Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
The Newberry Herald
Newberry, Newberry County, South Carolina
What is this article about?
U.S. Commissioner E. M. Stoeber arrived in Newberry on Friday to take additional testimony in the contested Stolbrand vs. Aiken case, but adjourned court without proceeding after objections from Aiken's substitute attorney George Johnstone regarding witness notices, commissioner's authority, and his relation to Stolbrand.
Clipping
OCR Quality
Full Text
U. S. Commissioner E. M. Stoeber came to Newberry Friday to take additional testimony in the contested case of Stolbrand against Aiken. Col. E. B. Gary, of Abbeville, Mr. Aiken's attorney, being engaged in Columbia, requested George Johnstone, Esq., to appear in his stead. A good many witnesses came in to testify. Mr. Johnstone made three objections to the taking of testimony: 1st, that Mr. Stolbrand had not served the other side with the names of the witnesses he proposed to examine; 2nd, that a U. S. Commissioner is not the proper and legal officer to take testimony in such a case as this, and, 3d, that Commissioner Stoeber is not the proper person to take testimony in this case especially, by reason of his relationship to one of the parties to the contest—he being a son-in-law of Mr. Stolbrand. The Commissioner immediately adjourned Court without taking any testimony.
What sub-type of article is it?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Domestic News Details
Primary Location
Newberry
Event Date
Friday
Key Persons
Outcome
court adjourned without taking any testimony
Event Details
U. S. Commissioner E. M. Stoeber came to Newberry Friday to take additional testimony in the contested case of Stolbrand against Aiken. Col. E. B. Gary, of Abbeville, Mr. Aiken's attorney, being engaged in Columbia, requested George Johnstone, Esq., to appear in his stead. A good many witnesses came in to testify. Mr. Johnstone made three objections to the taking of testimony: 1st, that Mr. Stolbrand had not served the other side with the names of the witnesses he proposed to examine; 2nd, that a U. S. Commissioner is not the proper and legal officer to take testimony in such a case as this, and, 3d, that Commissioner Stoeber is not the proper person to take testimony in this case especially, by reason of his relationship to one of the parties to the contest—he being a son-in-law of Mr. Stolbrand. The Commissioner immediately adjourned Court without taking any testimony.