William Noell to Pay Lora Gee $4,000 After He Assaulted Her, June 25, 1922

William Noell, Rich Tobacco Dealer of Danville, Va., Again Found Guilty of Wrong Conduct. . . Lora Gee Wins. . . Jury Gives Child $4,000 Damages Because of an Assault by Noell. . . Case Was Hard Fought

Danville, Va., June 24—William W. Noell, wealthy tobacco dealer of this city, was again found guilty of assault on 14-year-old Lora Gee here tonight, this time in civil court where a jury returned a verdict after deliberating for more than an hour, awarding the child $4,000 damages. She asked for $30,000. Motion for a new trial was made before court adjourned.

The afternoon was consumed by final arguments in the course of which Eugene Withers and Malcolm Harris emphasized the unreasonableness of her story and the weak points in the plaintiff’s case. John Lee and Duvall Martin appearing for the girl were censorious of the defendant in their remarks. As no usual motions were made after the verdict was received it was understood that no appeals would be taken.

The presentation of evidence was completed on the adjournment of court at 1 o’clock. The instructions being argued at that time and given to the jury at 2:30 o’clock after which the final pleas and summing up of the case was heard.

The “surprise” which was promised by the defense was that in the testimony of James H. Dillard, automobile salesman, a new witness who testified that “between 4 and 5 o’clock” on the day of the purported factory occurrence he saw Lora Gee in close conversation with S.J. Davis, the man who reported the affair to the police, at the entrance to a store on Patton Street. He said he passed close to them and he could see that the girl was not crying. The alleged assault took place between 4:30 and 5 p.m. Dillard could not be pinned down to any closer definition of the time. He said that he did not appear as a witness before because he did not think that the episode was very relevant to the case.

Noell was on the stand for an hour this morning and clung tenaciously to his absolute denial of any wrong doing. He reiterated what he had said at previous trials, that is that he did not invite the girl into the tobacco factory, that curiosity impelled the child to come in unbidden and that she asked to be shown over the plant. He said that he never put his hands on her nor ever attempted to do so. Every allegation contained in the story of the girl was met with an emphatic denial. He also contradicted two city policemen in their testimony as to what he had said about the girl crying. He was plied with questions but met them unhesitatingly and was considered a good witness in his own behalf.

From the front page of the Greensboro Daily News, June 25, 1922