The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-01-01
CARD FROM Mr.. yOOzER.
Mr.. D. Luther Boozer Replies to Card
From MIR. NJ. W. Oxner Publish
ed in The Observer Dec. 29.

Mr. II. LuLnef bQOZer was III Lie
city on Wednesday and gave out the
following statement in reply to the
card of Mr.. NJ. ". Oxner, published
in the Observer Of Tuesday in regard
to the shooting Of Mr.. Oxner by Mr..
Boozer, at Kinards, some days ago:
s'In reply to Mr.. Oxner's state
ment in the Newberry Observer of
December 29 desire to say:
''He denies advancing on me. In
that he is certainly badly mistaken.
He must be very absent minded to
say that he did not advance on me.
] can prove that he did.
Gas for his striking me and knock
ing my pistol down, that is certainly
false, as he was at least eight or ten
steps from me when I fired at him,
and he still continued to advance on
NE, and then I shot him in the thigh.
Nr. Oxner never did get any closer
to me than three steps or four, and
about that time my wife got there,
and he said he was not armed, and
I did not make any effort to do any
more.
GAS for Mr.. Oxner's saying that
he was not armed, I could not say
positively that he was or was not,
but he acted very much like man
that might have been armsd-thrust-
ing his right hand in his pocket and
advancing on me and appearing to
be angry. Of course I could not say
what was in his pocket, as I haven It
pair of X-ray eyes that I could pen
citrate his pocket, or his person, eth
er. But if be did not have pistol
he was out of the line of his custom.
He had been carrying one. And as
for his saying that I knew he had
not carried one in two years, how
could make such a statement or
vouch for any such statement as
that? I was about him very little.
Anybody would know that a man
can carry a pistol on his person with
out wearing a coat. He seems to
think a man can't carry pistol with
out having coat on: He goes on to
say that I stopped and talked with
him several times. Of course [ didn't
examine him to see whether he was
armed or not. I was under the i'm
preston that he carried one all the
time, having seen him with one a
good many times.
sMr. Oxner certainly has a wrong
idea when he says he had a right to
move this negro, because he knew L
had an older contract than he had for
next year with these negroes-Rlch
Young and his family and others. he
knew I had talked with him and told
him I had the contract, and also
written him the note, as he acknoW-
lodges. That contract was recorded
in the clerks Office at Laurens and
he could very easily have found out
that I had the negro hired before he
hired him, by examining the records.
But he stated to me at the time we
had this conversation that contracts
\were no account, anyway, and l pre-
sumo that is the reason he moved the
negro, thinking they were no account.
"He says he only moved one negro
from my house, and that he gave me
a check of fifty dollars when he NOV
ed the negro. I deny that. In. re-
gard to this negro he has reference
to, Mr.. J. S. Blalock sent me check
for forty-five dollars. The negro did
owe me fifty dollars, and the negro
went to Mr.. James Blalock and got
check for forty-five dollars, and the
negro said he was going to Mr.. Bla-
locks, but next day afterwards he
was working in Oxner's field. That
was a pretty sharp trick they worked
on me. He stated he only moved one
negro from my place. He moved
three-Tom Miller, Race Dean and
Jim Davis. He gave me check one
time, after considerable trouble try
ing to get him to settle for some
hands, Of thirty odd dollars. He SIM
ply lies when he says he gave me
check for fifty dollars. He never
gave me a check for fifty dollars on
hands in his life. Mr. Blalock gave
me a check for forty-five dollars on
one, the same negro I had reference
to above. who was working in OK
ner's field next day after the check
uoc 0iyan