The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-17
CASE FOR DEFENSE.
CONTINUED From Fifth Page }

on IL.
The President ruled that the paper was
competent evidence and would be al
lowed.
1t was read by counsel for the prosecu-
ton.
The counsel for defense offered a
ccry that contained no crasures. This
later proved to be the copy given Judge
Furches by the clerk and not returned.
Both were filed.
Major Guthrie continued his examina-
ton CT the witness:
"Who made those erasures?''
Il dent know
How long have you been clerk of
this court?''
"Since 1856"
"As such clerk did you ever before
issue such mandamus?"
Il did not.
Before you were clerk were you not
Attorney General?'
81 was" nz
And Supreme court Teportcr?"
yes" f
THE OFFICE HOLDING CASES.
At this point the records in the fifteenth
office holding cases were introduced as
follows:
Caldwell VS.. Wilson, from Iredell.
Wood VS.. Bellamy, from Wake.
EwaTt VS.. Jones, from Buncombe
Cook VS.. Meares, from New Hanover
Mccall VS.. Gardner,cfgom Buncombe.
Green VS.. Owen, from Davidson.
Abbott VS.. Bcddingfleld, from Wake.
Mccall VS.. Webb, from Buncombe.
Cherry VS.. Burns, from Wake.
Cunningham VS.. Sprinkle, from Wake.
White VS. HILL from PamlicO.
Days case from Wake.
Wilson VS. Jordan, from Buncombe.
Railroad Company KS. Dortch from
Edgccombe. II
1t was agreed by counsel on both sides
that all Of the 127 Supreme court reports
be admitted as evidence in the case.
This completed Col. Kenans direct tes-
tiIpony, and at 11:3O o'clock the cross
examination, by Mr.. F. H. Busbee, be-
gan.
Have there not been many judgments
entered in the Supreme court?'
Il can't say how many but some have
tcen."
Then this mandamus was issued in
accordance with the rules of court?"
YES"
Was not very peremptory writ of
cjcctment frcm office issued in the case
Of Wilson VS.. Caldwcll?"
The witness read the judgment in that
case. at request of counsel.
Did you ever issue any writ of that
sCrt before or since?
No"
That was served the same afternoon
the opinion was handed down, wasn't it,"
Late that evening.
You are familiar with the practice of
the court, are you not?"
Il think l. am
The witness thought the request of
Judge Clark to have his protest and dis
sent against the mandamus filed was ir-
regular as he had never known an in
stance of the sort before.
us not a mandamus in the nature of
execution"
That is my view"
IF objection had not been made, l ask
II yGu would not, on application of counsel
have issued tho writ?''
Il think I would
when a case is decided it goes off
the docket. doesn't it?'
1T does.
Then this case went off at the Feb
ruary term?"
yes"
AFTER JUDGE MONTGOMERY.
did not. Judge Montgomery ask Mr..
Harris when he first went in whether he
had applied 10 the clerk or not?'
met on the first occasion. but on the
second occasion he did"
did not Judge Montgomery tell you
that a majority of the court having di-
ractcd YOU to issue the writ it was your
duty TO do so?''
Il can't recall his language, but l think
nc said, That settles it, ="
Didn't you hand the papers (Harris'
anrlicaticn and form for Writ to the
Chief Justice to get the opinion and in
struction of the court as to your duty
in he premises?"
Il did not ask for any specific instruc-
items"
Had you not had conversation
with the Chief Justice before this in re-
gard to the writ and its form?"
Il cant recall that I had. l might have.
dent recollect really
when you handed him the papers did
you not call his attention to the form
of the writ %
Il showed him all the papers that
handed him. I don't know whether told
Kim Harris had drawn the writ or not !"
when. as a ministerial officer of the
court you nanQeu the Cnlef Justice the
papers. was that not equivalent to re-
quest for Instruction."
Counsel on the other side objected to
this question and the objection was sus-
tanned.
why did you hand him those papers?'
THAT the court might be in the pos
session OF all the papers in the case"
Touching tho form of mandamus fur
nishcd by Judge Furches and Attorney
Harris, counsel asked
What difference was there in the
forns?"'
u never read the form drawn by Har-
r,s"
INDIVIDUAL OPINION"
The witness again told about his
Eoirg to the court on the 18th and fail
ing to get satisfactory replies from
Judges Furches and Douglas in regard to
his duty; about his returning to the court
again on the 10Th and then getting ex-
plicit instructions.
Mr.. Busbee asked:
sDid the Judges not give you their IN :