NO. 3.

As this number will be principally devoted to the preservation of some county court anecdotes, I will venture to commence it, by relating a matter, the sequel to which is given in the minutes of the county court, now before me.

In November, '86, at the election of members of the General Assembly, a gentleman, living then on the Beaverdam, or Bush River, was a candidate. He was particularly obnoxious to the Enoree settlement. It was found, at the poll, at Col. Rutherford's, (the quasi court house,) which was I presume, then the only one, in the district, that he was receiving such a number of votes, as would insure his election. To defeat it, a rather heady young man, (afterwards, and to his death, in 1816, a good and respectable citizen,) seized the bag containing the votes, tore it up, and trode the votes in the mud, so that it was impossible any return could be made. At March court, 1787, the following entry appears on the journals: "Aaron Cates came into court, and confessed himself guilty of a breach of the peace, in disturbing the election held in this county, in November last for members of the General Assembly, and threw himself on the mercy of the court, and begged forgiveness for his offence, and prayed a bill of indictment might not go to the grand jury-the court took his case into consideration, and proceeded to fine him one shilling," &c. This is, indeed, an unheard of proceeding, and judgment, in a court of justice: and yet, perhaps, the times and state of society excused it.

The pleading, in the county court, is remarkable for its singularity and brevity. I cite the case of Daniel McElduff vs. Elizabeth and William Turner-debt. The record is as follows: "Came the plaintiff by James Yancy, Esq., his attorney, and the defendants, by Chas. Goodwin, gentleman, their attoney came and defend and say they are not indebted to the plaintiff, as he in his declaration sets forth, and of this they put themselves on the country, and the plaintiff does likewise the same. Therefore, the parties join issue for the trial of the cause at the next court."

Some of my friends, who once figured at the Lexington bar, must have taken pattern by this, when such a pica as

the following was pleaded: "The said defendant comes and defends, &c., and says, that he does not owe the said plaintiff one cent, but on the contrary, he oweth him considerable.”

In the practice of the court, the power of the court to punish for contempt was, I see, freely exercised. On one occasion, one of the Judges and the County Attorney were each fined £5 for contempt, very probably for blows stricken, in the presence of the court, and were bound to keep the peace. At the succeeding term, acknowledgments were made, and the fines remitted. But a most extraordinary proceeding is mentioned in February term, 1797. Wm. McGlamery, Hugh McGlamery and Patrick Bradley, (I give the names, as they appear in the minutes the true names of the two first are Wm. and Hugh Montgomery,) had been arrested for an assault and contempt of the court, (probably fighting in the court yard,) and having broke custody, the Brigadier General, (Casey, I presume,) issued his orders for their apprehension. They were retaken and brought before the court and fined, the two first $60 each, the other $20. This was raising the posse comitatus with a vengeance!

I have heard some other instances of summary punishment, one of which shows the rude manners of the day. In '87 or '88, or thereabouts, a cake baker, known better by the nickname of Billy Behold, than his real name, William English, was engaged in an affray, in front of Coate's house, where the court was in session, the Sheriff and his posse of constables were sent out to suppress it. They seized Billy Behold, and dragged him in. Unable to get him through the crowd, thronging around the temporary bar, they lifted him up over the heads of the people, and threw him down among lawyers. He was ordered to gaol. Next morning he made his peace by telling their worships, "behold, behold," he said, "may it please your worships, I was a little teddivated.” Α strange word, but perhaps a pretty good one to describe drunkenness.

Another instance of the familiarity, and of the want of respect with which the court was treated, may be given. Paddy Bradley, mentioned in the second paragraph above, on a court day, had taken "a wee drap too much," and had mounted himself up on one end of the long bench occupied

by their worships, who were engaged in an earnest discussion about the ways and means to pay for building a bridge. It was urged, one would think, very conclusively, that they had not the money, and therefore could not build it. But Paddy's drink and Irish propensity to blunder, made him think otherwise, and induced him to intrude his advice, "Egad," he said, "gie them trust for pay!" Whether they took his sage advice or not, I am not informed, but it is more than possible they did.

A scene between Peter Carnes, a well-known lawyer of that day, and Judge Mayson in Court, is worth recording. It was at June or July term, Carnes made his appearance, in his shirt sleeves. Judge Mayson, who was a Scotchman, said to him, "Mr. Carnes, the coort don't know you!" "Humph," said Carnes, "don't know me, ha!" Turning upon his heel, and walking out of court, he purchased a blanket, and cutting a hole in it, he thrust his head through, and drawing it around him, walked into the court room, and presenting himself to their worships, he demanded, "Does the court know me now!" The effect may be imagined an universal laugh excused the contempt. Carnes' argument was, that although the rule of court required a lawyer to wear a gown, it had not prescribed the color, and therefore his blanket was a sufficient gown!

