The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1916-06-09

went into the proof and said that tne
only conclusion that could be drawn
was that Mr.. Hight had in violation
Of the law hired his own teams; that
he had received for these teams big
amount of the highway fund OF that
section; that he and the district COM
missioners and Mr.. Nights brother
Pinkston's brother-in-law had used be-
tween them the greater part OF the
highway fund Of that section.
The opening argument for Mr.. Hight
was made by James c. VOORHEES,, who
in the beginning made very spirited
reply to the Nashville Banners crit
cism of the committee of investigation.
J. c. VOORHEES,, counsel for the de-
PENDANT, stated that Mr.. Hight had a
perfect right to hire his teams to the
county under such emergencies that
existed at the time this road was be-
ing built. He further said that the
gentlemen who had charge of the hir.
ing of teams and work Of all kinds
and were in a position to know the
conditions under which the teams
were hired from Mr.. Gillian, should
be convicted of perjury, if it was true
that Mr. Hight hired these teams to
himself, but each stated on the witness
stand that they were laboring under
difficulties on account of the lack Of
! teams when they hired the teams
from Mr.. Gillian, who had leased the
teams fro mMr. Hight.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. VOORHEES,
argument, ]. H. Dining took the floor
in behalf of the defendant. Mr.. Din
ming stated in the outcome, that he
did not appeal to the investigating
committee on technicalities of law,
but that he appealed to them through
the truth that had been introduced on
the witness stand and the commit
tees Judgment in behalf of the county
court of Maury county. He said that
il they we're justified in their convic-
lions to the extent that Clay Hight
had done something Illegally, he want
ed them to tell to the world that he
was guilty and should be ousted. He
further stated that these insults had
been thrown into the faces of the
county commissioners without any
statement whatever in regard to the
law governing the rights of a road
commissioner, being made; also Mr..
Hight had a right to hire his teams to
the county If he chose, that the law
stated that an official had no right to
hire teams or sell material to himself,
and that if Mr. Hight saw fit he could
have hired his teams If the commits
sioners wanted them, but that Mr..
Hight had leased his teams to Mr.. Gil
liam, who had full charge of them, to
work them anywhere he chose.
In regard to Mr.. Hight using his
teams to haul lumber from Groveland
to the Duck river bridge, to be used
in repairing said bridge, Mr.. Dining
said that Mr.. PEBBLES should have
known that the county court and not
the road commissioners had full juris-
diction over all Duck river bridges at
that time. He said that counsel Pee
bles had adjourned court for twenty
minutes to find whether or not COM
plants made by the people in the
vicinity where the work was being
done had been entered on the minutes
at a meeting that was held at the
work house, when the law specifically
stated that only the proceedings Of
the commission should be entered on
the minutes.
At the conclusion of the argument,
the chairman of the committee adj ,
journed court until 1 p. m.
After this announcement, r. A. !
Wilkes made hsort talk in regard to !
the charges that had been brought
against the officials and what prompt
ed these charges. Mr. Wilkes said
that many citizens had come to him ,