MECKLENBURG CO NC ESTATES - A. Cunningham Miller 1865
************************************************************************
File contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by:
Donna J. Johnson - bounty@charlotte.infi.net
22 May 1999
USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on
the Internet, material may be freely used by non-commercial entities, as
long as this message remains on all copied material, AND permission is
obtained from the contributor of the file.
These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or
presentation by other organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to
use this material for non-commercial purposes, MUST
obtain the written consent of the contributor, OR the legal representative
of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of
this consent.
USGenWeb NOTICE: Libraries and individual researchers may download this file
for personal, non-commercial use only. Any other use requires written
permission from the transcriber.
************************************************************************
Surnames mentioned: Alexander, Auten, Black, Boyd, Cooper, Deaton, Dowd,
Ellwood, Faires, Ferris, Flow, Frazier, Griffith, Jamison, Henderson,
Howie, Hunter, Hutchison, Irwin, Kerr, King, Little, McComb, McDonald,
McLure, McNeely, Maxwell, Means, Miller, Monteith, Morrow, Orr, Plummer,
Williams, Wilson
>From the North Carolina Archives:
Mecklenburg County, NC Estates
1762-1957 CR.065.508.178
A. Cunningham Miller 1865
BOND
Apr 1865 - State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County - James Wilson, James
Flow, Wm McComb and J. M. Alexander enter into bond as executors for the
estate of A. C. Miller on (14?) April 1865. Amount of bond is twenty
thousand dollars. Witness is Wm Maxwell.
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
INVENTORY
An Inventory of the Estate of A. C. Miller, dec'd which came into the hands
of his administrators James Wilson and James Flow.
Good Notes
1 Note on E. Nye Hutchison dated 25 Sept. 1862 for $225.00
1 " " H.B & SS Williams " 1 Jan. 1862 " $260.38
1 " " James M. Henderson " 17th Mar. 1863 " $175.00/100 Confederate
1 ______ Wm Boyd " 1st Jan. 1862 " $28.00/100 Confederate
1 Note Catherine E. Hutchison ^Doubtful Note " 31st Aug '49 for $160/10
Cr. on Same of One Dollar 2 decr 1857
2 shares of Stock in the Bank of Charlotte
1 " " " " " " " North Carolina
List of Articles sold at by James Flow & James Wilson administrators of A.
C. Miller May 16, 1865 amounting in the aggregate $500.35
July 25, 1865 - Amt wheat sold $292.81
" " " " Oats " $60.68
" " " " Cotton " $53.96
407.45
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT
19 Nov 1873
Mecklenburg County } Superior Court
North Carolina } Fall Term 1873
Complaint
Soply Elwood, J. L. Orr and wife, Margaret Jane, and T. J. Wilson, Plntfs
against
R. A. Plummer and John Ferris, Dfdts
Plaintiffs complain and allege
1. That A. Cunningham Miller, late of said County, died intestate in the
year 18 , and that the plaintiffs Soply Elwood, M. J. Orr, wife of J. L.
Orr, and T. J. Wilson are the only heirs at law of the said decd.
2. That the said plaintiffs as tenants in common and as such heirs at law of
A. C. Miller are the owners in fee of a certain tract of land in said county
containing about 44 acres, adjoining the lands of Elam Hunter, Jackson
(Drum?) and Martin Alexander the same being one third of the Susannah
Alexander tract.
3. That the defendants ^unlawfully withheld the possession thereof from
plaintiffs.
Wherefore plaintiffs demand judgement
1. For the possession of said premises
2. For One Hundred Dollars damages for the withholding of the same
3. For costs of this action
Vance & Bumble
Attys
J. L. Orr makes oath that the facts set forth in the above complaint are
true, to the best of his knowledge and belief.
J. L. Orr
Sworn to and
subscribed before
me Nov. 19, 1873
C A Osborne C.S.C.
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
ANSWER
24 Nov 1873
Superior Court Mecklenburg County
Answer
Soply Elwood, J. L. Orr & wife Margaret Jane & T. J. Wilson - Plffs
against
R. A. Plummer & John Ferrie - Defts.
The defendants, R. A. Plummer & John Ferris answering the complaint herein
I. Say - That it is true as set forth in the first allegation of said
complaint that A. C. Miller died intestate some time in the year 1865 but
they have no Knowledge of the other matters set forth in said allegation and
hold plaintiffs to strict proof of the same.
