The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1907-10-16
HNDAI vs. sUHLSsrr sT1Rs CLAIR.
ENDON COUNTY.
Ine Manning Times Describes Great
ess fOrensic Battle Ever known In
Clarendon County-An About q
Family Fight Over Land.

mp saturday, tn jury was dismissed
Friday when II rendered i.s verdict
IN the case OF Helen Tfndal ct al vs..
r. A. subIett ct al. This case began
Monday morning and. notyvithstand-
ing the incsssant work OF bar and
bench Il took up the week. Il was
hard fought nom start to finish, and
ths argumeats on both sides were of
an ezcesdingly high order. Col. r..
y. Lee Of counsel for plaintiffs In
commsasing on the evidence, to use a
common oppression. roasted the prin-
clpai dseendant. Rev. n. A. subiett se-
tersiy. Il WIS an excoriatlon that fair
Y siszlsd with invsctive. ridicule and
ssorafuI dsnunciation. comparing
him to = ssspsht that had crawled
Into ths confidence OF, once happy
a contsnted family. and by his wiles
tempted IN infrm and demented cid
woman 70 convey valuable property
TO Him for . nomihai gum. which de-
privsd the grandchiidren OF this old
isdy OF their rishtful inheritance.
Colonel. lees denunciation greatly
augmented by his acting. his manner.
2 - much. or moro than his tobasco-
sauce vorstory was very erective. All
y of NE lawyers IN the case made good
sreumsnts and Il was treat to Wit
- this the srsatsst forensic battle
'svss sssn in the Clarendon Court
lHoosa ~ 'St = .,S rs "a "A
The Interest IN the case a. well as
~ attendance grew greater every
oav 'Ths people Of the summerton
ssetioa seemed to have made tho
'csu>s Of the rindars their own. and
were here daily In large numbers,
h 1As iftspsity OF interest together with
~ pkseisaa versions discussed pub
rcH beeams infectious and the sem
rmerf spread over tis town 70 the
& egesnt that people In Manning. who
= had 40 puesitIe interest in the case
ner asre thsy In any way connected
WA me parties In interest, worked
thsmssfves Mp to fever heat. and
\ IDroaosncsd Judgment without know
jnR or caring about the merits Of .tAe
\ go. The ladies OF the town were a
A eospH tussrsstsd ~ the men. and
4 wss> ceAakant ~ their attendance;
shsy seenasd 10 enjoy the cross exam
lhatidyD ~ counssl. ana especially
4 Nhsn = visnss becaiAe dlscomfttsd
~ - tsFor - IN answer to trick
y 0ueDoon propoundsd. ~
Thsrs wss An array OF witnessed on
both sldss. and to iaymsn II ala seem
- y ttacks Of matter irrelevant to the
i.usd was allowed to 10 to the jury.
bseanse. amer all the contention had
/, - laa 10 resolve itself down to
\ ~ssthsr the Jury believed the maker
Pf the deed was competent at the
time shs 'siened the Instrument. and II
- did she understand her act. It was
4 conceded BY both sices that the prop
er<y belonged TO Mrs. Sarah Tindai.
and II her mind was. good. and she
\ understood what she was roing when
\ she made Z deed Of the property to
her only living child. then regardless
Of sentiEnen(. or whether the old lady
vas just 70 her grandchildren or not
the deco u valid. but on the other
hand. n Mrs. Tindal was SO, infirm
that her mental faculties We're de-
( ranged TO the exetent that she was
nos competent to understand. the
meaning OF the transfer. and would
not have conveyed she property as
she did IL her mind was sound. then
her act was inyaad. and the deed
void. y. fvT
The suit VAS to Get aside a deed
made by Mrs. Sarah Tindal to Mrs.
r. A.. subiett. conveying a valuable
tract Of land containing $40 acres ad-
Joining Summation. The sum paid
for the land was $500 occurred by a
mortgage payable one year after the
death Of the maker Of the deed. The
purpose Of having the payment to
become due after the death of the
grantor being to have the cash de-
rived from this sale divided among
the heirs OF Mrs. Sarah Tindal. and II
., obvious II this grantor was men,
tally sound that her main purpose
was to sell her property to her onN
living child. Mrs. n. A. sublett. for q
iss price than II would have been
sold to stranger. There was q whole
lot OF extraneous matter iugged into
the case. which could only have a
tendency to compiica.e the case and
confuse the jury.
Public sentiment was strongly In
favor of the plaintiffs, and has been
ever ,inoe the case was stared over