Evening star., 1905-10-23
THE MURRAY CASE.
A STATEMENT FROM HIS ATTORNEY.

njent in your editorial column in reference TO the
case against George W. Murray.
The penitentisry is a long way by road, but
scuetimes not by morals Also the victim of
this wealthy negro poor. ignorant man OF
his race | allow these statements
to So unchallenGed in fairness to Murray. He Is
MT guilty Of any moral wrong. nor did he victim
ize anyone. did he seek to do so. He WIS
convicted by of technical rule Of law
AMI account of any moral wrong so far as
the crime IL concerned for which he was tried, ali
of which VIII appear from the following state
OF facts;
The defendant was tried I'm May, 1904 for ut
tering' forged lease. during the conduct OF
cvIl trial of ease for specific performance I'm
May. 1909. The facts aud circumstances leading
up TO the transaction are as follows:--
Some time prior to the year 1889 George W.
Murray agreed to lease unto Scipio and James
chatham and Harrison Mayrant. tract OF
nifty acres Of land, placing Harrison Mayrant In
possession of and the Chatmans In possession
of tie other half of the land
Subsequently Mayrant and the Chstmans de
sired to lease separately. whereuron the defend
ant divided the land and ON November l. 1880,
drew up n lease in writing covering twenty-five
acres for Harrison Mayrant and twenty-five acres
for Sciplo chatham and James Chairman, provid-
ins In said lease for the payment OF rent tahu 'he
maturity thereof in accordance with their Verpai
agreement. The defendant drew the lease In dupli-
cate and signed both copies but by some mad
ycrtence Scipio signed copy. and James the
other copy, possibly James did not In fact sign
at all. Tie defendant was, however, under the
impression that all parties had signed. After the
leases signed. copy, signed by Scipo'
went into his possession. the other copy went into
the possession of the defendant, who laid the copy
away in a drawer In his desk where there were
many other of like character. The lease was
IA contract prepared with view of enabling the
tenant to pay for his home I'm five years by pay
ing a certain amount each year. denominated'
tha ont RInn nlipf
visions OF the lease he was entitled to an absolute
deed in fee simple.
In the year 1900 the defendant. desiring to lay
on the town of Borden, took possession or hVe
acres OF land, leased to the Chatmans, by agree
ment with them, and laid OFF the town, incluolhg
said five acres and allowed the Chatmans credit
for the land taken back at the same rate per
acre. as they had agreed to pay for the same by
the terms of said lease. The Chatmans did not
comply thereafter with any of the terms of their
lease they did not pay the taxes nor did they
tend the land in husbandke manner, nor did
they meet the installments they matured; and
the defendant. having waited with great patience
and the ODD day of January, 1905, served notice
under section 2423 civil code and required Scipio
Chaman show why he should not be dis
voSsessed Of the premises ess the five acres taken
,ackl This notice was based upon affidavit of the
defendant wherein 1t alleged that the two
Chatmans holding under lease contract ex-
e,Uted by them to the deponent, and that James
tnHttldu Hau ituouH'tu All IiSuts i'"SN'
by moving away and that Scipio was in arrears
etc January % 1908. was fixed for the return 10
the notice: the Chatmans did not appear In per
SON but filed II return with the magistrate, stat
Ing that the lease contract was one Of purchase
and not of lease. with the right to comply at any
time, etc. and they annexed to said return an or
dnary copy OF a complaint for specific perform
ance, and prayed that the defendant be required
60 convey the entire twenty five acres of land In
consideration of the payment of the balance due
under the lease This claim not fair to the
defendant because he had taken back the FIVE
acres Of land under agreement and they had In
creased in value after being laid off as a town,
and that the defendant not satisfied TO be
posed upon. but testified in reply to the return
before the magistrate to the effect that the com
plant correctly set forth the lease contract, that
the five OF land had been bona fde returned,
had been of and plated, and credit had been
given for the same. And that In addition to al
lowing them credit. at the rate per acre, as
they had agreed to pay. which WAS then the full
value of the land he agreed to give them one
fourth of in fee simple to be conveyed to
them when they complied with the terms of the
lease and that in pursuance OF such, agreement,
the Chatmans had actually built said one
fourth acre land, and and in possession
OF the same That James chatham had never
planted more than fifteen acres Of the leased land
and that he had planted of 1t In the year
1902, but had planted elsewhere, and that Scipio
had only planted half That tender
made OF the due under the
lease. That something said about paying in
full the amount due, and TO become due tthe
lease having several years 10 run) provided the
five allowed to remain within the
lease. but that he not willing to accept the
money under such terms; but willing to re-
ceive the amount due under the lease at any time
Hnd TO carry out the contract in every particular
The Chatmans not having appeared and their
return showing admitted default. the magis-
trste issued Ills warrant of eJectment, which was
stayed by n temporary order In prohibition signed
by Judge Dantzler on that day january % 1909 |
and on the same day suit for specific perform
ance was served by the Chatmans the defend
ant. wherein they again set up the lease con-
tract. copy of which Is set forth in the indict
ment, except that the copy set forth In the COM
plant signed by the defendant and Scipio
chatham, while that set forth In the indictment
was signed by the defendant and James Chat
man; but in all other respects. is a copy of
the other, except immaterial difference in that
the one set up by the plaintiffs stated that the
term ran from October l, 1898 TO January /, 1905
and that set forth in the Indictment states that
the term began October 1, 1897, and ends Janu-
Rry L. 1908.
II appears. therefore, that the lease as set
forth In the indictment states correctly than
the other the real contract because as a matter
Of fact the term did begin October l. 1897 as is
conclusivey shown by the evidence to the effect
that the verbal contract began at that time and
by the written evidence as contained in the lease
which places the maturity of the first note octo |
Der l. 1903.
The complaint for. specific performance alleged
IN paragraph I'd that the signature of James
chatham was accidentally omitted from the dupli-
cate contract now held by the plaintiffs but the
plaintiffs believe that the same was signed and
affixed 10 the duplicate contract held by the de-
fendant, and that at the time OF signing such
contract in duplicate. the plaintiffs made and de-
Hyered TO the defendant part OF said contract
several promissory notes described therein
BY the third paragraph of the complaint the
plaintiffs alleged that the contract was one of
purchase and by the fourth paragraph that the
i've acres OF land were staked cr for the defend
ant. Murray but that agreement as to the price
arrived at.
The defendant answered alleging that the con-
tract was one or lease and that the lease set up
by the plaintiffs embodied the original verbal con-
tract which was subsequently reduced TO writing
on the 4th day OF November 1899.
The answer further alleged that the Ave acres
OF land were duly staked of and delivered TO the
defendant aud hc had given credit for the same
That as an additional consideration he had given
them one-fourth OF of land on which 10
huNlA aNAH