The Danbury Reporter.
VOLUME XXXI.
Clerk's Annual Report*
(CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.)
Recti. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
duo Alex. 8 Woodson $ 5 84
Reod, Feb. 5. 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon, '
due Mary T Martin 8 33
Recti. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon, *
due Jessie Mitchell 3 38
Reed. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
due Bessie Meadows 3 33
i. Ijtecd. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
dne bailie O Durham 3 33
. Reed. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
|L due Graoie Durham 334
Reed. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
due I! JJ Durham 3 34
Rood. Feb. 5, 02, in suit Harris vs. Bohannon,
due Emma Durham 3 34
Reed. June 14, 02, in suit Lsndreth vs. More
tield, due J Van Lewis 25
Reed. July 28, 02, in suit Simmons vs. Smith,
due JA Adams 30
Reed. July 28, 02, in suit Simmons vs. Smith,
due J L Til Icy 30
Reed. F T 02, in suit Lewis vs. Overby, due
W Y Gordon 1 20
Reod. F T 02, in snit Lewis vs. Overby, due
James Overby 30
Recti. F T 02, in Buit Lewis vs, Overby, due
W M Gordon 30
Recti. F T 02, in suit Lewis vs. Overby, due
J F Aired 80
Reed. F T 02, in suit Lewis vs, Overby, due
T M Baker 140
Reed. Feb. 28, 99, in suit Wall, ex. vs. Wall,
duo J H Shamell AO
Reed. Dee. 18, 02, in suit Boyles vs. Boyles,
due M P Jarrett 25
Reod. Dec. 20, 02, in suit Smith vs. Martin,
doe Charlie Martin 1 00
Reed. Dec. 20, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
due S O Mauser . 85
Hoed. Dec. 29, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
due W C Wilson ( 1 80
Reed. Dec. 20, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Pair,
due O R Reid 30
Rocd. Dec. 20, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
due W H Hood ✓ 1 85
Reed. Dec. 29, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
dne J M Smith. Jr., 30
i Reed. Dec. 20, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
\dufl J B Tillotsou 90
ltWd. Dec. 29, 02, in suit Blsckbnrn ya, Fair,
due I) H Wall a £SB
Reod. Dee. 29, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
due J H Page 1 66
Reed. Doc. 29, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
doe Thomas James 4 62
Reed. Dee. 29, 02, in suit Blackburn vs. Fair,
due Robert Covington 1 46
Reod. Jan. 1, 08, in Buit Tilley vs. Penn, due
Ira K Jessup 25
Reed. March 9, 03, in snit Foreman & Bro. vs.
Taylor, duo H D Leake 90
Reed. March 9, 03, in suit Foreman 4 Bro. vs.
Taidor, due J W Morrisy 50
Reed. March 12, 04, in suit Martin vs. Martin,
'' due ! C Flynt 120
Reed. Ajuil 29, 03, in suit Pearee vs. Lynch,
due JE Dodson to R L Hay more 50
Reed. April 29, 03, in suit Pearee vs. Lynch,
due J E Dodson 10
Recti. April 29, 03, in suit Pearop vs, Lynch,
due Martha France 3 60
April 29, 03, in suit Pearee vs. Lynch,
dn • John A Martin 50
Reed. May 21, 03, in suit Johnson vs. Slate,
due W H Hay more* 62
Reed, May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
due W P Ray in coitlrof&ny 90
Reed. May 21, 03, in suit Slate ye, Thomas,
due W R Carter in controversy 60
Re«l. May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
due P W Robertson in controversy jl 20
Reod. May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
due J C Newsoiu in controversy 25
Reed. May 21,08, in suit Slate va. Thomas,
due P H Mabe in controversy 75
Reed. May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
due John C Clark in controversy 25
\ Recti May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
due James A Johnson in controversy 3 36
Recti. May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
dne M A White to Joel Tilley in controversy 2 00
Reed. May 21, 03, in suit Slate vs. Thomas,
r ■ due M A White in controversy 4 64
Rocd. S T 03, in suit State vs. Martin, due
J B Webster 60
Reed. S T 08, in suit State vs. Shelton, due
J M Davis 80
Reed. 8 TO3, in suit Stato vs. Samuel, due
J W Gibson 1 00
Reed. May 22, 03. in suit Campbell vs. Gold
ing, due E H Rainey, (judgt). 14 74
Reed Juno 18, 03, in suit Marshall Bros, vs
Southern R R Co., due S G Brown 1 20
Recti Jane 18, 03, in suit Sawl Hall exparte,
tine J A Forest 1 00
Reetl Jan. 4, 04. iu suit Reynolds vs Wftll &
Wall, atlmrs., due W F Moir 1 20
Reed Jan. 4,04, in suit Saml Hall exparte,
due EL Hall 60
Real Feb. 9, 04, in suit Presley Poarce et al
I* exparte, for pr>bate of deeds 125
Reed Feb. 22, 01, in suit Southern vs South
ern, due J I Blackburn 1 00
Reod Feb. 22, 04, in suit Southern vs StWth
