The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-11-16
JENNINGS CASE ENDS.
JURY RETURNS VERDICT IN Ma
TURE OF COMPROMISE.
Case Had Lasted One Week and
Ihirty-fOur Witnesses Were Exam
med-Jury Says Road is Neighbor-
hood Road and Cannot be Closed.
bat Gives Verdict for Damages.

After having consumed a whole
week Of court and after thirty-four
witnesses had been examined the case
or L. ID. Jennings against w. S. Le-
noir, +. 0. Jennings, ct al, came to
a close Wednesday night when the
jury after being out for couple of
hours returned a ver6 N the ma
ture of a compromise the two
contesting parties,$S
There were t't ,Sstions which
the jury had S.e in the case.
The first $ - was; Has the
plaintiff -. to close the road
in que 70 which the iurv an
s"e' y The second question
e road in question a neigh
l. road?" The jury returned
an swer of Yes" to this question.
The third question was: lis the plain
tiff entitled to damages against the
defendant?" ard If so, how much?"
To this the jury replied Yes" and
gave the plaintiff actual damages of
$500. This amount Of damages was
proved, being the value of the gates
which were torn down. The plaintiff
sued for $1,000 punitive damages.
Mr.. L. d. Jennings, the plaintiff
in the case, stated Thursday, when
asked concerning the case, that he
had won it. as his contention was
that he had the right to close the
road permanently, and if not perma-
No ntly that he had the right to have
the road closed by gates. He would
get out an injunction allowing the
gates to be placed there and prevent
ing the other parties from removing
them. On the other hand Mr.. Clifton,
attorney for the defendant, stated that
his side had won the case, as Mr. Jen-
nings wanted to close the road
permanently, which they were trying
to prevent. They had proved their
contention that it was a neighbo-hood
road by the verdict of the jury. He
admitted that Mr.. Jennings had a
right to place a gate across the road,
If he chose TO do so, but the gate must
be statutory one. He would make
a motion asking the court to strike
out the damages of $500 awarded by
the jury 10 Mr.. Jennings. Thus it is
seen that each side claims 10 have
won the case, which has, because of
its duration and other features con-
nected with it, proved of considerable
interest locally.
The case was commenced last
Thursday morning and was COM
pleted Wednesday night, lasting, il
will be seen, just one week. During
the trial Of the case there were thirty
four witnesses to testify, twenty-six for
the plaintiff and eight for the defend
ant. 1t is case which has lasted
longer than any other which has been
tried in the past two years.
The contention was based on wheth-
er Mr.. L. ID. Jennings had the right to
permanently close certain roads across
his plantation. He claimed that they
were plantation roads and that he
had this right, the defendants claim
ed that he did not have this right as
the road was a neighborhood road,
Mr.. Jennings had first placed gates
across the road which the plaintiffs
tore down, his decision being made
then TO close the road permanent
ly, If the jury gave him a decision to
that effect. The matter as il is now,
apparently practically stands as it did
when Mr.. Jennings first PVT the gates
across the road for the purpose of
keeping his cattle in and not for the
purpose Of preventing persons from