Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1913-05-28
THE LANDMARK REVERSES
ITSELF,

In its zeal to knock Judge Long
and The Landmark, the Salisbury
Waterman handled it's facts care
At the first week of Row
Superior Court Judge Long was
the ground and conld have
opened court at 8 O'Clock, but as
the Jurors and witnesses had ben
summoned for 10 O'Clock court
was opened at 10. All the work
On the docket WAS finished IN a
dey and a half. judge Long was
to return the following week to
try civil cases. By agreement OF
the attorneys it a decided that
he should return the following
Monday and open court at twelve
O'Clock. There was 10 wait, there
fore, on the part Of the attorneys
for the hour was as agreed upon.
That day the business on the dock
ct vas disposed of by 4 O'clock In
the afternoon. Some criminal
cases had developed, however; the
solicitor was called from his home
back to Salisbury and these cases
we're tried. That's the whole
story.-Landmark.
The Landmark having hereto
fore held the position of the
81 ,alous Knocker of Judges" for
merly known as "justifable crit
icism," seems quite offended when
it's supposed monopoly is infringed
upon, and therefore, not being al
lowed to longer occupy this ex-
allied position alone and display
it's zeal to knock" all judges not
coming up to its immaginary
standard, proceeds, IS above, tt
crawfsh "backward," (snd witt
considerable speed, even to thu
point of defense.)
OF course much extrinsic argu
ment Is being put forth to hid
the pith of our statement, bu'
without result. The matter haI
already gone too far, but sine
having raised the question, VI
shall proceed to call attention Il
q few items in connection there
with.
The Landmark has either done
the judges it has been criticizinl
a great injustice, or has complete
ly reversed itself on all the point
at issue.
The Landmark, Judge Long tn
court record and all the evidence
at hand, sustains The WATCH
MANS point that the Rowan Su
psrior court did not open Monday
May 12sh, until noon aud conse-
quently a half days service wa
lost to the county. The fact tina
an arrangement between the judg
aud a half dozen lawyers, (som'
say there were a dozen s'people'
presently was made to this emf
only adds generalization to tn
act.
The grand jury adjourned OF
Thursday evening previous anc
most likely could have reported
but was compelled to return t.
Salisbury Monday, and not hav
ing been notified that the court
would not open till noon, wer'
forced to get up, in some instances
before day, to reach Salisbury il
time for the regular opening hour
9:30 q. M, while Judge Long was
very likely taking his ease. Yet
all, including the Judge, got {
full days pay. This condition
extended to the regular jury, tn
Witnesses, the suitors, and some
of the lawyers.
It is Acknowledged that such al
arrangement was made by agree
ment with the attorneys. ThiI
would make it appear all the at
torneys were present and knew o
the agreement, but this Is a mis-.
take. But, what is more, to tn
point, Is this proper? Is it les
reprehensible to combine for thu
delay of the courts business al
the public expense than to do 81
by accident, or to be providential
ly hindered?
Most of the lawyers live in Sal.
isbury, were costing the county
nothing, but were recipients Of
fees, etc while those who were
being paid out of the county funds
and the people through their Of
ficials who paid these expenses
we're not notified or considered in
the agreement" at all,
THE WATERMAN has been under
the impression that for such good
reasons The Landmark was very