﻿The 
  Blackwell 
  Litigation. 
  67 
  

  

  If, 
  as 
  he 
  sa3's, 
  he 
  carried 
  the 
  word 
  Durham 
  in 
  his 
  head, 
  

   and 
  knew 
  it 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  brand 
  of 
  very 
  great 
  value 
  and 
  repute, 
  is 
  

   it 
  fair 
  to 
  suppose 
  that 
  he 
  could 
  not 
  remember 
  the 
  fact, 
  had 
  

   he 
  used 
  it? 
  Is 
  it 
  not 
  contrary 
  to 
  reason 
  to 
  fancy 
  for 
  a 
  mo- 
  

   ment 
  that 
  he 
  could 
  recollect 
  every 
  detail 
  in 
  the 
  history 
  of 
  

   the 
  brand 
  of 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright 
  ; 
  that 
  he 
  could 
  recall 
  the 
  phra- 
  

   seology 
  of 
  letters 
  ; 
  that 
  no 
  circumstance 
  afiecting 
  the 
  coveted 
  

   word 
  escaped 
  his 
  memory 
  while 
  at 
  Durham 
  ; 
  and 
  yet 
  that 
  

   he 
  cannot 
  remember 
  whether 
  or 
  not 
  he 
  used, 
  while 
  at 
  Bar- 
  

   bee's, 
  what 
  he 
  claims 
  as 
  substantiall}' 
  the 
  same 
  brand 
  used 
  

   by 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright? 
  He 
  cannot 
  remember 
  a 
  single 
  in- 
  

   stance 
  in 
  which 
  he 
  used 
  it, 
  altliough 
  the 
  alleged 
  period 
  of 
  

   use 
  covers 
  an 
  entire 
  year. 
  Again, 
  your 
  honor, 
  he 
  remem- 
  

   bers 
  putting 
  the 
  weights 
  upon 
  the 
  boxes 
  and 
  barrels; 
  re- 
  

   members 
  how 
  he 
  packed 
  and 
  sold 
  it, 
  nay, 
  he 
  remembers 
  he 
  

   did 
  not 
  brand 
  a 
  certain 
  lot 
  sold 
  to 
  Cheek. 
  Could 
  he 
  remem- 
  

   ber, 
  we 
  ask 
  in 
  all 
  candor, 
  that 
  a 
  particular 
  box 
  was 
  not 
  

   branded, 
  and 
  fail 
  to 
  remember 
  some 
  box 
  that 
  was? 
  How 
  

   did 
  he 
  happen 
  to 
  recollect 
  this 
  box 
  he 
  sold 
  to 
  Cheek, 
  and 
  

   the 
  fact 
  of 
  its 
  being 
  without 
  a 
  brand? 
  Did 
  it 
  impress 
  his 
  

   mind 
  as 
  being 
  an 
  exception 
  ? 
  If 
  it 
  did, 
  he 
  convicts 
  himself, 
  

   for 
  a 
  recollection 
  of 
  an 
  exception 
  compels 
  a 
  recollection 
  of 
  

   the 
  rule. 
  It 
  is 
  simply 
  child's 
  play 
  to 
  contend 
  that 
  a 
  man 
  

   may 
  recall 
  something 
  different 
  from 
  what 
  he 
  was 
  accus- 
  

   tomed 
  to 
  do, 
  without 
  recalling 
  that 
  from 
  which 
  he 
  had 
  de- 
  

   parted. 
  

  

  May 
  it 
  please 
  your 
  honor, 
  the 
  conviction 
  is 
  irresistible. 
  

   Mr. 
  Wright 
  did 
  not 
  use 
  the 
  word 
  Durham 
  upon 
  the 
  tobacco 
  

   put 
  up 
  at 
  Barbee's. 
  He 
  could 
  not 
  have 
  done 
  so 
  and 
  for- 
  

   gotten 
  it. 
  

  

  But, 
  in 
  any 
  event, 
  he 
  swears 
  only 
  as 
  to 
  his 
  " 
  impression 
  " 
  

   in 
  the 
  premises, 
  which, 
  interested 
  as 
  he 
  is, 
  must 
  go 
  for 
  

   nothing. 
  

  

  J. 
  E. 
  M. 
  Wright 
  cannot 
  be 
  made 
  to 
  say 
  that 
  the 
  tobacco 
  

   put 
  up 
  at 
  Barbee's 
  was 
  branded 
  or 
  marked, 
  and 
  yet 
  he, 
  like 
  

   his 
  father, 
  remembers 
  every 
  part 
  and 
  feature 
  of 
  the 
  pre- 
  

   tended 
  brand 
  of 
  Morris 
  & 
  Wright, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  other 
  matters 
  

   equally 
  liable 
  to 
  escape 
  the 
  mind. 
  

  

  W. 
  P. 
  Wright, 
  (p. 
  226,) 
  deposes 
  as 
  follows: 
  

  

  " 
  Q. 
  State 
  whether 
  the 
  tobacco 
  made 
  at 
  Durham 
  station 
  

   in 
  18G0, 
  and 
  in 
  the 
  vicinity 
  in 
  1861, 
  was 
  called 
  or 
  known 
  

   by 
  any 
  name 
  or 
  designation, 
  and 
  if 
  so, 
  what 
  was 
  it? 
  

  

  " 
  A. 
  It 
  was 
  called 
  by 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  ' 
  Durham 
  Smoking 
  To- 
  

   bacco.'" 
  

  

  