Evening star., 1905-10-23

May. 1908. in the trial before Judge Gage.
The history Of this thus discloses the trans
actions of the defendant toward the Chatmans al
having been fair. open and humane throughout
and that the prosecution was commenced for the
purpose of preventing the defendant frcm evietins
the Chatmans
The Cbatmans never complied with their con-
tract In any particular, admitted default when
they required to show cause before the mag
fstrate. tried TO sguIrm out OF their bona fde
agreement the five acres Of land to the
defendant and after trial Of their case for spe-
cifc performance, allowed the next term OF the
court to pass without pressing said case for trial,
and without having paid dollar for the and
which they using, and after the fail term
Of court had passed, when the defendant under
took to get possession of his land and gave no.
tice that he intended to dlspossess them, and
after the defendant who had waited patiently for
more than month for hearing before Jadge
Purdy gave notice on March T. 1904, that an ef-
fort would be made to have Judge Purdy rescind
his order then this affidavit is made charging the
defendant with forgery. The states attorney did
not bring Indictment for forgery, however. but
brought for utterlne forged instrument
And what was the utter!ng? This and nothing
more-n the trial of the for specific perform
ance In May 1903 the plaintiffs having intro
duced In evidence the lease, and Seipio chatham
having testified in regard thereto as follows:
O. Where was this and those notes
signed.
A. At Murrays.
q. Who was present?
A Myself and Mr.. Cato and him.
O. This contract purports to be made with
you and your son, do you know why your son 8
name is not TO this contract?
A. No, sir; that is a mystery to me. cannot
tell but Use satisfied it must have been through
mistake
O. 1t was a joint contract by you and your son
with Murray TO buy this land:
A. Yes.
The defendant introduced the contract signed by
james show Scipio that he was simply mis-
taken when he said his had not signed The
sole issues raised under the pleadlngs in the case
for specific performance, which followed the re-
before the magistrate, involved the legal con-
struction Of the lease, to wit: as to whether il
a lease simply or contract with the right
perform at any time before its final tcrmina tion
and the incidental question to whether or not
the Chatmans had returned the five acres of land
at an agreed price, or whether they had returned
the land, without agreeing to the price to be
allowed a credit therefor.
An understanding of the situation of the parties
and of oil the circumstances surrounding them
might have made it possible for the defendant to
have committed a purely technical offense If Of
fense it could ne called, in having written the
of James chatham to his copy of the con-
tract either for the purpose of reinstatng a lost
defaced copy, made at the time. and which sub
sequently may have become defaced, a copy Of
the lease among his papers.
1t could in no way benefit the defendant to put
a paper in evidence which conveyed to James
chatham certain rights to his land and took away
from him dominion over his property, espec-
tally after Scipio Chatham had testified that the
lease was accidentally not signed by James.
The defendant having testified before the magfs-
trate that the lease submitted TO the magistrate
in the return of Scipio and James Chatman cor
rect. and that he was ready to stand to the pro-
visions Of the same. in every particular, and the
defendant having answered in the for specific
performance to the effect, and in the same
language, he could not have had the intention to
defraud the Chatmans by allowing the lease to be
introduced in evidence. Such intent, under the
light of the facts in this case, morally impos-
sible; there nothing gain by such act.
either in property rights, in motives of revenge;
nor did the state undertake to show by single
circumstance any evil motive intention to be
subserved by the introduction of the lease,
was the act in itself such to imply such In
tent. But the state succeeded In convicting the
defendant by simply proving by James chatham
and Marion Cato that they had not signed the
lease. There attempt to prove that the
defendant had signed the names of the Chatmans
and Cato TO the lease; these signature were
ifestly not written by the defendant; they
written by any under the control of the de-
fendant. The state did not undertake to prove
the ndnuWrltlng OF Inc person who wrote those
names, but simply relied upon the testimony Of
James Chairman and Cato that they had not ac-
tually signed. Whether they signed or not must
remain mystery, bat the fact remains that two
leases were signed that day. to by
Scipo Chatman at fol- 293. page a. Of the tes-
timony and by Marion Cato fol. 2S6, page II,
and that two originals or duplicates were made
out at the time, shown by the testimony and
the fact that the defendant had in his possession
an exact copy Of the lease In the possession Of
Scpio Chatman, which he could not have repro
duced from memory-and ScipiO after signing his
tract carried 1t home and kept it, and the defend
ant had opportunity thereafter TO get a copy
of same; and unable TO account for the
existence of the contract in the hands of the de-
fendant unless 1t actually made at the time
and duly signed at the time, and possibly becom-
ing defaced torn injured In way
subsequently rewritten and forgotten. The paper
may have been innocently copied and the copy
laid away among the defendants papers. Surely
the defendant could not have made an exact copy
from memory. nor was there any purpose to
serve by undertaking to do
Courts created a means of ascertaining
the truth concerning transactions between man and
man. but courts not infallibe, and the truth
is not always discovered is justice always
done. / aware
What might have been, l know is not
And We are punished for purest deeds,
And chastened for holiest thoughts, aIas
There is reason found in all the creeds
Why these things are, whence they come to
pass"
MARION NOISE.
Sumter October 10, 1905