II. The defendants deny all the other allegations of said complaint but over
that the lawfull title to said land is in the defendant R. A. Plummer as
they are advised and believe
III. That defendant Ferris is the tenant of his co defendant R A Plummer &
hold same for him.
Bynum Jones & Johnston
Defts. Attys
John A. Ferris and
R. A. Plummer makes oath that the facts set forth in the foregoing answer
are true to the best of his belief & as he is advised.
R. A. Plummer
John A. Faires
Sworn & Subscribed
Before me 24 Nov 1875
C A Osborne CSC
By Wm M------ DC
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
BOND
12 Jan 1875
No. 123
Sophie Ellwood et al
vs
R. A. Plummer & another
Bond
Filed Spring Term 1875 in open court
Superior Court Mecklenburg County
Sophia J. Elwood J. L. Orr & wife Margaret J. & T. J. Wilson } plffs
against }
R. A. Plummer & John Ferris }defts
Know all men by these presents that we R. A. Plummer
are held and firmly bound unto Sophia J. Elwood, J. L. Orr & wife Margaret
J. and T. J. Wilson plaintiffs above name - in the just and full sum of Two
Hundred Dollars lawful money for the payment of which well and truly to be
made we do hereby bind ourselves our heirs executors and administrators
(firmly?) by these presents - Witness our hands and seals this the 12th day
of January 1875.
The condition of above obligation is such that whereas the above named
obligees have fought an action for certain real Estate which the defendant
Plummer claims Now of said R. A. Plummer shall pay to the plaintiffs all
such costs and damages as said plaintiffs may recover in the action then the
bond to be void otherwise ____ face & efface= In testimony whereof we have
hereunto set our hands and seals this the day and date above named.
R. A. Plummer {seal}
R. A. McNeely {seal}
William N. Black {seal}
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
Meckenburg County
Spring Term 1876
In the Superior Court
James Flow, administrator of A. C. Miller deceased vs William J. Black
Plaintiff complaining alleges that
1st. In the month of August 1864 the defendant had in his possession a negro
boy named Moton, aged about 21 years & claimed to hold the same as his
slave. That he sold the said boy to A. C. Miller as a slave for the sum of
Five thousand two hundred ^Dollars And executed and delivered to the said A.
C. Miller A Bill of sale with Covenants as follows viz:
Received of A. C. Miller Five thousand and two hundred dollars in full for
one negro boy named Moton aged 21 years old, which negro I worent sound &
healthy also I worent the title of said boy good in the claims of all
persons whatever. Given under my hand & seal this 20 Aug 1864.
Test
S A Harris Signed W. J. Black {seal}
2nd. That said boy Moton at the time of said sale was not a slave. That he
was free born, and had always been free. And was so known to be to the
defendant when the Bill of Sale was executed.
3rd. That the said A. C. Miller departed this life in February 1865 _ And
the plaintiff James Flow has been duly appointed & now is the Administrator
for upon this estate.
Wherefore plaintiff demands Judgement against the defendant for Five
thousand two hundred dollars with interest from Augt 20, 1864. And for Cost
of this Action.
H W Guion Atty
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
ANSWER
Superior Court, Mecklenburg County
Answer
James Flow, Admin of A. C. Miller
against
W. J. Black Dfet
The defendant answers its complaint, and says
I. That he admits all the allegations contained in Sec. 1 of the complaint
II. That the boy Morton, mentioned in Sec 2 of the complaint, was a slave at
the time of said sale, and that he, the said Morton, was in the service of
said Miller or his administrators till he was freed by the government of the
United States.
Vance & Bumble
Attys
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
JUDGEMENT
Fall 1877
Mecklenburg County } Superior Court
North Carolina } Fall Term 1877
Sophia Ellwood et al Ptffs
Against
Robert Plummer et al Dfdts
The facts agreed upon between the parties above named having been submitted
to this Court, and after hearing A. Burwell counsel for plaintiffs, and
Jones & Johnston counsel for defendants, and due deliberation having been
had thereon
It is adjudged that the plaintiffs do recover of the defendants the
possession of the real property described in the complaint; and further that
they recover of the defendants the sum of Fifty Dollars damages for the
withholding thereof, and also the costs of their action to be taxed by the
Clerk.
