhanced it's value. The de-
fendant claimed that it had been un-
derStood all the while that the services
of plaintiff were to be without compen-
sation. The jury on yesterday morn
ing found for the plaintiff in the sum
of $1,064.57.
The next case taken up after the
London case was disposed of, was that
of Elizabeth P. Gauden against the
Imperial Insurance company. Mrs.
Gaulden was suing for $500, and the