The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1913-05-16
COMMON PLEAS COURT.
Much Business Transacted in Short
Time-Many Cases Settled-Judge
DeYOre Presided.

The court of compon pleas conVen-
ed on Monday morning and remained
in session until Wednesday morning.
Hon. James W. Devore, of Edgefeld,
Judge of the eleventh judicial circuit,
presided. This was Judge Devore's
second appearance in Newberry, and
the manner in which he presided over
the court was pleasing to the law
yers, the jurors and the public.
The first case tried was that of Sum
mer-Wise Stock company, plain tiffs,
against D. G. Livingston, defendant.
Plaintiffs sued on promissory note,
which with principal, interest and at
torney's fees aggregated about 5000.
The defendant alleged that the consid-
Grafton of the note was a mule sold
him by the plaintiffs, which mule was
unsound. The jury found verdict in
favor of the plaintiffs for $3.50.
Plaintiffs were represented by Hunt,
Hunt & Hunter, while Eugene S.
Blease was counsel for the defendant.
The. second case heard was that OF
aJmes W: Pitts Gaainst Souther mail
way company. This was suit for
S1995.00 damages on account of the
plaintiff having purchased ticket
from Silverstreet to Greenwood, which
ticket he alleged was given the ticket
collector of the train of the defendant,
and that afterward the collector told
the plaintiff that he had not received
his ticket and demanded the cash fare
from Silverstreet to Greenwood,
amounting to ninety cents, which the
plaintiff paid under protest, and as
he stated, because the collector threat
ened to give the plaintiff trouble The
railroad admitted the payment of the
ninety cents, but claimed that it was
the only fare received from the plain
tiff. and it was denied that the collec-
tor threatened the plaintiff. The jury
found for the plaintiff the sum Of nine
ty-fve cents, being the fare paid with
interest thereon. The plaintiff claim
ed punitive damages but the jury only
iconsidered actual damages. Plaintiff
moved for new trial, which motion
will be heard later. The attorneys for
the plaintiff were Hunt, Hunt & Hun
ter. Johnstone & Cromer represented
the defendant.
The third and last jury case was
that Of E. P. Reed & Co. VS.. E. 2.
Copeland and o. o. Copeland, partners
under the firm name of Copeland
Bros. This was suit on account, the
plaintiffs claiming that they received
and accepted an order for bill of
shoes from the defendants, and i'm
mediately upon acceptance Of the or
der, that they began manufacturing the
shoes. That the order was afterward
cancelled by the defendants, who re-
fused to accept the shoes, and that the
plaintiffs had to sell the shoes else
where at financial loss. Defendants
claimed that the order was withdrawn
before the same was accepted by the
plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs man
ufactured the shoes after cancellation
of the order The jury found for the
plaintiff in the full amount claimed,
S13O.42 Johnstone & Cromer appear
ed for plaintiff, and B. V. Chapman
represented the defendants. A motion
for a new trial on the part of the de-
PENDANTS is pending.
Several equity matters were dispos-
ed of. Quite a lot Of business was
transacted although the court was in
session but a few days. The docket
is in fine condition. Newberry law
yers settle quite number Of cases
without going to rial, which speaks
we'll for the bar of this city. Among
the cases settled at this term was that