John Kerr
Presiding Judge
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
JUDGEMENT
January 1878
North Carolina Supreme Court January Term, 1878. 277 - Mecklenburg Co.
Sophia Ellwood et al
vs
Robt A. Plummer et al
This cause came on to be argued upon the transcript of the record from the
Superior Court of Mecklenburg County; upon consideration whereof this Court
is of the opinion that there is no error in the record and proceedings of
the said Superior Court;
It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court here that the
plaintiffs, the said Sophia Ellwood, J. L. Orr and wife Margaret, and T. J.
Wilson, do recover of its defendants, the said Robert A. Plummer and Jno.
Ferris the possession of the land described in the complaint in this cause;
It is further adjudged that the said plaintiffs do recover of the said
defendants, and of R. A. McNeely and W. N. Black, the sureties on the
defendants bond filed in this cause the sum of Fifty dollars ($50) damages
for the detention of the land, with interest on said sum from the 15th day
of November, 1877, that being the amount stated in the case agreed;
It is further adjudged that the said plaintiffs do recover of the said
defendants and their surety for the appeal the costs of the appeal in this
Court incurred, to-wit, the sum of twenty four and 50/100 dollars ($24.50)
and let executions issue accordingly.
A true copy
Test:
Wm H Bagley
Clerk
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
OPINION
State of North Carolina } January Term, 1878
Superior Court } No. 277 Mecklenburg
Opinion
Sophia Ellwood et al
vs
R. A. Plummer et al
Faircloth, J.
The only question presented by the record is whether the estate of R. A.
Plummer was a vested or contingent interest at the time of the sheriffs
sale, during the term of the life tenants, and that depends on the question
whether his estate vested at the death of the testator or at the death of
the surviving life tenant who is now dead. This seems to be a plain
question, both from the authorities and the language of the testatrix. A
copy of the entire will is not before us, but only extracts from which alone
we are to gather the intention. If the intention was uncertain and doubtful
the Court would incline to a vested estate, because that construction tends
to certainty and settles the right of property. The whole tract of land is
devised to one Orr, in trust for two of the testatrix' daughters during
their natural life time, to be equally divided and after the death of
either, in trust, in part, for her three grand children, until the death of
the other daughter, "at which time" said plantation is to be "equally
divided" between said three grandchildren of whom R. A. Plummer is one.
Here both the object of the gift and the event of its full enjoyment are
certain, which makes a vested remainder unless a different intention can be
discovered in the will. It is plain, also, that equality was the desire of
the testatrix, but a different conclusion would lead to inequality in the
event of the death of one of the grand children, leaving children, before
the death of the tenant for life.
There is a class of cases in which the gift is postponed to some future
time, in which, usually, some express reason is given, or is easily gathered
from the context of the will, for the postponement. This class is usually
recognized, when there is nothing else to control by the use of the words
give or devise to a man, "at" "when" or "if" -- meaning at the death of
the particular tenant, or when the devisee shall obtain a certain age or if
some other event shall take place. These expressions are as applicable to
the substance of the gift as they are to the time of its enjoym01ent and the
legacy would lapse if the legatee should die before the time indicated by
these expressions, and this is the general rule.
There is another class distinguishable from the above, such as a gift to
one, payable at a particular time or to be paid when a particular thing
shall happen. In these the time does not refer to the substance of the
gift, but only to the time of its complete enjoyment and no lapse can occur
in the meantime. And it has been held that the expression "equally to be
divided" means the same as payable or to be paid. Guyther vs Taylor 3 Ire.
Eq. 333. Giles vs Franks 2 Dev. Eq. 521.
It will be seen that the expressions in the present case are substantially
identical with those in the latter class of cases. No reason whatever
appears why the gift should not take effect until the death of the surviving
life tenant, but a good reason does appear why the division merely was
postponed until that time, which was that the purposes of the trust might be
performed by the trustee, at which time is duties ceased and the grand
children were entitled to a division and possession of their estate. This
being so the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Sulton vs West 77 N.C.
Rep. 429.
