The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-02-27
COMMON PLEAS COURT.
Three Jury Gases Left Open For
Trial-Case of Matthews VS..
Copeland Taken Up.

common pleas for Newberry county.
convened yesterday. morning. Judge
George E. Prince. Of Anderson. pre-
siding. Judge Prince held the Jenu-
ary term of the general sessions court
in Newberry, his first appearance here
as presiding judge. He presides with
ease and dignity, and carries forward
the business of the court rapidly.
When the, calendar Of jury cases
was sounded yesterday morning only
three cases were left open for trial,
the others being continued or other
wise disposed Of. The three cases left
open were Haltiwanger VS.. Richards,
Cannon vs.. Brown, and Matthews VS..
Copeland.
The case of Matthews vs., Copeland
was taken up. Mr.. B. c.. Matthews,
as agent for his wife, Mrs. Clara B.
Matthews. is suing for possession of
the store now occupied by Copeland
Bros, and for damages in the sum Of
$4,000. Mr.. Matthews alleges that the
leases under which Copeland Bros.
held the store, which is the property
of his wife, expired on February 10,
1905, and that they have refused to
give up possession after being notified
to do so. Copeland Bros. in their an
swer to the complaint allege an agree
ment, which they say was reduced to
writing but never signed, by which
they were to hold the store for an
other five years, until February 10,
1910, and under which they were to
make certain improvements in the
store, which they claim to have al
ready been made.
The plaintiff yesterday morning in
troduced in evidence the leases ex-
piring February 10, 1905, and the no.
tice dated March IA, 1905, requiring
Messrs. Copeland Brothers to vacate
the property. The plaintiff then PROV
ed BY several witnesses the rental
value of the property and closed.
During the introduction Of. the tes-.
timony for the defence the question
arose as to whether or not the defend
ants had the right, under their an
swer, to introduce testimony showing
that there was verbal agreement,
under which the defendants were to
hold for another five years and were
to make certain improvements, which
they allege have been made This
agreement Mr.. Blease, one OF the at
torneys for the defendants, claimed
had been presented to Messrs. Cope
land Bros. by Mr.. Matthews, but had
never been signed. a personal differ
ence having arisen during the consld-
Grafton of the matter. Mr.. Blease
claimed that this paper was IN the
possession of the attorneys for the
plaintiff. and demanded possession OF
it. The plaintiffs attorneys denied
that they had any paper which Mr..
Matthews had presented to Copeland
Brothers as an agreement. and held
that any paper which he might have
drawn with the intention Of present
ING to them was simply private pa
per. and something with which the
court had nothing to do. They held
that under the answer Of defendant
only a written agreement could be
shown.
The question as to whether or not
the defendant had right under its an
swer, to introduce testimony showing
a verbal agreement in regrad to the
store for the next five years, which the
defendants claimed had been reduced
to writing, but never signed, was I'M
der consideration when the court took
a recess for dinner.
The plaintiff is represented by
Messrs, Mower & Bynum, Johnstone
& Cromer, Hunt, Hunt & Hunter, and
Schumpert and Holloway. The de-
PENDANTS are represented by Messrs.
Cole L. Blease. Thos. P. Cothran and
Fred H. Dominick.
At the afternoon session OF the
court there was some further ar@u-
ment on the points above referred to,
but the attorneys finally got together
and decided to compromise the case,
agreeing that it be withdrawn from
The jury and a consent order signed
by Judge Prince. Under the order
r,,,aIonG Prcthnrs will continue in