The news & observer., 1901-03-20
The JUDGES FINISH
THEIR TESTIMONY
CONTINUED from First Page. }

THE act of the Legislature did tina
ard not the decision OF the court.
THAT judgment was rendered in The
fall of 1899 I'll ask you if in the spring
Of 1899 you didn't hold that Day was en-
titled to his old office but not entitled t.
discharge the new duties?"
I'm. the Day case there was another
board to exercise the new duties, where
as in the commission case there was no
body else to perform them"
IF the Day case had been sustained il
Abbott's case would the effect not have
been that the commission would have hai
to sit in dual capacity"
Il think not. The commission was Gre
ated court and must SO sit with all its
members with equal powers"
A NEW DOCTRINE.
The Shcll-fish Commission cases were
now taken up, and the witness explained
the principle OH which the decision was
based
"In the Day case was it not for the first
time enumerated that an officer had {
property in the duties of the Officer"
Il dent remember. The case will speak
for itself"
IF that was good law, doesn't it fol-
low that Judge Jones in the case OF
Jones VS.. Ewart, in 1895, made an absurd
defense when he didn't claim a property
in the duties of his office, which Judge
Ewart clalmed?"
He didn't claim under that, he claimed
under his appointment by the Governor. "
But he would have had q good defense
il he had wouldn't he?" ~
You may decide that for yourself. "
In your Answer the doctrine of Hoke
VS.. Henderson is magnifed and 1t is
contended that every Chief Justice has
upheld it, if that is So then two judges
(Jones and Cook have lost their offices
by being ignorant of theedoctrine, haven't
thoy?"
Counsel for defense objected to this
question, but the court allowed it, and
Judge Furches repliedi
1T may be, but they didn't make that
defense"
At this point the cross-examination Of
the Witness closed and the redirect ex
animation began, Mr.. Long conducting it,
Judge Furches again denied that he
had ever rendered an opinion based on
Gnything other than what he considered
the law, and that he had never denied
10 any of his associates any right that he
had under the rules OF the court. In the
"office holding cases" he had, he said, ad-
hered to what he had all along considered
the law
Here Judge Allen, fer the Board of Man
ayers, objected to the questions that were
being asked, basing his objection on the
ground that they were mere repetitions
of questions asked twice on the direct
examination.
Mr.. Long contended that they were not,
but the court sustained the objection and
the questions were ruled out.
CHARACTER WITNESSES.
The next witness sworn was Maj. NJ
w. Robbins, of Statesville. He had known
Judge Furches for thirty-five years, lived
in the Same town with him, and had
Tracticed law with him.
What is his general character?"
Coed as anybody's in North Carolina
for truth. honor and integrity l have
always differed with him in politics"
On cross examination Mr.. Watson ask
Cd if Judge Furches hadn't often been
a candidate for office. The witness had
a bad memory on this point, except as to
tEe tiIlC WuGn Lut OuOSS OpUCSSu HiIll III
n campaign, and was quite apologetic.
WAS he bitter in his politics?" asked
Mr.. Watson.
Not more than you and t. replied
the witness amid the laughter of the
Hobbies.
Never said insulting things to an op-
ponent?" continued Mr.. Watson.
i've ,canvassed with him for sixty
days and in the end loved him like a
brother" replied Maj. Robbins. II loved
him as a man and hated him as politi-
oian.'
you hated him and you say he's as
bitter as your
oh l didn't mean hate" interrupted
the witness quickly.
II don't like his politics." explained
the Major, as he left the stand
Mr.. ]. B. Holman, of Iredell-a mem
Der of the Legislature of 1S99-was the
next witness. He, said he lived about
twelve miles from Judge Furches, but
he thought he knew his general reputa-
ton. 1t had always been good
The witness on being cross examined
as to Judge Furches, said he was con-
sidered a strong partisan and some con-
sidered him very bitter. He added that
some of his best friends would not dis
cuss politics with him on account of his
bitterness.
Mr.. Jacob H. Hoffman, also of States
Vile, said he was a close neighbor o
Judge Furches; had lived second dool
from him twenty-five years, and that "hii
standing is very high, as high as any
bcdy's.''
Dr. S. w. Stevenson, of Statesville, wa
the next witness. He had known Judg'
Furches about twenty-five years and NJ
thought his general character as good a
any mans in Iredell county.
JUDGE DOUGLAS SWORN.
Judge Douglas was now sworn. He wa
examined by Governor Jarvis.
The witness said he was born in Rock
ingham county and went upon the bencl
in 1896. The first "office-holding cases
that came before him, he said, were tn
asylum cases--Wood VS.. Bellamy ant
others. There were three of these case
and the court decided in favor of the oil
officers. This. the witness said, was OF
the doctrine of Hoke VS.. Henderson an
the court was unanimous in its decision
What was the next case?"
II think the next one of Importance wa
the Day case. l don't remember then
all though | have list of them here"
He was asked to read the list He di