The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1877-01-17

mission of felony WAS lntended;
this would justify them in rcsorting
to any mranc for its prevention. The
law has such an adherence Of the
commission of fclOnies that it will eX-
cilsc.a homicide if perprtruted in its
prevention. lie also cited evidence in
SUPPORT of these points.
Vi. r. D%eIruhi, Esq,
tl,en addressed tho jury for tho de-
feurc. We regret that we have failed
to procure notcsof his argument.
w. G. Bcnct, Esq,
Next addressed the jury in behalf
Of the prisoners. lie claim cd for
himself and the two gentlemen who
had prccracd him tho greatest in
aulgcncc and attention on the part
Of tho Jury and the honorable Court.
in consideration Of the gravity and
responsibility of the case they had
in charge, aud their own incxpc-
ricncc at tho bar Of the criminal
Court. lie YVES sure that gen the
senior counsel, Gen. Mcliowan, with
all his capacity and experience,
would address The jury with diff
dence aud distrust--that dltlidcncc
and distrust which must character
izc any Christian advocate in cause
of blood. Tho task Of defending
even one nal charged villa murder
was always Il solemn and RESPONSE
bic ono; but when The lives oftwc!ve
men were at Stakc,thc solcmnity and
responsibility were increased twelve
fold. But he had this consolation,
that he hoped TO be able to show the
Jury, under tho direction Of the
Court, that the State, in prosecuting
those twelve unfortunate prisoners,
had established
NO CASE or MURDER.
against them. Ito reminded the
jury of tho still greater responsible
ity which rested on them us tho final
arbiters Of life and death, and as
surcd them that unless they, in sit
ting on the case, wcrc guided by
these principles Of honesty, upright
ness, end pure-mindedncss of which
rs good and true men they wero pos
scsscd, no effort on tho part Of the
counsel for the defense could posi-
bly, insure y just and unbiased vcr-
dict. lie urged them to remember
that they wcro there on their oath
sworn to well and truly tryand true
d~clivcranco mako according to the
evidence; uninnucnccd BY feelings
for or against the prisoners, or even
by sympathy and sorrow for the
friends OF tho haplcss Clayton Al
len, With whose foul and unnatural
murder those twelve men were
charged. lie felt confident that they
had examined their minds and wcro
sure that they were not directed in
their decision on the case by any po-
!itical prejudice or race feeling; and
believing this he did not shrink
from placing the fate Of the prison.
crs in the hands Of the jury.
MIR. Dcnct then proceed TO explain
The
NATURE OF TIE CHARGE
on which tho jury were to decide.
That charge was murder. 1t was
necessary for the jury to keep clear
ly before their minds = legal defini-
ton of murder, Of which tho very
essence was malice prcpcnsc; differ
ing in this distinguishing particular
from manslaughtcr. They had also
to discriminate these forms Of hon.
icidc from cxcusahlc homicide, which
is Il killing in sclcdcfcnsc; and from
iustitiablc homicide, which might DO
committed in prevention of u forci-
bic and atrocious crime. Tho jury
was reminded that the truc and only
criterion which they onght 10 apply
to tho facts produced in evidence if
they would decide undor which Of
these four classes of homicide the
act of the prisoners fell, was quo
anime was the homicide committed;
in what spirit was tho decd done.
Crime lay not in the act itself, but
in the mind. The murdorous pur-
pose was tho murder; the malicious
mind was the crime. 1t was for
them, rs intelligent jurors, to weigh
the evidence in the trial Scrupulous-
ly and say whether the prisoners at
the bar, some Of whom had confess.
cd they were present when Clayton
Allen was fatally shot, were muir
dcrcrs deserving to DO hanged, or
felons to be imprisoned in tho pen
itcntiary, or simply unfortunatr
mon whom the circumstances other
excused or justified in taking the
life of q fellow mortal.
Having thus defined tho crime
with which tho prisoners stood
charged, and tho othor less hcinous
types of homicide, Mr.. BcncL stated
that
TIE DEFENSE
no and his colleagues opposed to the
charge was that tho evidence laid
before tho jury by the State could
not satisfy their minds beyond 4
reasonable doubt that the prisoners
were guilty of murder; that a ver-
dict Of manslaughtcr could hardly
be based on tho evidence that on
the answer to tho question, "Who,
fired the first shot-thc white mcn,
or the colsrcd mcn?" depended their
rendering II verdict Of cxcusablc
homicide; and that their verdict
ought to be juslifablo homicide if
he could prove to them, rs he hoped
TO do, that the person or persons
who killed Allen did SO in prcvcn-
ton Of IL forciblo and atrocious
crime.
lie advised the jury to consider close
ly and weigh carefully Inc argu-
mcnt which tho Solicitor would with
great learning, ability, and inscnui-
" lay before them, cndeayoring to
prove that tho prisoners were gull
ty Of
CONSPIRACY.
II was absolutely ncccssaryto prove
u conspiracy before the net OF one