No error. Judgement here for the plaintiffs.
Per Curium. Affirmed.
A true copy
Test
Wm H. Bagley
Clerk
[See Mecklenburg County, NC Will Book J, 1059, page 31. Susannah Alexander.
26 August 1846, prb in Oct 1856 Ct.]
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
20 May 1878
(cover sheet)
Clerks Office vs R. A. Plummer R. A. McNeely & William N. Black
Judge for cost 20 May 78
J R Erwin CSC $11.40
E A Osborne 1.60
W Maxwell 1.00
A Burwell 4.00
J. N. Caldwell 1.20
(total) $19.20
R A Plummer
R A McNeely &
William N. Black
E 77 off Spring Term 1878
(document)
Superior Court Mecklenburg County
Sophia Ellwood et al
Against
Robt A. Plummer
At a Superior Court held at the Court House in Charlotte, in the County of
Mecklenburg on the 20 day of May 1878
Present, Hon. W. R. Cox, Judge.
This action having been brought to a trial by the Court, a trial by Jury
having been waived, and a decision therein rendered for the Plaintiff, it is
now on motion of A Burwell Counsel for the Plaintiff
Adjudged That the Plaintiffs, recover of the Defendant, R. A. Plummer and
his surety the costs of action, to be taxed by the clerk.
Wm. R. Cox
Judge Presiding
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
Ellwood vs Plummer
Facts agreed upon
Mecklenburg County Superior Court
Sophia Ellwood et al
vs
R. A. Plummer
In this case the following facts are agreed upon.
That plaintiffs are the heirs at law of Cunningham Miller, who died
intestate.
That the land described in the complaint is in possession of defendant, who
claims the same under the will of Susannah Alexander, decd, a copy of which
will is a____d.
That plaintiff claims said land under the deed from the Shff of Mecklenburg
County which is hereto a____d.
It is agreed that if the Court should be of opinion that the interest of
defendants in the land devised by Susannah Alexander to her two daughters
for life was liable to be sold under execution against defendants during the
life of said daughters, then there shall be a judgement for plaintiffs for
the possession of the premises and for Fifty Dollars damages, _____
judgement for the defendant.
A. Burwell, atty
for ptff
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
State of North Carolina } Spring Term
Mecklenburg County } 1885
G. W. King, M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood & John Ellwood Pltffs }
vs. }
Susan Miller Def }
The Plaintiffs complaining allege
I. That A. C. Miller was in his life time seized in fee of Land in the
County of Mecklenburg of which the premises here after described as a tract
II. That on the day of 1865 being ____ _____ he died intestate
leaving the defendant Susan Miller his widow.
III. That the defendant Susan Miller thereafter entered upon ____ ____ ____
and of her dower during her life of one third part of said land to wit the
following described premises
Beginning at a B. J. Cinthia Robinsons corner & runs N 110 poles to a W. O.
Parks corner. Thence with 4 of his lines S 81 E. 22 poles to a B. O. on
west side of Thence along side road N 4. W. 64 poles to a Stake - Thence 1
W. 88 poles to a stake - Thence N. 11 E. 28 poles to a B. O. on the east
side of the Road on ____ _____ line. Thence N. 66 W. 23 poles to a dead P.
O. in a field - Thence S. 27 poles to a small P. O. Thence N. 87 W. 57 poles
to a B. O. & W. O. ____ corner. Thence S. 65 W. 102 poles to a white oak on
Road. Thence S 4 W 66 poles to a B. J. Thence S. 10 E 21 poles to a B. O.
in west side of branch - Thence S. 13 W. 25 poles to a hickory - Thence S.
70 E. 9 poles to a W. O. by Millers fence Thence S. 20 W. 80 poles to a B.
O. Thence N. 89 E. 28 poles to a B. O. Thence S. 75 E. 142 poles to the
Beginning containing 200 acres, and also one other tract, Beginning at a
Stake in a meadow and runs N. 82 W. 5 1/2 poles to a dead B. J. Thence N 27
W. 24 poles to a ____ ____ in a branch Thence N. 58 E. 28 poles to the
Beginning containing 2 1/2 acres.
