Newspapers / The Johnstonian-Sun (Selma, N.C.) / July 31, 1930, edition 1 / Page 6
Part of The Johnstonian-Sun (Selma, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
THE JOHNSTONIAN—SUN, SELMA, N. C. THURSDAY, JULY 31, 193Q. INTERESTING NEWS ITEMS FROM THE COUNTY SEAT (JAMES R. STANCIL, Editor) * HEARD AROUND THE * * COURT HOUSE * ,jc*****>S«* The Board of County Commission ers are now being greatly compli mented by many of the taxpayers of Johnston County because of the fact that the greatly increased school budget amounting to the sum of ?590,250.12 for the operation of the six months schools in 1930-31 was not allowed. The people of the county are be ginning to realize that something must be done to stop the rapid in crease in expenditures for the school purposes. The people believe in schools, and are willing to pay a reasonable amount of tax money for the sup port of the public schools of the county. But the school budgets for several years past have been in sum was larger by $28,532.00 than the amount which Judge SincI^- forced the Board of County Com missioners to furnish for the opera tion of the six months schools in 1929-30. This big new budget was pre sented to the Board of County Com missioners on June 20, 1930, and was rejected by the board at a meeting held on July 14, 1930. On Saturday, July 26, the County Board of Education held a meeting, and return the budget to Miss Luma McLamb, clerk to the County Board of Commissioners, with a re quest that the Board of County Commissioners approve such of the hundreds of items of proposed ex penditures as might be demanded adequate to run the schools for the six months term. This act of the County Superin tendent and school board is evident ly an effort to embarrass the Board creased at such a rapid rate, that of County Commissioners, and plain- the tax rate has necessarily had to ly shows the stubbornness and spite- j r ^ +ri- +i.Tvif> in fulness that has characterized the be increased from time to time ^ ^ i + i. • of moRev acts of the -County Superintendent, order to raise the amounts oi money , ^ 4. r, a 4.- that the Board of’County Commis- and the County Board of Education sioners have been forced to furnish to the County Board of Education. This sort of business has gone on from year to year, and the burden •on the taxpayers has been increased until it is almost unbearable. The records show that the sum of $530,865.53 was used in the opera tion of the six months schools of the County in 1928-29 with 446 teachers. The County Superintend ent last year presented a budget amounting to more than $573,000.00 for the operation of the six months schools; and this was after the new school law had gone into effect which was supposed to limit the number of teachers in Johnston County to 418 for that term. The laying off of 28 teachers which was ^ supposed to have been cone as year cases is now since the present County Board of Commissioners called for a halt in their wild expenditures and demand ed that more economy be exercised in the expenditure of the money provided for school purposes. The County Superintendent and his board will soon learn that they can not accomplish much by spite- work. The Board of County Commis sioners are backed by a large ma jority of the taxpayers who under stand the situation, both Republicans and Democrats. SPECL\L TERM OF SUPERIOR COURT has been estimated to have saved in salaries about $18,000.00. Yet the budget was increased last year to the extent of about $43,000.00 more than was used the previous year. It will be remembered that the county commissioners last year re fused to approve the budget as pre sented by superintendent Marrow, but did at first agree to approve a bud- g»t allowing exactly the same amount as was expended the pre vious year which amount was $530,- 865.53. Mr. Marrow contended that he could not operate the six months schools on the same amount as was used the previous year notwith standing the fact that he was sup posed to operate with a much smal ler number of teachers. Later when threatened with a law suit the Board of County Commis going on in the Johnston County Court House being presided over’ by Hon. 