Court Records

Divorce Records 1923 - 1939

Probate Records 1833

Indentures and Articles of Incorporation 1883-1904

Lawrence Co AR 1883 Pensioners



" Powhatan, Arkansas, March 17, 1883. " George H. Nettleton, Esq.,

" Gen'l Mangr. and Pres. K. C, S. & M. R. R.

"Dear Sir: A few days ago I was compelled to assign the fifteen per cent. retained by the company, for the following reasons: As my work is approaching its finish and end, and having had a strong and large force of men, and under the above circumstances having no use of so many men, I am, and was, compelled to discharge most of them, and they want, and were compelled to have, their wages before pay-day ; and having Adler v. Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Ry. Co.  used all of my available means, and my only chance to realize money was by assigning above per cent. held back by the company, and the same I assigned to Messrs. Adler, Goldman & Company, of St. Louis, as they advanced me amount needed to pay these men off; and you will please accept order should Messrs. Adler, Goldman & Company send order I assigned to them. It is understood with Adler, Goldman & Company that they are not to receive the money of the fifteen per cent. until final settlement is made by the company with me. Trusting you will give this your kind attention, I remain,

" Yours truly,

" Henry Boas."

Source -Missouri Supreme Court Records 1888

---------

I, William McBryde, county clerk of Lawrence County, certify that the list of registered voters, on file in this oflice, which purports to be, and is by me believed to be, the record of the registration of 1872, shows that the aggregate number of voters registered in Ashland, Cache, Campbell, Duty, Marion, Strawberry, Ried’s Creek, and Black River Townships, in Lawrence County, was two hundred and twelve, (212,) and that no voters were registered in Spring River Township in said county.

Witness my hand and oflicial seal this 2d day of June, 1873.

[sEAL.] WM. MGBRYDE, Clerk.

.By J. P. COFFIN, Deputy Clerk.

TUESDAY, June 2. The taking of testimony was resumed pursuant to adjournment.

WILLIAM G. MOUNT, a witness produced by contestee, Hodges, being first duly sworn, deposes and states.

Questions by R. A. Burton, attorney for contestee, Hodges:

Question 1. State your name, age, place of residence, and occupation; and are you acquainted with the parties to this contest.—Answer. W. G. Mount; thirty-two years; Powhatan, Lawrence County, Arkansas; farmer; am acquainted with Gause, not acquainted with Hodges.

Question 2. W ere you an oflicer of the election of November 5, 1872, or in any manner connected with said election “l—Answer. I was not an oflicer of the election; was one of the board of registrars.

Question 3. Who were the other registrars, and by whom were the registrars appointed “!—Answer. William M. Toney, president, and F. W. Foster, 3d, appointed by O. A. Hadley, governor of the State of Arkausas.

Question 4. By whom was the registration conducted in said county“! —Answer. By William M. Toney, president of the board, and by the board of review.

Question 5. Was William M. Toney, president of the board, present at all times, conducting the registration and review '? If not, why not“! State all the facts connected therewith.—Answer. William M. Toney, according to previous notice, commenced registering the county at Marion Township a few days after his appointment, at that place. He came to Powhatan to consult with J . P. Foster and myself in regard to the discharge of his duties as president of the board of registrars, inasmuch as he had been threatened with the enforcement act, Ku-klux, &c., &c. ; that the citizens of that township behaved in a turbulent, disorderly, and threatening manner, and that if he registered at all, he would either have to register as the people wished him to, or have assistance to enable him to register according to law; and that he was unwilling to attempt a further registration of the county without a sufficient guarantee that he would be protected in the discharge of 'his duties as such registrar. I do not remember whether that was prior or subsequent to the registration of Campbell Township. William M. Toney was present during the sitting of the board of review.

(L. C. Gause, by attorney R. P. Mock, objects to so much of the answer to question No. 5 as is not within the personal knowledge of witness.) V

Question 6. Did or did not the statements you have made as coming from Mr. Toney come to you as an associate member with him on the board of registration, and did you not regard such statements as oflicial communications from said Toney, as president of said board; and did said communications have any influence on the actions of the board or of any member thereof “! Did or did not any other facts of the intimidation of said board, or of any member thereof, in the discharge of their or his duty, come to your knowledge while a member of said board “l If so, state them, and all the facts connected therewith “l —Answer. The evidence .I have given concerning-the statement made by Mr. Toney was oflicial, and as in consultation with the board as to the course he should pursue in said registration. The statements made by Mr. Toney in connection with threats made, privately and publicly, did ha-ve great influence on certain members of the board of registrars. There were many threats made, both privately and publicly, as to what would be done with the registrars did they fail to register according to their (the democrats’) interpretation of the law.