One of Judge Mayson's judgments is remembered. It was characteristic of the man and of the court. The case was assault and battery. Timothy Goodman V's. John Tune. Goodman was celebrated for card playing, and Tune, as a bully. Goodman, it appeared, cheated Tune at cards, and he whipped him. Mayson, for himself and his brethren, said "as Mr. Goodman was a carder, and Mr. Tune a fighter, the judgment of the court was, that each party should pay his own costs, and go without day."

Carnes and Shaw were rival lawyers, at the county court bar of Newberry-Carnes was a very large man-Shaw a very small one. Carnes was remarkable for his wit and good humor-Shaw for his pride and petulance. The latter when irritated could make no argument. On one occasion, in a case of some consequence, Carnes had made the opening speech, and sat down. Shaw arose and commenced his

argument alongside of Carnes. When standing, the lappel of the coat of the former was just even with that of the latter. Large buttons, and straight-breasted coats were then the rage. Carnes buttoned a button or two of Shaw's coat into his, snatched up his hat, jumped up in a great hurry, and walked to the door, dragging, apparently without noticing it, poor Shaw after him. At the door, he affected to have discovered it, for the first time, and looking down at him with apparent surprise, he exclaimed, "Brother pop corn, what mischievous rascal hitched you to me?" The ruse had the effect intended. Shaw, when released, was so enraged he could not make his speech.

Carnes' comment on Robert Starks' first speech in an assault and battery case at Newberry, and Starks' practical reply are too good to be lost. Neither Starks' exterior nor speech had impressed Carnes with any favorable notion of his learning or talent. He said to the Judges he did not believe the young gentlemen knew what an assault and battery was. Starks was instantly on his feet, shaking his fist in Carnes' face, he said, "that is an assault," and drawing back, and striking him a full blow in the face with his fist, sufficient to have felled an ox, he said, "there is battery." Carnes sat down, rubbing his forehead, and exclaiming, "I did not think the fellow had so much sense!"

So much for the present. In our next, I propose to go back, and look over the population of Newberry in groups, before and after the revolution; and in connection with such a survey, some matters of history and anecdote ay be related.

NO. 4.

In attempting to sketch the population of the district in groups before and after the revolution, much must depend upon tradition, until we come within the last forty years; then, indeed, we may speak from some knowledge of our own. Previous to this time, which, in legal language we may call within the memory of man, there may be occasional inaccuracies. When any such are discovered, it would be regarded as a singular favor, that they should be pointed

out.

Newberry was settled very much by three classes of people, Germans, Irish, and emigrants from our sister States, North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

The Germans, (i. e. the Summers, Mayers, Ruffs, Eiglebergers, Counts, Slighs, Piesters, Grays, DeWalts, Boozers, Busbys, Buzzards, Shealys, Bedenbaughs, Cromers, Berleys, Hellers, Koons, Wingards, Subers, Folks, Dickerts, Capplemans, Halfacres, Chapmans, Blacks, Kinards, Bouknights, Barrs, Harmons, Bowers, Kiblers, Gallmans, Levers, Hartmans, Fricks, Stoudemoyers, Dominicks, Singleys, Bulows, Paysingers, Wallerns, Stayleys, Ridlehoovers, Librands, Leapharts, Hopes, Houseals, Bernhards, Shulers, Haltiwangers, Swigarts, Meetzes, Schumperts, Fulmores, Livingstons, Schmitz, Eleazers, Drehrs, Loricks, Wises, Crotwells, Youngeners, Nunamakers, Souters, Eptings, Huffmans,) settled almost in a body, in the Fork, between Broad and Saluda Rivers; and their settlement extended from the junction of the two rivers, opposite to Columbia to within three miles and a half of Newberry Court House. Much more of this settlement was included in the original county of Newberry, when the line extended from a point eight miles below Hughey's ferry, on Broad River to the mouth of Bear Creek, on Saluda River, than is embraced in the present district. Such a line would bring, within Newberry, the whole of the old settlement of Springhill, west of Mrs. Veal's present residence. In speaking of Newberry, we shall consider it proper to speak of it as embracing this rich portion of Lexington as well as its present limits.