IV. That Plaintiffs M. C. King, John Ellwood Thomas Ellwood with one ____
McDonald and A. C. Ellwood & S. E. Means as heirs at law of A. C. Miller are
entitled to the premises in one half of described premises
V. That A. C. Ellwood has _____ by deed in fee simple his interest in said
property to M. C. King and S. E. Means and transferred her intent to one
James McDonald.
VI. That said Susan Miller, defendant with intent to injure plaintiffs, cut
down and caused to be cut down large quantities of timber, oak, hickory,
pine and other wood, and sold the same for fire wood, and to be cut ___
lumber - to ____ ____ Plaintiffs intentions.
VII. That said defendant has caused a large amount of wood land to be
cleared and turned into _____ __ cultivated field & meadow ____ converted
into usable land by which said premises have been greatly damaged.
VIII. (page torn at bottom - text missing)
(page torn at top - text missing)
I. Judgement for _____ (page torn)
II. For possession of the _____ ____ _____ and ____ of _____.
J. E. B_____ Atty for Plffs
G. W. King one of the Plaintiffs makes oath that the facts set forth in
______ ______ of his knowledge are true. Upon ____ & _____ _____ ____
Sworn & Subscribed
Before me May __ 85
J. R. Erwin? G. W. King
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
State of North Carolina } Supreme Court
Mecklenburg County } Fall Term 1885
G. W. King, M. C. King / Thomas Ellwood & Flora / Mary, Margaret, Lena, / &
Alice Elwood
infants & heirs at law of John Ellwood, by ___ ____ ____ Harriet Ellwood
Plff
vs
Susan Miller, James McDonald, Sarah McDonald, Thomas J. Wilson, J. L. Orr &
Margaret Orr Defnd
The Plaintiffs file this their (annual?) complaint by leave of the court ___
& obtained -
I. That A. C. Miller was at the time of his death seized in fee of certain
lands in the county of Mecklenburg of which the premises hereinafter
described was a part.
II. That on the day of 1865 being so seized he died intestate, leaving
the defendant Susan Miller his widow.
III. That the defendant Susan Miller soon thereafter had assigned to her,
entered upon & was possessed of her dower, for the term of her life, which
said dower is a part of said land and described as follows - Beginning at a
Black Jack Cinthia Robinson's corner (description of two parcels of land
follows)
IV. That M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood, Sarah McDonald, A. C. Ellwood, S. E.
Means and John Ellwood as heirs at law of Sophia Ellwood decd a sister of
said Miller, would be entitled to one _____ one half of the premises in said
land, but that said A. C. Ellwood has sold & conveyed his interest in fee to
said M. C. King & said S. E. Means has sold & conveyed her interests to said
James McDonald. And the said John Ellwood having died his interests have
descended to his heirs at law - Flora, Mary, Margaret, Lena & Alice
Ellwood - the infants made plaintiffs, who (sue Cynthia next ____
Harriet???) Ellwood - and that Thomas J. Wilson & Margaret Orr wife J. L.
Orr an heir at law of Orr* who was a sister of said Miller** are
entitled to the remaining undivided one half of said premises.
V. That said J. R. McDonald, Sarah McDonald, Thomas J. Wilson, J. L. Orr &
Margaret Orr declined to ____ plaintiffs in this ____ and are therefor made
defendants.
VI. That said Susan Miller defendant, with intent to injure plaintiffs, has
cut down and caused to be cut down ^from said land large quantities of
timber, oak, hickory, pine & other wood, for timber and for fire-wood and
sold the same to the great damage of plaintiffs inheritance.
VII. That the said defendant Susan Miller has cleared or caused to be
cleared a large amount of wood-land and turned the same into arable or
cultivated fields when there was already a sufficient of arable land to
support her when she came into possession of said dower - and caused meadow
land to be converted into arable land, and permitted the land which was in
cultivation to grow up in shrubs, bushes & trees & become wasted to the
great damage of plaintiffs.
VIII. That by the said _____of said defendant Susan Miller, and also the
____ ____ in the nature of ____ ____ as set forth. Thence plaintiff has
been damaged to the amount of Five Hundred Dollars.
Wherefore they demanded payment.