«rn due Geo. Manuel 50
Reed Feb. 22, 04, in suit Hill fldmr, ys Hill
et al, duo D Poindsxter 50
Rocd April 16, 04, in snit Hughe? vs Bryant, >
DANBURY, N. C. THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1905
due James Flippin 50
Rocd S T 04, in suit State vs Webster, due
Phil Carter 75
Recti S T 04, in suit State vs Webster, due
Jas. Scales 75
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Mabe, due
Laurel Mabe 56
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Jones, due J R
Covington 30
Reed S T 04, in suit State ve Jones, due D F
Tillotson * 1 02
Reed 8 T 04, in suit State vs Frazier, dueC S
Cardwell 4 58
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Linville, due
Cephas Vaughn 32
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Lankford, due
D S R Martin 25
Reed S T 04, in Buit State vs Harris, due L T
Priddy 60
Reetl S T 04, in suit State vs Martin, due J B
Webster 60
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Martin, due J E
Bhelton 3 58
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Martin, due J A
Amos 3 74
Reed 8 T 04, in suit State vs Martin, due J T
Kallam 3 58
Reed 8 T 04, in suit State vs Voss, due J T
Johnßon 1 60
Reed S T 04, in suit State vs Scales, due R P
McAnally 75
Reod 8 T 04, in suit State VB Heath, due J L
Mitchell 1 60
Repd S T 04, in suit State vs Lewis, due J S
D
Reod S T 04. ii) suit State vs Moser, due W
L Culler 1 40
Reed 8 T 04, in snit State vs Lewis, (Jw e D*
J W Neat 68
Reed May 27, 04, in suit Hawkins vs Hawkins
et al, due James M Fagg 2 26
Reed May 27, 04, in suit Hawkins vs Hawkins
et al, due C H Sheppard 1 75
Recti May 27, 04, in suit Joyce vs Southern
R R Co., due D Poindexter 30
Reod June 6, 04, in suit Morris vs Jones adinr.,
due J E Crewp 70
Rpod June 7, 04, in suit Southern etal vs Hall
et al, due S G Brown 60
Reed June 7,04, in suit Southern et «1 vs Hall
et al, dne J H Covington 25
Reed June 13, 04, in suit Ellington admr. VB
Ziglar etal, due R F Brown 60
Reed June 13, 04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, duo J W Hylton 3 62
Recti June 13, 04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, due S A Thompson 3 30
Reod J»WP 04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, duo B J Woolwine 80
Reed June 13, 04, in suit Ellington admr, vs
Ziglar et al, dne C R Martin 50
RecaJune 13, 04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, due 8 H Dunkley 50
Recti June 13,04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, due W R Massey 50
Reed June 13, 04, In suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, due T D Howell 50
Recti Juno 13. 04, in suit Ellington admr. vs
Ziglar et al, due 8 A Anderson 2 50
Reed July 4, O'li Bl lH Cromer V 3 Bitting,
due Jasper A Slate 70
Reed July 4, 04, in suit Cromer vs Bitting,
due J M Gibson 1 50
Reed July 4, 04, in snit Cromer vs Bitting,
due J D Barr 1 00
Recti July 4, 04, in suit Cromer vs Bitting,
due W A Petree L^O
Recti Jgly 9, 04, in suit State vs Clark, due
J W Young I 05
Reed July 9, 04, in suit State vs due
Geo. Price 1 p8
Reed July 9, 04, in suit State vs Clark, due
Phil Carter 75
Reed July 9, 04, in suit State vs Clark, due
James Scaleß 75
se«d Jtfly 9, 04, in suit State vs Clark, due
Jno. Ziglar 75
Reed July 9, 04, in suit State vs M&nijel, due
R W Hill 59
Reed July 9, 04, in suit State vs Mabe, due
Robert Lawson 69
Reod July 22, 04, in suit Mitchell et al vs Ben
nett et al, due J C Wall 4 20
Reod July 22, 04, in snit Mitchell et al vs Ben
nett et al, duo J W Flinchl 20
Reod July 30, 04, in suit Martin vs Collins,
due H D Shaffer 50
Reed July 30, 04, in suit Martin vs Collins,
due J A Cardwell - 50
Reed July 30, 04* in suit Martin vs Collins,
due T J Gann 25
Reed Auij. 2, 04, in suit Hicks admr. vs Moody
et a), due W A Young 25
Reed Aug. 23, 04, in suit Wall vs Jones admr.,
due W B Vaughn 60
Reed Aug. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones «dmr„
due J 8 Parish to A J Fair 80
Recti Aug. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
due J M Davis 32
Reed Aur. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
due J M Davis to Jones & Patterson 30
Recti Aug. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
due W T Southern 30
Reed Au g 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
due M F Pinnix 60
Reed Aug. 25, 04, in snit Fair vs Jones admr,,
due J I Blackburn 2 76
Reed Aug. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
due R E Clodfelter 1 58
Reed Aug. 25, 04, in suit Fair vs Jones admr.,
dne A A Miller 5 90
(OONTINI*ED ON THIRD PAGE.)
