The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1922-05-31
COMMON PLE.SssgHBRT
ADJOURNED SATURDAY
flaintifis In Three Cases Awarded a
TOtnl Of Over $1,000 In Yer,licts.

Piainfifis In Tlree Cases Awarded a
Total Of Over $4,000 IN Verdicts.
Juries sitting in the last three eases
OF common pleas court, which adjourn
ga Saturday afternoon, returned YER
diets for plaintiffs aggregating oyer
$4,000.
d. Y. Weathers, named as beneficiary
IN life Insurance policy with the
Woodmen of the World, taken ont by
his brother prior to the latter's death,
was awarded a verdict of $1,000, the
face value of the policy, with Interest.
This suit was heard once before, at
which time the court directed A YER
dict for The defendant company. The
plaintiff appealed tho decision to the
supreme court and a new trial was
ordered On the ground that the circuit
court erred in directing vedict in
stead of allowing the jury To decide
the case. The defendant alleged that
the deceased had allowed his policy
to lapse and had not complied in full
with the rules for Reinstatement. The
llplaintif alleged that the deceased had
paid all dues in arrears and had re-
lceived a receipt from the local clerk
of the camp advising him of his re-
linstatement.
Model Mills, Of johnson City, Tenn,
| was awarded a verdict of $l,656.O7
against j. S. bennett & Company
wholesale grocers of this city, the en-
tire amoutn asked for being approxi-
mately $4,000. The plaintiff alleged
that Bennett & Company entered into
a contract in December, 1890 for five
thousand bushels of meal to be deliv-
cred during the first months of the fol-
lowing year and that the local concern
preached its contract when delivery
was attempted, causing a loss to the
plaintif by reason Of the decline in
the meal market. The defendant al
legged that the Model Mills failed to
live uD to It's contract by it's refusal to
deliver the meal in package sizes al
legged to have been authorized under
the contract. Much testimony was talk
en- in regard to the sizes Bennett &
Comapny demanded when shipping
specifications were finally given by
them. The, plaintiff introduced the
contract in the evidence and contend
cd that it shipped the meal as therein
specified
In the case of the Dimple Milling
Company, of Nashville, Tenn, VS.. j.
IS. Bennett & Company, in which the
Nashville concern sued for s517.00 as
the amount alleged to have been lost
by reason of an illegal cancellation of
la -four contract by the defendant: the
plaintiff was awarded !$317.0O this be-
ing the amount Of damages asked by
the plaintiff less 5000 asked by fhe
defendant in countersuit. This case
grew out of the cancellation OF the
third of three orders for flour given
the plaintiff by the defendant. The de-
|fendant claimed that upon the discov-
cry Of defects in the first two ship
ments it cancelled the third shipment
VI cfD IL diSO hllcScu
in that the plaintiff company had mis-
represented the character Of It's man
ufacturing process. The presiding
Judge charged the jury that where
goods under one contract proved un-
merchantable other contracts were not
affected. The countersuit for 5000, en-
tered by the defendant, was for losses
alleged to have been suffered by the
defendants in disposing of the flour
shipped under the first two contracts.
Motions for new trials in both the
Benentt cases were overruled by the
presiding judge, but notices were civ
en- for appeals to higher courts.
These three cases consumed all of
the time Of the court not previously
covered In this paper.