Question 7. Did you, or did- you not, understand that these threats and intimidations were made by democrats and others to compel the board to register parties who, under the law, you and the other members of the board did not believe to be qualified electors or entitled to registration ’i—Answer. My acquaintance with the people of this county, in connection with the statement of Mr. Toney, justifies the assertion that only those who were democrats and opposed to the administration were guilty of threatening Mr. Toney and the board of review for the purpose of registering allwho might apply for registration, there being some not entitled to registration.

Question 8. Was or was not Mr. Toney, through the threats and intimidations made against him, as president of the board of registration, compelled to register men in the said Marion Township not qualified by law to register !—Answer. It is my belief, supported by the statement of Mr. Toney, that the majority of the citizens registered in Marion Township were registered by him under compulsion of threats made by democrats claiming to be Ku-klux, &c.

Question 9. On which ticket was L. C. Gause, the contestant, a candidate for Congress for the first district of Arkansas, and on which ticket was Asa Hodges, the contestee, a candidate for the same position “!Answer. L. C. Gause was candidate on the democratic ticket ; Asa Hodges was candidate on the republican ticket.

Question 10. Were these threats or were they not made by persons seeking to secure the election of the democratic ticket and the candidates thereon, and to cause the defeat of the republican ticket and the candidates thereon “!—Answer. I have no reason to believe that those making said threats were other than those seeking the election of the democratic candidates, as I am confident they always expressed themselves opposed to the republican party, and seeking the defeat of said party.

Question 11. Did or did not the board of review appoint judges and clerks of election as required by law for said election in said county, and if they did, did or did not said judges and clerks so appointed hold said election '? If not, why not “!—Answer. The board of review did appoint the judges of said elections, and, so far as I am informed, they failed to appear as judges of said election on account of the threats made by members of the democratic party.

Question 12. What were the threats so made, and in what townships did the judges so appointed fail to serve, or any of them “!—Answer. The judges of election were threatened with the penitentiary, and other acts, pretending to be in accordance with the enforcement act, should they fail to receive the votes of persons as expounded by them, the democrats, under said act. The townships in which some ofthem failed to attend were as follows, viz: Black River Township, Duty Township, Campbell Township.

Question 13. Do you know of any other facts connected with the said election of November 5, 1872, or with the registration thereof, that aifect the rights of the parties or either party to this contest“! If so, state all the facts.—Answer. There is nothing that occurs to my mind at present, concerning the previous question, not already stated.

Cross-examined by L. U. Gause:

Question 1. As a member of board of registration, what was the date of your commission, and when were you qualified ; or about how many days were you qualified before the commencement of board of review, and bow many commissions were issued to you as a member of said board ’!—Answer. As near as I can remember my first commission was issued about the 10th of October, A. D-. 1872. I was qualified in the clerk’s oflice at Powhatan, Lawrence County, Arkansas, on or about two days before the commencement of the board of review. There were two commissions issued to me by one of the registrars—the time in which I was allowed to qualify having passed before I was acquainted with the fact that the time was limited in which I was to qualify.

Question 2. IVere you commissioned at the time of the registration as one of the board, and did you take any part oflicially in said registration, other than the review “!—Answer. I was not commissioned until qualified, and took no part in the registration, except what has been stated, as one of the board.

Question 3. What advice did you give Mr. Toney, the president of the board of registration, when informed by him that he could not register in Marion Township, being intimidated by the threats, 870., of the democratic party“!—Answer. I told Mr. Toney he was an oflicer of the law, and as an oflicer he should do his duty. .

Question 4. Was that all you told himi concerning the matter “!-Answer. I told him to do his duty ; this embraces all I told him.

Question 5. Did Mr. Toney charge any particular person or persons with having made such threats“ ! If so, who; and what were the exact threats that they made “!—Answer. Mr. Toney did state that some one (whose name I have forgotten) did. state, in the crowd at Marion Township, that they were all Kn-klux, and did not care a damn whether he registered them or not, as they would vote anyhow.

