﻿64 
  History 
  of 
  Durham. 
  

  

  joined. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  earlier 
  use 
  set 
  up, 
  tlie 
  only 
  question 
  

   being 
  on 
  the 
  words 
  embraced 
  in 
  the 
  brand 
  used 
  by 
  said 
  

   firm. 
  

  

  Let 
  us 
  turn 
  to 
  the 
  evidence. 
  The 
  following 
  witnesses 
  de- 
  

   pose 
  that 
  the 
  brand 
  of 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright 
  contained 
  the 
  word 
  

   " 
  Durham 
  :" 
  W. 
  A. 
  Wright, 
  J. 
  E. 
  M, 
  Wright, 
  W. 
  P. 
  Wright, 
  

   Pompey 
  Gordon. 
  

  

  These 
  four 
  are 
  the 
  onh^ 
  ones 
  who 
  sustain 
  Mr. 
  Armistead 
  

   upon 
  this 
  point. 
  Not 
  another 
  of 
  his 
  witnesses 
  pretends 
  to 
  

   have 
  any 
  knowledge 
  of 
  the 
  mark 
  of 
  said 
  firm. 
  We 
  consider 
  

   their 
  testimony 
  in 
  turn. 
  

  

  W. 
  A. 
  Wright's 
  statement 
  is 
  distinct 
  and 
  positive. 
  

  

  The 
  next 
  two, 
  however, 
  both 
  sons 
  of 
  W. 
  A. 
  Wright, 
  one 
  

   of 
  whom, 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  the 
  alleged 
  brand 
  is 
  said 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  

   used, 
  was 
  but 
  eleven, 
  and 
  the 
  other 
  but 
  fifteen 
  years 
  of 
  age, 
  

   (pp. 
  195, 
  224,) 
  differ 
  materially 
  in 
  their 
  statements, 
  thus 
  con- 
  

   firming 
  the 
  natural 
  inference 
  that 
  they 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  likely 
  

   to 
  retain 
  a 
  very 
  clear 
  impression 
  of 
  any 
  brand 
  used 
  so 
  long 
  

   ago. 
  But 
  in 
  this 
  connection 
  we 
  waive 
  any 
  critical 
  objection 
  

   to 
  them, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  to 
  their 
  father, 
  suggesting 
  only 
  their 
  

   very 
  great 
  interest 
  in 
  the 
  premises, 
  and 
  the 
  probable, 
  nay 
  

   inevitable, 
  consultations, 
  v\'hich 
  increased 
  their 
  (perhaps) 
  

   very 
  proper 
  bias, 
  and 
  resulted 
  in 
  a 
  reasonable 
  agreement 
  as 
  

   to 
  facts. 
  

  

  Pompey 
  Gordon, 
  however, 
  we 
  must 
  protest 
  against, 
  as 
  too 
  

   brazen 
  an 
  attempt 
  to 
  impose 
  upon 
  judicial 
  credulit}'. 
  

  

  Pompey 
  says 
  (p. 
  146): 
  

  

  " 
  While 
  in 
  the 
  service 
  of 
  Messrs. 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright, 
  which 
  

   was 
  in 
  the 
  year 
  ISGO, 
  I 
  rolled 
  plug 
  tobacco 
  and 
  helped 
  to 
  

   put 
  up 
  smoking 
  tobacco. 
  Their 
  smoking 
  tobacco 
  was 
  put 
  

   up, 
  * 
  * 
  and 
  branded 
  with 
  a 
  plate. 
  * 
  * 
  ' 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright's 
  

   Best 
  Spanish 
  Flavored 
  Durham 
  Smoking 
  Tobacco, 
  Durham, 
  

   N. 
  C 
  I 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  what 
  the 
  letters 
  'N. 
  C 
  meant 
  at 
  that 
  

   time, 
  as 
  I 
  was 
  not 
  then 
  educated; 
  but 
  have 
  since 
  found 
  that 
  

   ' 
  N. 
  C 
  meant 
  North 
  Carolina, 
  and 
  this 
  is 
  why 
  I 
  recollect 
  so 
  

   well 
  the 
  brand 
  of 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright." 
  

  

  On 
  cross-examination 
  (p. 
  147), 
  Pompey 
  says 
  he 
  could 
  

   neither 
  read 
  nor 
  write. 
  How 
  he 
  could 
  swear 
  to 
  the 
  words 
  

   that 
  were 
  " 
  branded 
  " 
  on 
  the 
  tobacco, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  necessary 
  to 
  

   inquire. 
  Clearly 
  his 
  evidence 
  can 
  have 
  no 
  weight. 
  

  

  The 
  above 
  is 
  the 
  sum 
  total 
  of 
  Mr. 
  Armistead's 
  testimony 
  

   on 
  this 
  point. 
  

  

  The 
  evidence 
  presented 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Blackwell 
  is, 
  we 
  submit, 
  

  

  