The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1874-08-02
COLUMBIA, S. C.
Sunday Morning. August 2, 1874.
Tho Case OF Edward F. Stokes.

rest in the fate OF fellow citizen, who
gives evidence, by the sufferings anc
humiliations he voluntarily endures
of his consciousness of right, TO lool
into the case of Mr.. E. F. Stokes, o1
Greenville. Since penning our brieI
appeal to'the presiding Judge to take
into consideration the peouliarities oi
his mind and character, amounting, il
may be, to something like obstinacy,
bat. as we think, of kind to soften
opposition, We have received q letter in
dis behalf, from Mrs. Emma ". May.
berry, relative, who feels the igno.
miny and suffering to which he has
been subjected. It is touching in its
simplicity and pathos. It ia beautiful
for The sympathy and confidence which
are expressed in the character and
honor OF the lonely prisoner. It sheds
a halo over the little dim apartment in
the dteenville County Jail, where q
man is kept upon teohnicality of law,
but little removed. in it's spirit and
effect, as experienced by him, from
tho old law Of imprisonment for debt
That man will not yield. because he
has the independence to think himself
right and the pluck and the nerve to
take the consequences. Under these
circumstances, We commend the feeling
appeal Of his lady relative to the con-
.sideration OF the public, and, more
especially, of those who hold his fate in
their hands, and shall say q word or
1.-TWO besides.
The case, as We understand from a
copy of the record, is now before the
Supreme Court, on appeal from the
order OF the Circuit judge. It seems
that there was sn unsatisfied exeou-
! zion for $l73 against Stokes in the
SSherif's office, and his creditors pro.
cured an order from Judge Orr, in
July. 1872. to put him on the rstand to
ranswer concerning, property they be-
Iieved him 70 possess. He refused so
to testify, and was ruled for contempt
OF Court rbut, subsequently purged
himself By proper answer. Mean
while. the Court, now presided over
by Judge Cooke, took the testimony
of'Thomss NJ. Cox, as 10 4 note held
against him and others by Stokes.
-ordered Stokes to turn this note over
10 the Sheriff, that it might be put in
euit, and from its proceeds the judg-
.nent be satisfied: On the same day
that this was done, 18th September,
YS73, he committed him to prison by
an order which directs the Sheriff to
keep him in close confinement until
such time as he shall answer the dues-
Aons proponnde1 to him touching his
property. From this order, he ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court. and the
case was argued here before the Court
more than two months ago. No deci-
sion has yet been rendered. The
grounds Of appeal were, briefly. that
the plaintiff had ascertained from Cox,
a1der oath, ell the information he re-
CURED touching the defendants pro.
perty; secondly, that the Court was
Satisfied with this information, as
ahown by continuing the notice re-
>quiring the defendant to answer, and
by ordering him to deliver up the note
to the Sheriff; thirdly. that the de-
fendant had appealed from the order
requiring him to surrender up the
note before the order was made, re-
auiring the Sheriff to arrest and con-
fine him; and. fourthly.
@'Because the Court is required By
law to impose fine for an alleged con-
tempt OF Court in the first instance,
and it cannot imprison a person until
he fails to pay the fine. 10 this case
no tioe was imposed by the Court be-
fore or after the order was made to ar
rest and imprison him in the jail, where
he is now confined"
We would not presume to judge
points Of law. but these grounds, il
strikes us, have force. There may be
some contumacy, but there are reasons,
on the other hand. for not treating il
with severity in q case so clearly excep.