'Walter L. Small of Elizabeth City. Wednesday, July 23, 1930 W. J. Loth Stove Co. vs. L. H. Johnson. This is an action on ac count for goods bought and sold; the amount in controversy being $1218.41. The jury returned the fol lowing .issues and verdicts. 1. Is the defendant indebted to the plain tiff as alleged? Ans. Yes. 2. If so in what amount? Ans. $1218.41 with interest from date as prayed for in complaint. Eastern Cotton Oil Co. vs. Pool and Roberts Co., Inc., and W. H. Poole, Jr., W.' L. Roberts, and J. A. Oliver—sureties. This is an action on an account in the amount of sioners agreed to approve a budget «j^Q3 2g, xhe issues and verdict fol- amounting to $547,900.84. Mr. Mar-.jg^^,. ^j.g defendants indebt- row then agreed to operate the six g^j .(.g plaintiff as alleged ? Ans. months schools on the sum of $555 606.71, but the County Commission ers refused to approve this budget, and then it was that the Superin tendent of Schools and the Board of Education started suit in the courts in an effort to forde the County Commissioners to furnish the amount of money that had been demanded. The case was first heard by H. 'V. Rose, clerk of the court, who de^ Yes. 2. If so, in what amount? Ans. $193.38 with interest from June 19, 1928. Hackney Boykin vs. Bud Johnson. Consent judgment dismissing the ac tion and taxing the plaintiff with cost. Barney Bradley et al vs. N. B. Finch et al. This is an action on an account. The issues and verdict are as follows: 1. Did the plain- cided the case in favor of the Board [tiffs execute for value and deliver of Education by declaring that the £um of $555,606.71 was the amount necessary for the operation of the public schools of the county for six months. The County Commissioners ap pealed the case to thie Superior Court. It was heard before Judge Sinclair and a jury. The judge di rected the verdict in favor of the Board of Education without giving the jury any voice and ordered the County Commissioners to levy and collect the necessary taxes and furn ish to the County Board of Educa tion the sum of $561,718.12 for the operation of six months schools. The Board of County Commission- the several notes and mortgage re ferred to in the pleadings ? Ans. Yes. 2. Is the defendant the law ful owner and holder of the said securities? Ans. Yes. 3. Are the plaintiff's indebted to the defendants as alleged ? Ans. Yes. 4. If so, in what amount? Ans. $4850.60 with interest from April 1, 1928. The plaintiff excepts to judgment and in open court gives notice of appeal. The plaintiff was given 40 days in which to serve cases of appeal. The defendant was given 30 days there after in which to serve counter case. -4.ppeal bond fixed at $50.00. McGee Chevrolet Co. vs. Joe E. Talton. Judgment of .non-suit tax ers was then forced by Judge Sin- jng plaintiff with cost, clair to furnish $6,111.41 more than' Jj-a Creech vs. Frank Applewhite, the $555,606.71 with which the Coun- The plaintiff was- called and failed, ty Superintendent and the Board of Judgment of non-suit taxing plain- Educaion had previously agreed to ■operate the schools for the six months term. The County Commissioners then took steps to raise the money as directed by Judge Sinclair, which it seemed that they had to do in or der to stay out of prison, but they appealed the case to the State Su preme Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Su perior Court. It will thus be seen that the Board of County Commissioners fought bravely and fought to the last ditch, notwithstanding the fact that they realized all the while that they must make their fights in Democratic courts. This year when Mr. Marrow pre- S'ented his 1930-31 budget demand- tiff with cost. R. 'W. Pope vs. Hobart Lee. This is an action on account the sum be ing $85.47. The jury responded to these issues submitted to them in favor of the plaintiff and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $85.47 with interest from May 1, 1929. 