The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-05-18
sss}5Rss &c s'ss s .sSi se8,!

0Vt' hno caAed attention to- several au-
thorities in English Law. The Judge
has no right to exclude Witness from
the stand simply because he was in the
court room; but may make t matter OF
remark to the jury, and may attach him
(the witnessJ for contempt, il not obev-
ing the order of the Judge TO remain
outside' OF the court room :dcring the
trial; bht his testimony must be taken
for Whist It is worth. 1Mr. Louis
EeConte Was the witness referred to.
he cited I'd Bailey, 128 Hilliard on New
Trials, etc. AS to keeping the jury 70.
gether by the Sheriff, he considered It
hardly worth while TO cite authorities.
He showed that conversations With,
treating or otherwise interfering with or
influencing jury men. was in violation OF
law. In Cohen .ps. Robert. it is stated
that any improper Interference with the
jury Is sufficient ground for new trial.
Judge, Frost says !: is very necessary,
and has always been the object OF the
Court, to keep The jury from any impro
Per interference or attempt at influence.
It is ground for now trial, that the
without attendance. It does seem to
me, said Gen. Butler, that if there ever
wee : case when the order uf the Cour.
should have been rigidly carried ont, it
was this. Your Honor charged that the
jury should be kept strictly In charge of
Constable; and IN face OF it. they scat
ter all over ile streets of Columbia.
Here is city, from all that Ne know,
perfectly carried away with excitement
against the priscner-pnblicf feeling run
ming high against him. Your Honor,
probably feeling or seeing it. charged
the jury that they must keep together;
and, in face Of ft. they scatter every
whore. Now. how do We know that they
have not been III saloons? How do Ne
know who has. approached them2 who
his treated them?
MIR. Youmans.' on the part of the
State, said that the defendants had dis.
closed their case, as he understood it.
H9 5Pohe of one point that his Honor
had directed their attention 70, ns d
!. matter. Of law-th.t ths axGeDuon as to
any ruling or other matters should have
been made, at the, time OF their occur
renee. = he then read the first and &C.
cond grounds OF the motion for new
trial, and considered the second ground
chkat; He said that il the second ground
WAS right, your Honor is all wrong, and
.,mast fall back upon EXCEPTIONS not taken
"aE theft Fhe constitutional! amend.
ments upon which the defence relies are
in relation to the Government of the
Omitted States, and not, TO The govern
ment 5;or rights Of States. as shown by
repeated deefsiohs Of the; Supreme
'C4nrtsof the United States. The CASE is
exhausted in our own State, in the case
ofthe' State against Startling, I5 Richard :,
son, 128. 1913. The decisions In, both
United States and State courts exhaust
tne matter. In I'd Stfober, 4S7, we fhd
that me right Of trial BY iary and the
Etght OF challenge Rhall remain ihviolate.
vrlghs goes over the same ground, lre.af.
hrms IL, and in,,addition to the con
olnSive resscns given sbnye. adds other
reasons. ID the case Of tie State vs.
SAinakef. I'D Bfevatd, p I, IL IFS laid
dswn that The State need NOT show cause
until after the ptisoneE hss gone through
with the panel, but may order 10 stand
esids. McOorde was also cited TO ahow
hat the State had the right to challenge.
and was not bound to show cause until
he panel was exhausted. In the l4th
Statutes, 493, (l671,) and General sta
tltes, 6S3. it is declared that any person
Vho shall hereafter be arraiened for
na!der, rape, arson or burglary, shall be
ehtled to twenty challenges and the
gate to two. In what manner may the
1ate cna1enge under this law? Pc.
r4nptorily. In this case, not a single
mn had been challenged for cause but
w(o had been among the original mum.
be; and the State had the right to make
th&n stand aside on the first call, and
th$ight to challenge for cause on their
rec(l ) ,#t,, IN
a 20 the third ground, ia reference to
theldispersion Of the jury, the practice
IN Huth Carolina has been not to CON
hne(orors. # such was the order, and
no iiproper interference is shown, it is
no God ground for d new trial; and
whe4 reference to the conduct OF a
1urofs made, notice should be served
upo1him, to afford him the opportunity
OF ptparipg an, answer to aspersions
npo4his character. These afldavits do
not 4ow that there has been any impro.
per hterference with or personal influ.
enobrought to bear upon the jury. The
INTEGRITY Of juror should never be i'm.
peafed by affidavit, unless q copy has
beefserved upon him, to permit him to
exgipate himself.
a to the fourth ground. it does not
Aein the mouth Of this defendant to
Ia ~hs m