﻿The 
  Blackwell 
  Litigation. 
  69 
  

  

  to 
  be 
  excluded, 
  as 
  not 
  entitled 
  to 
  credence. 
  But, 
  good 
  or 
  

   bad, 
  he 
  says 
  the 
  tobacco 
  was 
  called 
  Durham, 
  and 
  that 
  it 
  was 
  

   not 
  branded. 
  (L. 
  W. 
  Pejk, 
  p. 
  146 
  ) 
  

  

  And 
  here 
  we 
  rest. 
  Substantially 
  not 
  another 
  line 
  to 
  sus- 
  

   tain 
  a 
  claim 
  that 
  is 
  to 
  result 
  in 
  the 
  overthrow 
  of 
  the 
  indus- 
  

   try 
  of 
  a 
  whole 
  community. 
  The 
  " 
  impression 
  " 
  of 
  one 
  man 
  

   and 
  the 
  memor}- 
  of 
  an 
  illiterate 
  boy 
  of 
  sixteen, 
  whose 
  evi- 
  

   dence 
  bears 
  all 
  the 
  ear-marks 
  of 
  unreliability, 
  are 
  the 
  only 
  

   evidences 
  of 
  title 
  to 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  a 
  town 
  and 
  all 
  that 
  its 
  

   people 
  are 
  worth. 
  There 
  is 
  rebutting 
  testimony, 
  however, 
  

   that, 
  although 
  in 
  a 
  degree 
  negative 
  in 
  its 
  character, 
  is 
  amply 
  

   sufficient 
  to 
  overcome 
  that 
  above 
  cited, 
  even 
  if 
  it 
  were 
  en- 
  

   titled 
  to 
  full 
  credence. 
  The 
  people 
  living 
  about 
  Durham 
  

   evidently 
  knew 
  little 
  or 
  nothing 
  of 
  Mr. 
  Wright's 
  tobacco. 
  

   It 
  appears 
  to 
  have 
  had 
  no 
  reputation, 
  and 
  probably 
  to 
  have 
  

   been 
  made 
  at 
  hap-hazzard, 
  or 
  for 
  other 
  parties. 
  

  

  Dr. 
  Blacknall 
  (pp. 
  62, 
  63,) 
  thinks 
  it 
  was 
  called 
  Wright's 
  

   tobacco, 
  and 
  says 
  it 
  had 
  no 
  repute. 
  

  

  E. 
  W. 
  Morris 
  thinks 
  Mr. 
  Wright 
  used 
  no 
  brand 
  at 
  all 
  

   while 
  at 
  Barbee's. 
  (p. 
  2S3.) 
  

  

  Solomon 
  Shepherd 
  says 
  he 
  sold 
  smoking 
  tobacco 
  for 
  Mr. 
  

   Wright, 
  and 
  that 
  J. 
  R. 
  Green 
  was 
  the 
  first 
  person 
  to 
  uso 
  the 
  

   word 
  Durham 
  as 
  a 
  mark. 
  (p. 
  70.) 
  

  

  T. 
  B. 
  Morris 
  says 
  he 
  does 
  not 
  remember 
  to 
  have 
  seen 
  an}' 
  

   tobacco 
  manufactured 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Wright 
  at 
  Barbee's 
  branded 
  

   in 
  any 
  manner, 
  (p. 
  97.) 
  

  

  R. 
  F. 
  Morris 
  saw 
  some 
  that 
  was 
  not 
  marked, 
  (p. 
  77.) 
  

  

  Other 
  witnesses' 
  touch 
  the 
  point 
  in 
  more 
  general 
  terms. 
  

  

  From 
  the 
  following, 
  however, 
  we 
  gather 
  perhaps 
  a 
  clearer 
  

   idea 
  of 
  the 
  facts*: 
  

  

  F. 
  0. 
  Geer, 
  applicant's 
  witness, 
  (p. 
  142,) 
  deposes 
  that 
  — 
  

   "He 
  (W. 
  A. 
  Wright) 
  manufactured 
  some 
  smoking 
  to- 
  

   bacco 
  for 
  me 
  in 
  1861, 
  and 
  I 
  hauled 
  it 
  home 
  in 
  sack-bags. 
  

   He 
  came 
  to 
  my 
  house 
  himself 
  and 
  flavored 
  it 
  with 
  what 
  

   they 
  called 
  tonka 
  bean. 
  Mr. 
  Cheek 
  sold 
  this 
  tobacco 
  for 
  

   me 
  at 
  the 
  depot 
  ; 
  it 
  was 
  not 
  branded 
  that 
  I 
  know 
  of." 
  * 
  * 
  

  

  The 
  same 
  witness, 
  on 
  cross-examination, 
  says: 
  

   "I 
  think 
  Mr. 
  Green 
  was 
  the 
  first 
  I 
  ever 
  saw 
  or 
  knew 
  to 
  

   use 
  the 
  word 
  Durham." 
  

  

  It 
  would 
  seem 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Geer 
  must 
  have 
  known 
  of 
  Mr. 
  

  

  Wright's 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  word 
  Durham, 
  if 
  u 
  was 
  actual!}'- 
  used 
  

  

  as 
  stated. 
  He 
  was 
  at 
  Mr. 
  Wright's 
  place 
  at 
  Barbee's. 
  He 
  

  

  must 
  have 
  conversed 
  freely 
  with 
  him, 
  and 
  yet 
  has 
  no 
  idea 
  

  

  5 
  

  

  