0. T. Surles and Co. vs. D. 0. Benson. Consent judgment by which this case is referred to Ed F. Ward. A. W. Hodges vs. W. J. Adams. Judgment by which it is found that both parties have settled their diff erences out of court. Whereupon both plaintiff and defendant are taxed with court cost. 0. D. Johnson vs. M. A. Barefoot. Plaintiff called and failed. Judg ment against him for costs. Nancy Oneal vs. Rufus Hinnant. ing the. sum of $590,250.12 which Judgment of non-suit taxing plain tiff with cost, it being called and failed. Alonzo Parrish vs. G. M. Benson et al. Judgment of non-suit taxing plaintiff with cost. D. T. Barefoot vs. A. B. Hudson. Judgment confirming report of ref eree heretofore filed in this action. J. W. Raynor vs. Rev. W. H. Walker. Judgment of non-suit tax ing plaintiff with cost. Clark Bros. Chewing Gum Co. vs. Oriental Candy Co. Judgment con firming report of referee. Unconco Candy Co. vs. Oriental Candy Co. Judgment confirming re port of referee. Margaret A. Smith vs. E. D. Barnes. Judgment of non-suit taxing plaintiff with cost. George Marsh vs. C. K. Parrish. Judgment confirming report of ref eree. Henry Tucker vs. Bamie Mooney- ham. Judgment of non-suit taxing plaintiff with cosL W. M. Sanders vs. D. C. Jones, L. R. Jones, H. W. Blaylock. In terpleader. Judgment providing that plaintiff recover cost against defen dant. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond vs. J. W. Barham, et al. Judgment taxing defendant with cost. Johnson and Kirkman vs. William D. Parker. Judgment of non-suit taxing plaintif with cost. W. M. Sanders an^ Son vs. W. Z. Benson. Order making Mrs. Mary Moore and Miss Ora Pool parties and giving the plaintiff 20 days from adjournment of this court to file amended complaint and defendants 30 days thereafter to file answers. W. M. Sanders and Son vs. Lind say Benson. Order same provision as in No. 2757. Thursday, July 24, 1930 Esther P. Fowler vs. Thad Fowler. This is an action for absolute di vorce. The plaintiff and defendant have been separated five years and have one child. The case is not con tested. Hugh A. Page, attorney for plaintiff. The jury answered the following issues in favor of the plaintiff. 1. Was the plaintiff law fully married to the defendant as al leged in the complaint? Ans. Yes. 2. Has the plaintiff *been a citizen and resident of North Carolina for two years next prior to the institu tion of this action and has her al leged cause of divorce existed for six months prior to the filing of complaint ?. Ans. Yes. 3 Did tbs defendant wrongfully abandon the plaintiff as alleged in the complaint? Ans. Yes. 4. Has the plaintiff lived separate and apart from the defendant for five years next prior to the institution of this action and has she been a resident of the state of North Carolina for that period of time ? Ans. Yes. Halton Barbour vs. Stephenson Motor Co. Judgment of non-suit taxing plaintiff with cost. Britton Hill Motor Co. vs. Joe E. Talton. Judgment of non-suit tax ing plaintiff with cost. W. M. Sanders and son vs. W. Rufus Cook. This is an action on an account of $97.00 with interest. The issue and verdict are as fol low.s: 1. In what amount is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff ? Ans. $97.00 with interest from Oct. 15, 1928. County of Johnston vs. David E. Lee and wife, Mrs. David E. Lee. This is an order making Thomas D. Cooper, executor of 0. R. McCauley, party defendant. Let summons and copy of complaint follow. G. T. Smith Co. vs. Clayton Oil Co. This is an action to recover certin insurance premiums alleged to be due. The issues and verdict follow: 1. Is the defendant indebt ed to the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint'? Ans. Yes. 2. If so, in what amount? Ans. $272.20 with in terest from Jan. 1, 1927. The Hardware Store, Inc. vs. Hen- ly Lynch. Judgment. The plaintiff is owner of an entitled to the poss- ssion of the cultivator seized by the sheriff. Snow Hill Live Stock Co. vs. Eli jah Atkinson. The plaintiff was called and failed. Judgment non-suit taxing plaintiff with cost. Morris Bank and Co. vs. W. B. Godwin, trading as “Godwin’s”. This is an action on a note for $124.00. Albert Godwin vs. D. E. Langdon. This is an action