STOKES AND CAROLINA.
"DOG-KILLER" HEARD FROM AGAIN.
Replies To Article of Mr. -J." Pub
lished Some Time Since.
Mr. Editor :
We will now take up the chal
lenge in which Mr. J. otters to
give us five dollars to prove that
Jesus condemned the manufac
ture of whiskey. While we wish
and expect to win his five dollars,
not for ourself, however, but to
bestow as a gift on some poor
needy one (yet to bo decided on)
who has been made a subject of
charity through the influence of
strong drink; our main reason for
taking up his challenge is for the
sake of truth, and because so many
seem to be easing their conscience
over the manufacture and sale of
whiskey, all because they think
the word of God is silent on the
matter. Indeed, it seems that
many are real glad to believe that
it is silent about it. But let us
assure you, reader, that it is
not silent on the subject. We in
tend to try the case by God's word;
and we ask all the intelligent,
thoughtful readers of the Reporter
to do us the kindness to serve as
jurors in the case, and follow us
closely and patiently while we ex
amine the evidence, and then pass
in their verdict after they have
heard all the testimony. And as
it will take sometime to examine
all the scriptural evidence bearing
on the case, and we want the read
ers' verdict when we are through,
we ask them to please preserve all
our letters and read them con
nectedly when we shall have finish
ed writing on the subject.
Now, while we admit that Jesus
never mentioned the word "whis
key," we affirm that he condemned
the thing we sometimes designate
by that word. And now in the
beginning of these letters we lay
down the indisputable fact or
or proposition that we can talk
about things in other than direct
or specific terms. When I say
that trees bear leaves, I state a fact
which is common to all kinds of
trees, though I do not specify
any particular tree. If I say that
causes produce results, I state a
fact which is common to all causes.
Then, if the Saviour teaches us
that all causes are condemned,
which produce sinful results,
he teaches us a f«ct
whjoh is cqmmon to all such caus
es. That is to soy, he teaches us
a troth which must be-interpreted
of all causeß which produce sinfnl
results. Now, reader, with these
thoughts fixed in your mind, we
ask you to go with us to Matt 18 ;6,
By the aid of the Saviour's teach
ing in this verse, we are enabled
here in the beginning of this dis
cussion, to deal a death blow to
the idea that he was silent on the
whiskey business. Here are his
words; —
"Whoso shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in me it
were better for him that a mill
stone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the
depth of the sea." Again, in or
der to emphasize this declaration
and impress it more forcibly on
the minds of men, it is stated
again in Mark 9:42; and-e>(ill again
in Luke 17:2. We refer *i yon to
these passages in order to call
your attention to the word "offend."
What do you think it means, just
simply to provoko anger or wrath?
We do not believe for one mom
ent that that is the full meaning the
Savioqr wished to convey by the
word. Indeed, we think that it is
only a very light shade of his
meaning. We do not understand
that it is a sin to get angry for
just cause, that is if we oondnct
| ourselves aright while under the
passion. For we read of the anger
and wrath of God. Again, we are
told to "be angry and sin not." So
then, when one offends us in the
sense of making us angry, if we
conduct ourselves aright while
under the influence of the anger
it is no sin to us. So we will have
to look for a broader meaning of
the word "offend" as used by our
Lord in the above named passages,
than just simply to provoke anger.
So be patient, reader, we will get
to the thoughts we wish to enforce
farther on.
It is sometimes the case that
when words in our common Eng
lish Bible fail to give us a clear
understanding of the Spirit's mean
ing, it will help us to go back and
tind out the meaning of the cor
responding Hebrew or Greek
words they translate. This seems
to be the case with the word un
der consideration; as it is various
ly rendered by different translat
ors. In the "Emphatio Diaglott,
Doctor Wilson readers it "In
snare," instead of "Offend."