I. For Five Hundred Dollars
II. For possession of place wasted and costs of suit
W. H. Baily & J E B(ynum?)
Attys for Plaintiffs
G W King, one of the plaintiffs, makes oath that the facts set forth in
foregoing complaint of his knowledge are true. Those ____ set forth upon
information & belief he believes.
G hisXmark King
____ ____ true _____ this 13 day of
before me
D Y ______ JP
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
Mecklenburg Superior Court
Fall Term 1887
Mary C. King & others Heirs at Law of C. Miller
vs
Susan Miller et al
Issues
1. Did the defendant Susan Miller commit waste upon the lands described in
the complaint
Answer. No
2. What damage if any have the plaintiffs sustained by reason thereof/
Answer
State of North Carolina } At a Superior Court
Mecklenburg County } held at Charlotte Mecklenburg County Feby 25th 1889
Mary King
& others
vs
Susan Miller
It is ordered that the Clerk of this court re tax the bill of court in this
case and inform the _____ in accordance with _____.
Walter Clark
Judge Presdg
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
North Carolina } Superior Court
Mecklenburg County } May 21, 1889
M C King et al
vs
Susan Miller et al
It having been Ordered at the last term of this court that the cost in the
above entitled Cause be retaxed by the Clerk.
Therefore pursuant to said order I summoned all of the witnesses, who proved
their attendance in the above Cause who being duly sworn and examined by me
said that the statement of the days attendance and mileage as set forth in
said Witness Tickets were true and correct.
The following witnesses further stated that they appeared in Court and were
sworn in the trial of said Cause but not examined to wit R H Orr, W D
Jimmison, R J Monteith, J L V Orr, James Flow, James McDonald & W J
Hutchison also that they were summoned by the defendant. I will also
further state that J P Hunter one of the witnesses in this Cause was
summoned by both Plaintiff and Defendant and proved his attendance for both
viz for the Plaintiff eight days and for the Deftd 3 days.
Upon the foregoing facts I retaxed the Cost in said Cause as per bill hereto
attached & marked Exhibit A this the 8th day of May 1889
J M Morrow
Clerk Superior Court
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
North Carolina } Supr C't
Mecklenburg County } May 21st 89
M. C. King et al
vs
Susan Miller et al
It having been ordered at the last term of the Court that the Cash in the
above Entitled Cause be retaxed by the Clerk.
Therefore pursuant to said order I summoned all of the witnesses who proved
their attendance in the above cause who being duly sworn and Examined by me
said that the statements of the days attendance and the mileage as set forth
in said Witness Tickets were true and correct.
The following witnesses further stated that they were sworn in the trial of
said Cause but not Examined, to wit R. H. Orr, W. D. Jammison, R J Monteith,
J. L. V. Orr James Flow Jane McDonald & W J Hutchison. Also that they were
summoned by the Defendant.
Upon the foregoing facts, I retaxed the Cash in said Cause as per bill
hereto attached & marked Exhibit "A"
This the 8th day of May 1889
J M Morrow
Clerk Superior Court
- - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - -
Clerks Office and Susan Miller and others
vs
Geo King, M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood & John Ellwood & L. J. Walker
Bill of Cost
J. M. Morrow 10.85 2.40
J. R. Erwin 4.00
D. G. Maxwell .25 Smith
J. P. Hunter .25 4.80
W. F. Griffith 1.80
T. S. Cooper .90
J. C. Dowd 1.50
J. W. Auten 2.40
J. H. Howie .60
Wm P. Little 1.20
C. M. Orr .30
#240 (torn)
J. P. Hunter 11.86 alld 5
Dr. J. R. Irwin 3.70
J. A. Frazier 8.43 alld 2
J. S. McLure 8.43 alld 2
J. L. Deaton 1.10
C. M. Orr 8.43 alld 2
Grandison Miller 6.90 0
R. H. Orr 8.43 alld +
W. D. Jamison 8.43 +
R. J. Montgomery Monteith 8.43 alld
J. L. V. Orr 5.30 alld +
J. F. Holton 8.50 alld 2
John Henderson 8.43 alld 2
Jas Flow 4.10 +
Jas McDonald 8.43 alld +
Chas P. Henderson 8.56 alld 2 +
W. J. Hutchison 4.36 alld +
# 129.92
#153.97
Book G #167 Jury 3.00
$156.97