on an account. The jury answered ...the issues in favor of the plaintiff and judgment was accordingly rendered. Roanoke City Mills vs. M. H. Holt and Percy C. Holt. Judgment. Plaintiff called and failed. Dr. F. M. Aycock vs. Jarvis Hines et al. This is an action on account of $32.70. The following issues and verdicts were returned by the jury: 1. »Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff? Ans. Yes. 2. If so, in what amount? Ans. 32.70 and in terest from July 15, 1928. Cedkr Rapids Finance and thrift I Co. vs. Rebecca Godwin. Judgment ( •:= finding that the defendant has not i perfected his appeal from Recorder’s Court and this judgment confirms judgment of Recorder’s Court, as same was originally rendered. Mrs. Perrie Cox vs. J. R. Jones. This is an action on a note. The jury responded to the issues in favor of the plaintiff. C. A. Corbett vs. Joe E. Talton. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff. I The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $317.50 with interest from Sept. 15, 1928 and cost R. Gordon Finny. Rec. of First Na tional Bank, of Selma, N. C., use of Branch Banking Co. vs. Mrs. E. A. Stancill and J. H. Stancill. Judg ment against defendants in the sum of $650.00 with interest from June 24, 1925 and cost. Beginning of the second week of July terra, 1930. HOSPITAL NEWS Monday, July 28, 1930 J. H. Godwin vs. J. Will Moore. This is an action on a note. Jesse McLamb vs. W. D. Boon and W. J. Boone. This is an ac tion on a note in the sum of $1371- .60. The jury responded the follow ing issues in favor of the plaintiff. 1. In what amount, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff ? Ans. $1371.60 with interest from Jan. 1, 1928. R. A. Keen vs. E. D. Johnson. This is an action on account. The issues and the verdicts are as fol lows: 1. Did the defendant E. D. Johnson, execute and deliver to R. A. Keen the note sued on in this case? Ans. Yes. 2. If so, did the defendant, E. D. Johnson, have suf ficient mental capacity to know the extent and nature and consequences of his acts at the time of the alleged execution of said note ? Ans. Yes. 3. Did the defendant, E. D. John son, receive a full consideration in value from R. A. Keen for said note? Ans. Yes. 4. If so, in what amount? Answer $450.00 with in terest from August 16, 1928. Tuesday, July 29, 1930 Atkinson Supply Co. vs. J. E. Tal ton. This is an action on an account not contested. The jury responded to the following issues in favor of the plaintiff: 1. What amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to the plaintiff, at the time claim and de livery was issued? Ans. $909.94 with interest from. Oct. 1, 1929. 2. Was and is the plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint and seized by the seriff? Ans. Yes. 3. What was the seizure of' the property ? Snow Hill Live Stock Line Co.- vs. Elijah Atkinson and et als. Judg ment. This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of plaintiff coun sel be set asjcle and vacated and, it 'appearing to the court that said judgment was rendered through error, therefore the judgment ren dered in this court was reinstalled on the same civil issue. Docket and continued to be tried at the same subsequent term of court. It was also ordered that the defendants be allowed thirty days within which to file answer. Maggie V. Gaskin vs. N. S. Hum phrey and wife. Consent judgment in favor of plaintiff. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of $2125.17 and interest thereo.n from April 16, 1925. G. A. Martin is ap pointed commissioner to sell lands described in the pleadings. W. J. Lassiter vs. A. C. L. Rail road Co. This is an action for al leged -wrongful death of mule valued at $300.00. C. C. Lee and W. H. Lyon represents the plaintiff and Abell and Shepard represent the defendant. At the close of plain tiff’s evidence defendant’s counsel made motion for judgment of non suit. The motion was over-ruled and the case went to the jury. The defendant had the opening and clos ing argument. Norman E. Shepard opened the argument for the de fendant. The following issues were submitted to the jury and their verdict is as follows: 1. Was the plaintiff’s mule injured by the negli gence of the defendant ? Ans. Yes. 2. What damage^ is the plaintiff en titled to recover? Ans. $150.00. Grover Davis vs. Meta Lee Davis. This is an action on complaint' of five years separation. The jury an swered the following issues in favor of the paintiff. 