The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1911-11-24

troubles, ana Tor tnls reason was uh-
able to pay the note.
There was no question raised as to
the liability Of Davenport, and Col.
Johnstone admitted liability On his
part to the bank, after the liability of
Scott.
SCOTS defence against liability was
that the intention when he endorsed
being that Col. Johnstone should sign
as joint maker, as understood between
him and Davenport wnen he endorsed,
and that the bank having notice of
this, that he was not liable.
Judge Gage in c1ear charge gave
the law of the case, leaving it to the
jury to find one of three verdicts-to
decide: (1). Whether all three of the
defendants were liable as charged in
the complaint. that is, Davenport
first, Scott second, and Johnstone,
third; (2), whether only the defen-
dants Davenport anG Johnstone we're
liable, Davenport first and Johnstone
second; or (3), whether all the defen-
dants were liable, davenport and
Johnstone as makers and Scott as en-
dorser.
The plaintiff bank was represented
by Messrs. Mower and Synum; COL
Johnstone was represented by his law
partner, DR.. Geo. 3. cromer, and Scott
was represented by Messrs. Hunt,
Hunt & Hunter and Mr.. Eugene S.
Blease.
Another Suit on Note.
On Wednesday morning the case of
The Mutual Alliance Trust company
of New York VS.. J. D. Davenport, S.
B. Aull and Mrs. Talu A. Aull, suit
on note, was tried. Davenport and
S. B. Aull did not deny liability on
the note. Mrs. Talu A. Aull denied
that her name as endorser On the
note was written by her. The note is
for s1,5O0 and had the name of j. D.
Davenport as maker, and the names of
S. B. Aull and Talu A. Aull as en-
dorsers. Davenport tested that he
had asked S. B. Aull to endorse the
note for him, and to get Mrs. Talu A.
Aull to endorse the note for him, and
that the note was mailed back to him
by S. B. Aull with the two names as
endorsers On the note. Davenport tes-
tied that the signature of Mrs. Aull
he would take to be the same sigma
ture as her name On papers which had
passed through the Exchange bank
while he was president, which had not
been disputed by her. NJ. L. Spear
man, cashier of the Exchange bank,
testified that in his opilion the name
was the same signature as the sigma
ture on papers which had passed
through his bank undisputev. Mrs.
Aull testified that at the time the note
was alleged to have been endorsed by
her she was in hospital in Philadel-
phia. that she was not seeing any one
or attending to any business, and she
positively denied having endorsed the
note. The jury returned verdict
against J. D. Davenport and S. B.
Aull, but verdict for Mrs. Talu A.
Aull. The plaintiff was represented
by Messrs. Johnstone & Cromer, and
Mrs. Aull by Messrs. Hunt, Hunt
Hunter.
Mrs. Scurry vs.. S. A. L.
The testimony was taken on Wed
nesday afternoon in the case of Mrs.
Wallace NJ. Scurry, wife of Jno. R.
Scurry, VS.. the Seaboard Air Line, suit
for $4,000 damages which Mrs. Scurry
alleged resulted to her from having
been put off the train at North, thirty
miles south of Columbia, when her
ticket read to Ola, thirty miles south
of North, Mrs. Scurry alleging that it
was through the negligence of the
railroad that she got OF at the wrong
station. She was going to Ehrhardt
to visit her daughter, who was sick
at the time. She said she got off at
North in disagreeable weather, and
that she caught cold, and suffered
worry and anxiety on account of the
delay. She said she remained at
North from about 7 o'clock at night