Question 5. Did you have any fears of violence being used to force said board to act contrary to law in registering the county; and do not you believe that said board could have traveled over and registered this county without harm or molestation at the hands of any citizen “!Answer. Not having attempted the registration of the county prior to the statement of Mr. Toney, I am not prepared to state the extent of the danger from an effort on the part of the board to register, but from statements made by Mr. Toney and other reliable persons should not like to make the effort.

Question 6. Do you know, of your own personal knowledge, of any violence being offered to said board, or of any threats or intimidations used in order to force them to act contrary to law in registering said

county “!—Answer. I do know of threats having been made against the board of registration, by individuals, in order to induce the board to register according to the sentiments of the democratic party.

Question 7. Did you not propose to register this county provided Toney would allow you his salary as president of said board “!—Answer. No sirce, Bob. '

Question 8. Did you say to any one in this county that if the people of this county would elect you sheriff that you would register the county “!—Answer. I not only fail to remember having made such statement, but, on the contrary, would not do so for any office in the county.

'Question 9. Were you a candidate at the last election for any oflice, or during said registration “! If so, what office, and on what ticket did you run “!—Answer. I was a candidate for the oflice of sheriff of the county, and was on the republican ticket.

Question 10. How many votes did you receive for said oflice“ !

(Objection by R. A. Burton, attorney for contestee. The contestee objects to the foregoing question, and the answer thereto, because the same is illegal, and seeks to elicit secondary testimony, and the returns themselves are the legal evidence.)

Answer. I do not remember the number of votes I received as candidate for office of sheriff.

Question 11. Did not said board of registrars issue certificates of registration to persons absent at the time, and who had not been required to take the oath required by law, knowing that they would vote the republican ticket; and did you ever know said board to refuse to register any one who would promise to vote the republican ticket “!— Answer. The board of registration did not, in my presence or during my attendance as one of said board, issue to any person or parties certificates of registration, who were not qualified to register, with any knowledge or idea that they would support the republican ticket. On the contrary, those men who presumed they imposed on the board of registrars, boasted they were democrats. I never knew said board of registrars to refuse to register any one, either democrat or republican.

Question 12. Did you have any information from said board or any member thereof that such certificates were issued “l_Answer. I do not remember that said board or any member thereof consulted with me in regard to giving certain persons certificates of registration; nor do I know that said board made such statement.

Question 13. Werecertificates of the above character ever issued by said board to any one, either democrat or republican“ !

(Objection by R. A. Burton, counsel for Asa Hodges. The contestee objects to the foregoing question as illegal and incompetent, as it seeks to elicit hearsay testimony.)

Answer. I do not know, of my own knowledge, of any certificates that were issued in said manner.

Question 14. State whether or not you and the other registrars the night before, or any time previous to the meeting of said board of review, sent persons out in the county to inform the republicans of said meeting of the board of review, and urge them to come in and be registered; and was there any other notice of their meeting l—Answer. I, as one of the members of said board of registration, did notify the citizens of the county of the meeting of the board of review. And there was no other notice of the meeting of the board of review put up.

Question 15. What kind of notice did you give the people of this county of said meeting “! Where and. how was said notice given “!—Answer. Personal notice ; given by Iago on horseback, with instructions to put.

Source- First Congressional  1873

---------

Starchman V. State.
Opinion delivered July 8, 1896.

Burglary—Evidence.Instruments Of Crime.—On a trial for burglary, where it appeared that a safe was drilled and opened by means of an explosive, it was competent for the state to introduce in evidence certain drills and punches capable of being used to open the safe, which were found by officers on defendant's premises while they were searching for the stolen property under a search warrant.

Same—Description Of Property.—Where an indictment for burglary charges a breaking and entering with intent to steal United States two-cent postage stamps, the allegation as to the kind of property intended to be stolen, being descriptive of the offense, must be proved.

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.
Richard H. Powell, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The defendant, Starchman, was indicted by the grand jury of Lawrence county for the crime of burglary. The indictment alleged that Starchman, "on the 15th day of March, 1895, in the county, district and state aforesaid, and during the night time of said day, the court-house in the town of Powhatan, then and there situate, and owned and possessed by the county of Lawrence, then and there wilfully, maliciously, feloniously, and burglariously, did break and enter with felonious and burglarious intent twenty-five hundred two-cent United States postage stamps of the value of fifty dollars, of the property of the United States, then and there being in the possession and under the control of one Geo. Wells, he being the postmaster of the post office in the town of Powhatan, which said stamps were by him deposited and kept in the safe of the treasurer of said county, which safe was in the room or office of the said treasurer in said court-house, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."

