The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-04-20
UNUSUAL CASE IN COURT.
Case Of ii. l.. 'BenbOw Against Reuben
Jones, COlOred, Resulted i'm Verdict
for Defendant.

usual features and one which has
caused a great deal Of discussion on
the streets during the past few days,
especially among a certain class oc
persons. namely moneylenders, COM
monty known as loan sharks, vas
tried in the Magistrates Court Friday
afternoon before Magistrate II. L. B.
Wells. the jury before whom the case
was tried returning a verdict for the
defendant and damages to the amount
of SIS.
The case was that of II. l.. Benbow
against Reuben Jones', colored, and
was a claim and delivery suit for the
possession Of cow which had been
mortgaged by the negro to Mr.. Ben
bow when he borrowed money from
him. The outcome Of the case will
probably result in council taking still
tire against persons who carry Oh
a money lending business among the
ignorant colored people of the city.
1t was alleged in the complaint
that Benbow had loaned Jones $500
on October 10, 1911, payable in 80
days and secured the loan by a NOR
tgage on a cow belonging to Jones.
Jones had made several payments on
the loan amounting to Sass and
s5.15 was still due with interest at
eight per cent. The cow was seized
under mortgage several days ago and
the suit was brought to secure pos
session Of the animal.
1t was alleged in the answer and
counter claims that Benbow had only
paid the negro $500 and had taken
a mortgage on the COW for $500.
which in itself was illegal under the
statute of 1904. That Jones had
made various payments of $3.50 on
November 18th. $500 on December
9ti, and SITS on December 30th,
amounting in all to $7.35. That these
payments had liquidated the debt and
that the defendant had been damaged
to the amount of $50 by the seizure
Of the COW.
Mr.. Geo. ID. Levy represented the
plaintiff and Mr.. r. d. Epps the de-
fendant. The case was hard fought,
but the plaintiff was lacking in evil
dence to prove his allegations. Mr.
Renbow himself did not take the
stand, but put up his daughter, who
keeps books for him. She got badly
twisted up on her evidence. stating at
one time that there was no day-book,
but changing this statement, when
witnesses were put up who had seen
the day book. A demand was made
for this day-bOok and after a great
deal Of trouble it was finally produc-
ed. A change had also been made in
the ledger account, the account be-
Ing transferred from one page, which
was torn out to another page farther
on in the book, after the current ac-
counts, the index having been chang
ed to this effect also.
The day-book showed where the
amounts had been received, as claim
ed by the defendant. whereas the
ledger showed these amounts to be
very much less. the first payment be-
ing placed on the day-book as $3.50
as alleged by the defendant, and also
as S1.60 on the ledger account; the
second as $2.00 on the day-book and
as so cents on the ledger; the last
payment was marked $1.75 on the
day-book, but was rs cents on the
ledger.
Witnesses were put up by the de-
fendant who stated that the amount
last demanded Of him was $11.OO, if
which amount was not paid the cow
would be seized. whereas the plain
tiff's witnesses stated that the amount
was only $500.
The case took up most Of the after
noon, being argued back and forth by
the attorneys and much time being
consumed in the examination Of the
witnesses. The jury which consisted
of Messrs. NJ. II. Rivers, ]. d. Bland
ing. j. II. Mercer and W. S. Reynolds
stayed out only a few minutes before
they returned a verdict for the de-
fendant for the possession OF the cow
and damages amounting to SIS.