The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-10-09
The Tindal-Sublett Case.

/
incessant work OF bar and bench /
took up the week. 1t was hard Tough
from start to finish, and the argument:
on both sides were of an exceedlnglI
high order. Col. r. D. Lee OF Counse
for plaintiffs in commenting on ths
evidence, to use a common expression
roasted the principal defendant, lev
+. A. Sublett severely, it was an eN
coriation that fairly sized with lnvec
tive, ,ridicule, and scornful denunciat!on
comparing him To a serpent that haC
crawled into the confidence OF once
happy and contented family, and ol
his wiles tempted an inirm ana oe'
mented old woman to convey valuable
property to him tor nomlnal sum
which deprived the granochlloren O
this old lady of their rlghtful lnherl
tance. Colonel Lees d, lnclatlor
was greatly augmented by ais acting,
his manner, as much, or more than his
tobasco-s o-sauce-oratory was very ef1ec-
tive. All of the lawyers IN the case
made good arguments and 1t was 4 trea'
TO witness this the greatest forensic
battle ever seen in the Clarendon court
house.
The interest in the case as we'll as
the attendance grew greater every
dsv. The people of the Summertcn
section seemed to have made the cause
of the Tindal's their own, ana we're e,
here daily in large numbers. Inc n
intensity OF interest together with the
partisan versions discussed puollc!t
became Infectious, and the sentiment
spread over the town TO the eStent
that neople in Manning, who had no
nossih]e interest in the case nor are
fhev in anv way connected with the
No rfies in interest. worked themselves
~ ~ ~ 70 = fever heat, and pronounced
ina Gment without knowing, or caring
about the merits OF the case. Inc
ladies of the town were as deeply IN
terested as the men, and were constant
in their attendance: they seemed 10
enjoy the cross examinations oy Coun-
sci. and especially when a witness De-
came dlscom6tted by an error 10 an
answer to a trick question propounoeo.
There was an array of witnesses on
both sides, and to laymen 1t olo seem
as if stacks of matter irrelevant to the
issue was allowed to go to the, jury,
because, after all the contention hao at
last to resolve itself down to whetner
the Jury believed the maker 0! the
deed was competent at the time signed
the instrument. and if so, did she IN
6erstapd her act; it was conceded oy
both sides that the property belonged
to Mrs. Sarah Tindal, and if her nina
was good, and she understood WhaG sue
was doing when she made a oeeu o.
the property to her only living chlio,
then regardless OF sentiment OF OF
whether the old lady was Just 10 ner M
grandchildren or not the deed is vallo;
but on the other hand, II Mrs. Ilnoat
was so infrm that her mental !acul1les
were deranged to the extent tnaS 'sne
was not competent to unoerstano the
meaning of the transfer, and would not
have conveyed the property as she olo
if her mind was sound, then ner ac1
was invalid, and the deed VOID.
The suit was to set aside ceeo
made bv Mrs. Sarah Tindal TO MrS.
r. A. Sublett, covering valuable
tract OF land containing o3o acres az, u
joining Summerton: Inc sun Aio
ior the land was $500 secured oy a
mortgage payable one year a1ter III Ine
death OF the maker of the deed. Ihe
purpose OF having the payment 10 os.
come due after the death OF the granIor
being to have the cash derived. IRON
this Sale divided among the heirs OF
Mrs. Sarah Tindal, and 1t IS OBVIOUS
if this grantor was mentally souno
that her main purpose was to sell her
property to her only living cnllo Mrs.
r. A. Sublett for a less price than IL
would have been sold to stranger.
There was whole lot OF eStraneous
matter lugged into the case, whlcn
could opIy have a tendency to compll-
cate the case and confuse the jury. :.
Public sentiment was strongly ~
favor of the plaintiffs, and mas oeen
ever since the case was started over a
year ago. The evidence on ootn sues
was strong, and it is easily seen now
people can conscientiously differ on tne
merits of the case and reach dlderen!!
conclusions. Men and women OF
Character gave testimony favorable TO
each side. some were of the cplnlon
that the grantor was mentally lncom.
petent to make dee2, and these were
borne out by DR.. W. r. Mood who mao
at times attended the lady in quest1on,
and DR.. ]. A. Mood of Sumter VINO mac
never seen her but gave answers w
hypothetical questions, while 5nose
who witnessed the deed Rev. NJ. A.
Connors and Mr.. J. D. Rutledge, testl'
| fed that her mental condition was
GOOD, and Mrs. Lizzie Sriggs a LADY o.
Exceedingly keen perception 5es1lnec
as TO having visited Mrs. Tindal before
| her death and that her mental 1aclitles
were clear and sound. Therefore we
say there is great room for dlteren'
conclusions. .h,
The court submitted to the jury the
following questions ana theS "eis
answered as Indicated: ,,,
]. Was the sum OF seventy-nve nun
dred dollars (s7500) mentioned 10 tns
deed and referred TO in the complain
and answer herein, far below the actua
value of the plantation described II
said deed at the time of the executor
thereof? Yes.
:. Was said price grossly inadequate:
Yes. -, a..
5. What was the tract of land des
crlbed in the complaint reasonaolS
worth at the time of the execution O.
said deed? Fifteen thousand dollars.
!. Was Mrs. Sarah Tirdal SO enfeeolet
by old age and physical inhrmat!e:
that she did not have mental capaclt.
sufficient to understand what she wa
| doing at the time she executed sale
deed? Yes. -
5. Did the defendants exercise undue
influence on Mrs. Sarah Tlndal, ant
did they thereby obtain the execution
and delivery OF said deed? Yes.
According to the verdict Of the jur,
the plaintiffs wor, and it this verolc
stands, COMMISSIONERS will be appoint
ed to partition the land, and there VII
| also be an accounting for rents, proht
and Improvements.
i A new trial was asked for and arguet
Judge Prince reserved his decision
l., ar q r