Let it be remembered that the
New Testament was first written in
the Greek language. The Spirit
selected certain words with which
to convey its meaning to the chil
dren of men, and those words were
written down, and they constitute
what we call the "Greek New
Testament." Since then this origin
al work h«a been translated into
many other languages; and we
have the common English version,
ii which we find the word "offend,"
which is the word we now have
under consideration. And now,
before we hear Webster on the
meaning of the word, we will go
back and find out the meaning of
its corresponding Greek word.
The word "offend" in the passages
referred to, is a translation of the
Greek word "Skantlalizo." And
now, as "Liddell and Scott" are
the standard authorities on the
definition or meaning of Greek
words, and as we have their Greek-
English Lexioons before us, we
will lot them tell us what the word
means. In their abridged lexicon
they say that "Skandalizo" means,
"to make to stumble, give offence
or scandal to any one, throw diffi
culties in his way." In their
unabridged work they give about
the same meaning, but extend it
somewhat by citing Matt. 5:29, as
an instance in which the word is
used.
We will now call in Doctor
Robt. Young and let him tell us
what the word means. In his
English, Hebrew and Greek Con
cordance to the Bible, he says that
"Skandalizo" means "to cause to
stumble;" just what Liddell and
Scott say about it.
Now, we will hear Webster on
the meaning of the corresponding
English word. In his unabridged
work, he gives several shades of
meaning to the word "offend."
Here aro some of them:—"To dis
turb, annoy, or cause to fall or
stumble. To draw to evil, or hin
der in obedience; to cause to sin
or neglect duty."
.Reader, we have now learned
from these wise men that to offend
is to disturb or annoy him,
to draw him to evil, to hinder him
in obedience; to cause him to Bin
or neglect duty. In short, to cause
him tosfumbl# and fall by throw
ing obstacles or difficulties iji his
way. And now with these thoughts
fixed in your minds, I ask, what
are you doing, you who are manu
facturing and dispensing whiskey?
And what have you done, you who
voted in its existenbs and sale?
Do you know how many of your
fellow beings you have offended, or
NUMBER 42
"caused to stumble and fall" by
your bringing about the existence
of the deadly stuff ancKthus
ing it as an obstacle' or difficulty
in their way? Do you know how
many you have offended, or
"drawn to evil" by it? Do you
know how many you have offended
by it by causing it to "hinder
them in obedience" to the laws of
God and man and of common
deceney? Do you know how
many you have offended by it, by
its "causing them to sin and neg
lect their duties" to their wives
and children, and to God and
themselves? Do you know how
many of God's worshiping congre
gations or little ones you have
offended, by its "disturbing" and
breaking up their devotional ex
ercises? No, you do not know
how many you have offended in
any of these senses. The num
ber is so great, and you have been
so thoughtless and unconcerned
about it, that you cannot count
them. But hear the Saviour's
denunciation of the man who
offends only one of his little ones.
Here are his words:—
" Whoso shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in me, it
were better for him that a mill
stone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the
depth of the sea."
Reader, please remember that I
am not talking about the word
"whiskey," but about the thing
sometimes designated by that
word; and that when I speak of it.
its attributes—its chracteristic in
fluences as well as its substance
are implied. That is to say, I
speak of it not only as an article
or substance, but as a cause, agent,
agency, or instrumentality, as well.
So then, to manufacture whiskey
is to manufacture it both as an
article or substance, and as a cause,
agent or instrumentality. Then
when I say that to manufacture it,
is either to drink it or cause others
to drink it, and that to drink it
and cause others to drink it, is to
cause all the evils which follow its
use; I state facts which are verified
by the experience and observa
tion of all observing people, and
prove beyond all doubt that the
manufacture of whiskey is the
great basis or underlying cause of
all the evils which follow its use.
And as long as truth is truth I
shall find no ground to surrender
my convictions in the matter.
We will now put our scriptural
! argument in the form of a syllo
gism.
PREMISES —Jesus condemns that
which offends his little ones.
Whiskey offends some of his
little ones, by "cansing them to
sin and neglect iuty.
CONCLUSION-— Therefore Jesus
condemns whiskey.
Webster says that if the prem
ises, or major and minor proposi
tions of a syllogism are true, the
conclusion must be true, and the
argument amounts to demonstra
tion. So then, reader, if the
premises of tho above syllogism
are true, if it is true that Jesus
condemns that which offends his
little ones, and is true that whiskey
offends some of them by "causing
them to sin and neglect duty,"
then aocording to Webster we
have proved our case, both logioal
ly and scripturally; and that, too,
by the nse of a single verse. But
we are not done yet; for we intend
to clinch the proof and seal it with
other declarations of (Jod's word.
So we trust that you will bear with
us till we get through.
Jurors dismissed till we meet in
our next, at which time we will
Oftll in other witnesses.
DOG-KILLER.