1. Were the plain tiff and defendant married as al leged? Ans. Yes. % Have the plaintiff and defendant lived separ ate and apart for more than five successful years next preceding the filing of this complaint and the bringing of this' actiop ? Ans. Yes. 3. Is the plaintiff the aggrieved party? Ans. Yes. 4. Has the plain tiff been a resident of the state of Mrs. Jesse Beeves, of Selma, was admitted to the Hospital July 21st for an operation for appendicitis. She is recuperating fine. Mrs. R. W. Hill, of Smithfield, Route 2, was discharged from the Hospital Wednesday, July 23rd after having been treated. Mrs. Theodore Bass, of Dunn, Route 6, who has been taking treat ments in the Hospital, was discharg ed Friday, July 25. Mr. John Herring, of Smithfield, who has been taking treatments in the Hospital, was discharged Sun day, July 27th. Mr. H. H. Hayes, of Bentonville, Route 2, was admitted Saturday, July 26, with a fractured right leg. He is' recuperating nicely.' Mrs. N. R. Lucas, of Falcon, was operated on for appendicitis Mon day in the Hospital. She is rapidly improving. Mrs. J. A. Morgan, of Smithfield, was admitted to the Hospital last Monday for treatments. She is im proving. Mr. J. E. Johnson, of Four Oaks, who underwent an operation for ap pendicitis in the Hospital, was dis charged last Sunday. Mr. Hector Creech, of Benson, was discharged Wednesday, July 23, after undergoing an operation for appendi- tis. Miss Lucy Mathis, of Smithfield, who was brought to the Hospital some time ago with a fractured right leg is improving. Howard Powell was brough to the Hospital a few days ago as the re sult of gun shot wounds that he re ceived accidentally in Wilmington. He is slowly improving. OFF FOR THE BULLARD REUNION Mr. and Mrs. George W. Hair left Smithfield Wednesday to attend the annual Reunion of the descendants of Thomas Bullar’d who served as a soldier in the Revolutionary War. Mrs. Hair is one of about 1,100 de scendants of this man. The records show that his pay for service in the aT "the"'Bo^ ’ Scour'dmp near Raleigh. Mrs. J. C. Mace and little daught- * SOCIAL * >1: ^ Messrs. C. A. Stallings and Dur- wood Creech of this city spent part of last week on a House Party. at Lake View. Mr. Clete Womble, of Fayetteville, spent Sunday in the city with friends. Edward Pittman, of Laurinburg, formerly of Smithfield, was in the, city Sunday. Miss Elizabeth Jordan, of this city, is -visiting relatives in Oak Ridge. Miss Rachel Jordan, of Smithfield, has returned from a -visit to riela- tives in Oxford. Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Woodall and children have returned from a trip to Dayton, Ohio. Miss Rebecca Riddle, of Raleigh, who has been visiting Miss Gladys Johnson in this city has returned to her home. Ed Fuller left yesterday for South Carolina where he kill be on the tobacco market this season. Messrs. Raymond Woodall and Jim Cobb, of this city, left last week for Georgia where they will be on tobacco markets. Cldude Fuller left Sunday for Chi cago where he accepted a positiorn with the Marshall Field Department Store. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas R. Johnson, of Washington, D. C!, spent a few days here last week with Mr. and Mrs. H. H. Johnson. Miss Corinna Sanders, who is in training at Watts hospital, Durham, is visiting relatives here. \ Miss Thelma Whitehurst returned from a visit in Plymouth Sunday and was accompanied by Miss Leslie Dardm and Mrs. P. H. Darden, Mrs. Alice Y. Cole and Mrs. C. F. Gordon left Sunday for Lake Junaluska and Hendersonville. Mrs. Cole expects to spend the remainder of the summer at Hendersonville. Miss Helen Lee, who holds a posi tion as bookkeeper for the Advocate, published at Franklin Springs, Ga., arrived in the