The news & observer., 1905-11-22

ticket to Hickory, where She was to
meet and wed the man of her choice,
to-wit, one Albert Eller. Within her
purse she carried a check calling in
the vernacular for mere number
modern callOusnesS to romance
which was in fact telescope, which
in fact contained trusseau-or true
so. The train proceeded carrying Mrs.
Dora and her dreams and at the Hick-
DRY station waited Mr. Albert and his
expectations. But, when the check
was presented there was no telescope,
no trusseau, no nothing. Marriage
was therefore impossible. There was
the bride and there the groom. The
groom stamped about in exasperation
his dearest hopes somewhere on the
road between Granite Falls and Hick-
ory. The groom knew nothing of
matrimony and, naturally, he was i'm
patient. Mrs. Anderson remembered
the departed only with impatience
towards his successor. Is it wonder
that they anguisned?
Two days late the telescope arrived
1t had contained trusseau and photo
graphs and other nick of sem
timental sort, including letters. Some
were lost and some were not. The
trusseau-the beautiful white trus-
seau with it's flounces and tucks and
neatly ironed pleatings and ribbons
and things,-was some of it gone, and
the rest muddied and wet and rum
pied. 1t had fallen in creek spoke the
train hands and had been fished out.
The bride cried the groom swore.
Wedding bells were out of tune. The
ceremony was robbed of its antici-
pations, took place at last with the
bloom off the peach. All because of
the defendants negligence.
These feeling
ly argued by Mr.. Self for the plain
tiff He explained that in an ap-
pellate court, he could not do the mat
ter justice. In any light of the tes
timony both parties had suffered an
guish of every description. Now, there
remained but the sordid salve of mon
ey. Surely that would not be de-
MED
Mr.. Huffman took dry tack at
the law. He discouraged the import
ance of the trusseau as concomi-
tant of true love. He insisted that the
defendant could have no way of know
ing that the plaintiffs happiness
would be contingent on a telescope.
The plaintiff had already been paid
for damage to the trusseau. What
more could be asked?
Said Mr.. Self: "A bride without
clothes, Think of it. your HonOrs!
y
fiounce was wilted. Lovers hanging,
as it were, over the rim of an ironing
board. Anguish? What greater ag
ony could there be?'
The Court was deeply impressed.
Only Judge Brown spoke up:
when l was married, said he,
my clothes got lost. l waited day
and yet | was married..
But Judge Brown was never bride.
L.. L. Il brtl 10
before-she knew.
Moore VS. Bank of Statesyille.
A very interesting and important
case agued was that of Moors VS.. First
National Bank of Statesville, for dam
ages for false and malicious prose-
cution in the ievying of an attachment
on property of the plaintiff by the
defendant. The plaintiff is DIR. j. II.
Moore, of Iredell, who several years
ago was sued by his wife for divorce
and alimony. The wife, in the mean
certain property of her husband.
Pending the determination of the suit
and during the absence of DR.. Moore
from the State. the defendant bank
on the 5th of June, 1908, made affi-
davit on which an order of attach
ment was issued on $40 acres of land
in Alexander county, on which was
situated the Moore Cotton Mills, and
also on the roller mills of DR.. Moore,
which were located at Hickory, in
Catawba county. Afterwards these at
tachments were dismissed by the
Judge and the defendant therein is
now the plaintiff i'm the action against
the bank for having acted without
probable cause i'm procuring the at
tachments to issue.
The affidavit on which the attach
ment was based OF course alleged that
the defendant was insolVent and that
ne was disposing of his personal prop
ertv and had left the State for the
purpose of defrauding his creditors.
1t is contended by the plaintiff that
the facts disclosed by his testimony
were such as to show a want of prob
able cause in the bank; that the Offi-
GERS of the bank were fully aware
of his condition financially, which was
good enough to secure all his credl-
tors and that they knew of the reas-
ons why he had sold certain of his
personal property in order to carry
on litigation with his then wife; and
that the attachment, under these cir
cumstances, was rashly made and
without probable cause.
The defendant contends that there
was good ground for it to believe
that the plaintiff was on the verge
of bankruptcy at least; that certain
of his property was mOrtgaged and
that he was selling other property;
and that letter written by him to
his creditors, in which he stated the
facts of his litigation with his wife
and offered to appoint trustees to
take charge of his property for the
benefit of his creditors was d circum-
stance of a character to justify it i'll
assuming the truth of the afiidavits
on which the attachments We're is
sued.