The citizen., 1913-12-19
CIRCUIT COURT.

Woodsboro, were before Judge Worth
ington in the trial OF the charge against
them that they daubed shoe polish upon
William Whitmore while asleep. The
I alleged offense occurred some time ago.
! H. Dorsey Etchison and Frank L. Stoner
represented the accused. The Court
! found Smith not guilty and the case
against Logan is being held open until
additional testimony can be secured.
Joanna Filby Brlghtwell was in court
and was fined $50 and costs upon the
charge OF conducting disorderly house.
She paid the fine. Reno 5. Harp was
her attorney.
Wood Roberts, charged with selling in
| toxlcating liquor to minors, pleaded gull
ty and was fined $50. He paid.
| Guy Stultz, young man OF near
| Woodsboro was before the court upon
the charge of carrying concealed weap-
ons. Quite an array OF witnesses were
| examined. He was found not guilty
/ Frank L. Stoner was his attorney.
/ Jennings Brown, OF townsville. who
/ recklessly drove through a crowd of
school children. to see them run. and who
injured one child. was declared guilty and
severely rebuked by Judge Worthing,on.
He was fined $40 and costs. F. L. Stoner
was his attorney.
Roland r. Simpson, of Libertytown,
pleaded guilty to the charge brought
against him of malicouSly destroying
| property. Simpson cut about 20 bean
/ poles on the lands of James Sapplngton,
and was indicted. Judge Worlhington
hned him Is cents, which threw the costs
of the case upon the State. Stoner and
Weinberg were his attorneys.
Robert A. Bennett, through his attor-
ney, Albert S Brown. has filed motion
tor a new trial in the case OF Mr.. Bennett
against Jules Eek for rent alleged to be
due. The chief contention is that one OF
the jurors was disqualified.
Mrs. Eunice Estele Norwood has asked
tor new trial in which her daughter
won verdict for sS.7S. The ownership
OF property was involved in the suit
The court is divided on the awning
pole question, Judges Urner and Peter
upholding the ordinance which removes
them, and Judge Werthington dissented:
The majority of the court holds:
I. That awnings may still be used, not
wthstanding the prohibition against the
poles.
?. That the court cannot interfere with
the Board of Aldermen in the discharge
of their duties.
8. That the removal of awning poles
and hitching posts. merely, is not dis
crimatorv.
4 That an ordinance is not dlscrima-
tory because it affects only certain streets.
S. That the right of the merchant to
the use Of the street is subordinate to
the right Of the city.
The dissenting opinion holds:
1. That the ordinance exceeds its right.
full scope when the awnings are removed
along with the poles.
q That unreasonable discrimination
is shown in requiring the awnings 10 be
removed.
3 That a reasonable time should be
allowed 10 the merchants to provide suit
able awnings
4 That new ordinances conforming to
reason and justice should be passed.
5. That the merchant has the right to
security IN his awnings and merchandise
The injunction was dismissed, thus up
holding the validity of the ordinance re-
quiring the removal of the poles.
The rights of the merchants to use
awnings is not affected by the decision
prohibiting the use of poles embedded
in the side walk. This was made clear
by the majority opinion. where it is
pointed out that only the poles them
selves are required to be removed. The
use of awnings that require brackets to
hold them up is held to be perfectly
proper.
Judge Worthington in his dissenting
opinion holds that the poles supports the
awnings, the removal of the former nee.
essarily means the destruction of the lat
ter-an effect he declares, was not con-
templated BY the Legislature when it
vested the Mayor and Aldermen with au-
thorlty over the streets.
Hays Domer, charged with false pre-
lenses. was found not guilty of the charge
by the court Monday H. Dorsey Eich-
ison was his attorney
Roy RamShurg, charged with beating
his wife, was declared not guilty by the
court. 1t is charged that Ramsburs at
tempted to bring his wife home from a
party to which the husband was not in
vited, and that she sat in the road and
when he attempted TO move her. bv some
slight force. she charged him with assault
RamSburg was later granted divorce
from his wife. Reno S. Harp was his
attorney.
Argument was made by Reno S. Harp
for new trial in the case of Harry Frve,
charged with bastardy The court did
not announce ils decision
w. Scott Van Fossen an Elijah H..
Biggs were appointed court bailifs Mon
day in place of John c. Weast and George
w. Smith.
James Ogle, colored. aged II, was
Tuesday morning placed on trial before
Judges Worihington and Peter upon the
charge of having assaulted Ruth Tin1p-
son, colored. aged eight years. Both are
from near Mt Pleasant Ogle was found
guilty by jury, at the last term of court,
and Jndge Worthington granted him a
new trial He was held in jail for few
days and later released on BAIL Testi-
monv in the case was taken by Court
Stenographer Claude S. Hahn, this being
the first criminal case at this term of court
in which ne has been called to take tes-
timony.
For the first time in years, on an i'm
portant case, two judges of the court dis
agreed, Tuesday afternoon. las. Ogle,
colored, who is charged with criminal
assault, was tried before Judges Peter and
Worthington. The two judges held op-
posite opinions, and Ogle will have 10
again stand trial.
a..