The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1911-11-24
COMMON PLEAS COURT.
Court Disposing Of Considerable Busl'
ness-Suits on Notes and Otner
Cases Tried.


other cases set for trial, and 1t IS proo-
ah7e that the entire week will be tax
xen un in civil business. The criminal
court will convene on Monoay lnoln-
ing. the term being for one week.
In the common pleas court on
Tuesday morning, the case OF the Ma
+iona1 Bank of Newberry VS.. }. u.
navenport, P. E. Scott and George
1ohnstone. suit on a note, was taken
nm The testimony and the arguments
consumed the whole day TUESDAY,
a tho case was given to the jury
7a+o Tuesday afternoon. The jury
reached a. verdict early Wednesday
morning. The verdict was for the
nlaintif against all the defendants
lint holding Davenport and TOMBSTONE
,ioh,e as makers Of the note anu
Scott liable only as endorser tor 1nein
The suit was on a note, and the real
fight in the case was between the de-
fendants, Mr.. Scott and Col. Johnstone
as to the order of liability of the tWo'
and on the issue raised by Scott that
he was not liable at all.
The note in question IS for s7oO.
dated July 10, 1909, and due on Au-
gust 10, 1909. The note put in evl-
dence, and on which the bank
brought suit, is marked RENEWAL, -
and has the name of J. D. Davenport
as maker, with P. E. Scott as payee,
and the names of P. E. Scott and
George Johnstone, in the order nam
ed, as endorsers. Col. Johnstone's
contention was to the effect that he
had been on previous notes With
Davenport, Col. Johnstone being an
accommodation maker, and that he
refused longer to allow the use OF
himself as an accommodation maker,
and that Davenport then told him he
would get Scott to endorse: note
made by Davenport alone, If Col
Johnstone would endorse as second
endorser, which Col. Johnstone agreed
to, and that this was done. Col. John
stone stated positively that the word
ssRenewal' was not On the note when
it was drawn up by davenport and In
spected by Col. Johnstone, and that
the note was for the purpose Of TAX
ing up the note On which Col. John
stone was an accommodation maker
with. Davenport, and relieving Col.
Johnstone of liability as an accommo-
dation maker. Col. Johnstone said the
note was Inspected oy MIN before it
was presented to Scott for endorse
ment, and that after Scott had en-
dorsed, he then endorsed under
SCOTS n~me. He said he could not
state whether RENEWAL" had at that
time been put on the note or not.
SCOTS contention was that he had
endorsed the note, with the word "Re-
newar upon it, under an understand
ing between him and Davenport that
the note was to be left at the National
bank for Col. Johnstone's signature
as a joint maker with Davenport, the
note to be in effect simply renewal
of the prior note on which Davenport
and Johnstone were joint makers and
Scott the. endorser. Scott said he
would not have endorsed the note
otherwise. Davenport testified that
this was the intention, and that. the
note was left at the National bank, af
ter SCOTS endorsement for Col.
Johnstones signature as joint ac-
, commodation maker. President Mat
thews, of the National bank, on the
other hand, testified that when the
! bank received the note, and it passed
over the counters Of the bank, that it
was in the condition in which it ap-
pears today, with Davenport as max
y er. and Scott and Johnstone as en-
I. dorsers. He said the proceeds of the
note were applied to take up the for
mer note. He denied that the note
was left with him for the purpose Of
securing Col. Johnstone's name as
joint maker, but stated positively that
Col. Johnstone's name vas already on
the note as. second endorser when he
first received it.
Davenport stated that he secured
the money for which the original pa
Der was given, and identified written