On the trial, the State was allowed to introduce in evidence certain instruments found in defendant's house by officers while searching for postage stamps alleged to have been stolen. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. Defendant was convicted, and judgment of imprisonment for a term of three years in the state penitentiary was rendered against him, from which he appealed.

Jos. W. Phillips, for appellant.

Source- Arkansas Reports 1896

--------

Source - Arkansas Reports

COMPTON, J. Lindsay, the appellant, established a ferry across Black river, at the town of Powhatan, in Lawrence county, under a license from the county court for that purpose.

After his ferry had been in operation for a number of years, Lindley; the appellee, applied to the county court, at January term, 1852, for a license to establish a Ierry across the same stream, near Powhatan, and within one mile of the ferry of the appellant.

The appellant voluntarily appeared in the county court, made himself a party to the proceedings, and contested the grant of license to the appellee. The court, however, granted the liceuse, and the ferry was established. The appellant then exhibited his bill in chancery, alleging that the establishment of the rival ferry was an illegal interference with his exclusive vested rights, as the owner of the previously.established ferry, for the reason that the public convenience did not require its establishment.

On the final hearing, the court below dismissed the bill, and the cause was brought here by appeal.

The 20th section of the statute provides, that the county 581“] ‘court "shall not permit any ferry to be established within one mile above or below any ferry previously established, except at or near cities and towns, where the public convenience may require it, and satisfactory proof of the same shall be first adduced." Gould's Dig.,chap. 70. Now whether the public convenience required the establishment of the rival ferry, was a question necessarily passed

upon and determined by the county court. The appellant, though under no legal obligation to appear before that tribunal (vide Murray v. Menefee, decided at present term), nevertheless voluntarily did so, and made himself a party to the proceedings.

If the proceedings were erroneous, he should have pursued his legal remedy for their quashal, which was to put on the record by bill of exceptions, the evidence adduced on the trial, or so much thereof as was necessary to show the errors complained of, and then invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit court by writ of certiorari, according to the doctrine laid down by this court in Couch E1 Parts, 14 Ark. 837; Carnal! v. Crawford County, ll Ark. 604.‘

Having failed to do this, the judgment of the county court is conclusive, and the appellant cannot now be heard in a court of equity. True, the appellee, subsequent to the establishment of his ferry, and prior to the commencement of the proceedings in equity, by the appellant, to restrain him, obtained his annual license for the years 1853-4, when the appellant was not a party to the proceeding, nor present in the county court, by voluntary appearance; but this can have no material bearing on the point under consideration—because, after the appeilee's ferry was once established, the question of public convenience was no longer an open one between him and the appellant, suoject to investigation on the occasion of each annual grantof license thereafter; nor, in such case, does the statute require the owner of a ferry privilege to make a further application. It is made the duty of the court to levy a tax on the privilege, annually, whether the owner makes application or not; the clerk is required to issue the license, deliver it 582*] to the ‘sheriff, and the owner is bound to pay for it, vide sec. 15, at seq. Whether the county court, from considerations affecting the general good alone, has the power under the statute to discontinue one or both of the ferries, is a question not before us, and one which we do not decide. We mean to decide merely, that the question of public convenience, for the purposes af this controversy, was put forever at rest by the decision of the court, establishing the appellee’s ferry. \Vhen his ferry was once established, and its establishment became binding on the appellant, the ferries were not only rivals, but also equals. The one owner could not afterwards insist that the ferry of the other should be discontinued, because the public convenience did not require both.

On a careful examination of the testimony in the cause, we have not been able to reach the conclusion that the license under which thee appellee’s ferry was established, was procured by fraud.

The decree of the court below must be affirmed with costs.

Mr. Justice Rector, dissenting.

I dissent from so much of the opinion in this cause as decides that the establishment of a ferry vests private rights in a party, extending beyond the period limited in his license.

I hold that the question of public convenience recurs to the county court annually. The public franchise reverting to that tribunal to be enlarged, abridged, or modified in any way whatever, that the convenience and accommodation of the public may require.

One having aferry has no investitute of right to the public franchise; but is only upon certain conditions permitted to use it exclusively for a given time, and by our statute, only for one year.