city Saturday to -visit her sister, Mrs. Luby F. Royall. She will also -visit her mother and other relatives in the county during the next two weeks. Misses Margaret Edmundson and Vera Clifton left yesterday to at tend the Granville young people’s Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Wisllons. M.aster Albert Johnson has re- amount of 41 English pounds 15 shillings and one penny, was received by John Marshall, who was a Chief Philadelphia, and Mrs. Charlie Justice of U. S. Supreme Court. It, gf York, arrived in the is expected that not less than 500 Sunday to visit their parents, of the descendants from several states will attend this meeting which IS to be held Thursday at Beaver-1 hoj-gg after spending a few dam Baptist Church in the eastern Sanders Chapel section, part of Cumberland County. Brooks left this morning to visit their daughter, Mrs. C. C. Sho-sn, at Mount Vernon ; Springs', N. Y., and Mrs. Brooks COURT sister, Mrs. Albert Wirth, at Buffa lo, N. Y. They will visit Canada before returning home. Mr. and Mrs. L. H. Hauss and Miss Vernie Phillips spent the week end in Weldon. They were accom panied home by little Miss Dorothy PROCEEDINGS OF RECORDER’S State vs. H. C. Davis. The de fendant was charged with a worth less check. Judgment: He is to pay the check and cost. There w^ere 6 cases State vs. Bill i Hauss, who has been visiting rela- Fowler charging him with worthless checks. The defendant pleaded guilty and sentenced to a term in the Johnston County Jail and assigned to work the roads, of Johnston Coun ty for 90 days to be discharged at the end of 30 days if checks and cost are paid. State vs. Lee Tew. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. He was found guilty and assigned to work the roads of John ston County for 6 months to be dis charged at the end of 4 mo.nths pro vided cost is paid. Mr. and Mrs. John White Ives and children were vistors in Raleigh Sunday. Mrs. T. C, Ogburn, of this city, are visiting relatives in Oxford. North Carolina for a period of five years next preceding the filing of this complaint and the bringing of this action? Ans. Yes. H. D. Bateman, Lig. ageht vs. J. W. Wright, L. D. Debnam et al. This is an action on a note. Order allo-wing Ed F. Ward, Esq. to with draw from action as attorney for defendants. There were also two cases -with H. D. Bateman vs. L. D. Debnam et al. There was one case, H. D. Bateman vs. W. L. Roberts et al and one with H. D. Bateman vs. H. A. Talton and Joe E. Talton. All these cases were actions on notes. Mrs. Bessie Furgerson vs. W. H. Furgerson. This is an action for divorce on complaint of five year separation. tives there. Rev. J. D. Bundy left yesterday to spend a week at Lake Junaluska. Be cause of his absence there will be no prayer ^rvice at the Methodist Church Wednesday evening. Miles Hildebrand and nephew. Buck Marrbw, left Saturday for Morganton where they will visit rel atives. Mr. Buck Smith, of Smithfield, has returned hom-e from from a visit to relatives, at Pickens, S. C.. and Lake Junaluska. Mr. Thomas Hood, of Smithfield, has returned from Summer school at Brevard Institute at Brevard, N. C. Mrs. Guy C. Lee and Misses Rose and Nell^ Grantham spent Saturday in Raleigh. Miss Corinne Ellington, of this city, is spending this week at Wil mington Beach. Miss Elizabeth Coates is visiting friends in Eenly. Tilden Honeycutt, of Raleigh, was in the city Sunday. Mrs. J. 0. Ellington spent the week-end in Raleigh with Sheriff and Mrs. N. F. Turner. Mrs. Lacy Lassiter and children are spending this week with rela tives in Asheboro. Mrs. A. C. McNeil, of Dunn, is spending this week here with her brother, J. D. Underwood. Mr. and Mrs. Fredrick Brooks, of Greensboro, were week-end visitors here. Mr. George W. Boyd, of Smithfield, was called to Pinetown, N. C., last Friday on account of the death of his mother, Mrs. Marthie H. Boyd, who died at thie home of her son, S. W. Boyd, on Thursday, July 24, at 4:10 A. M. tt (
The Johnstonian-Sun (Selma, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 31, 1930, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75