The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-02-26

Mt the arrest df Ellison saw no violence or
heard of any threats ne AM not seem to
me to be frightened; We %sfH about 100
wards from his house when he tfas hand
cuffed; before we got to Ragsdale's; Elli-
SON did make confessions in the spring
yard; no words were suggested to him; he
repeated tlrern himself; was present at the
preliminary examination was OH the way
10 WILLIAMSON with Poore and Gambrell ;
we were going OH talking; / was in front of
GnmbrelI: when VIC crossed the branch
Poore said he wished he had Gled In the
war;" Gambrell said "he did not care; )
Poore said he wouldn't, but for my con-
SCIENCE" he said he wished he had died in
the war in serious manner; Ellison sign
ed the testimony before Esquire Pinson !;
Alley took the handGuf1s Off for him to sign
it; have known Bladon five or six years !;
know his general character; except being
dIsslpeted, he has good character.
J.. Cooley, (recallnd,) says was along
when Ellison was arrested; no violence
done him; 1 did not think lie was fright
ened; handouts were put on him about
10u or $50 yards FROM his house knows
]. \. Bladon-iiaYe for 8 or years; his
general character is good; would believe
him on his oath.
Willie Anderson, (recalled,) says: Eli
son was treated very kindly, no violence
used he was handcuffed about so yards
(might have been rnorc) from the house
was In the r. ]. Court during the examina..
ton; saw Ellison sign the paper Mr.. Ford
said to Ellison, Do you know what you ore
saying2 Ellison went on to give his evil
dence; knows bladon-hayc fur four years;
his general character good; would believe
him on oath.
E. ]. Pinson, (rccalled,) says: Ellison
signed the testimony 1 think he was
sworn; I heard him say lie went out
D. NJ. Cooley, (recallcd,) says: Known
would believe him on ontlt'
H. l. Epting, sworn, says: asked Eli
son which way he went home FROM the fire;
he said through the woods by the grave
yard from the cut it was his nearest way
home.
A. H. Ford, (fecalle.l,) Gays Was clerk
at the trial; Ellison signed 1t my recollec.
ton is that the attorney asked Ellison, Did
you not tell Maj. Anderson in the spring
yard that you stopped in the cut, and the
others went OH to the store? He said the
did. No violence or threats used; they
were free.
DR.. Wilson, (recalled,) says: Was called
to Eliisons on Monday evening to see
sick child; on Monday before fire. did not
return on Tuesday heard of no one being
sick but the child; l heard nothing of Mrs.
Ellisons sickness; understood that Eli
son and his wife had been to Williamson
that day.
Mai. Anderson, (recallcd,) says: did
not offer to bail Ellison for him to coiliess
I got information from him that he knew
more than he had told me / made him no
inducemcnt to confess in the spring yard;
was sent for to see him morning after fire;
did not send for him.
The examination of witnesses was con-
cludcd at about ii o'clock a. nj. Friday, and
the argument before the jury was opened
at once by James L. Orr, Esq, OH the part
of the State, who was followed by Messrs.
Allen, Murray and Brcaze1le in the after
noon and by Mr.. Moore on Saturday morn
ing for the prisoners. who were in turn
followed by the Solicitor, who closed the
argument for the State. The various points
of the case were thoroughly ventilated by
the learned counsel on both sides, who oc-
cupied the Court from II o'clock q. m. on
Friday until about p. m. OH Saturday.
The arguments of the counsel were listened
to attentively and patiently by the jury,
who seemed at its conclusion to breathe
sigh of relief.
The Judge then delivered an able and
impartial charge to the jury, Of which the
following is synopsis:
The Judges Charge.
The jury were instructed that they were
to find o verdict in the case without refer
ence 70 the opinion of a single individual in
the large assemblage around them, or to the
feelings of the parties or the earnest con,
clusions of the Counsel who have argued
the case; the rule was that stated by the
Solicitor, "a verdict according to the evil
dence in the case" That inasmuch as it
was stated on the part of the State no con-
yiction of the Ragsdales (fathcr and son)
and of Hancock was asked, their cases
should be dismissed from the consideration
of the jury.
The Court then called the attention of
the Jury to the cases Of Gambrell and Poore,
and said that in the consideration of their
cases the alleged confession of Ellison
against himself, Gambrell, Poore and others
must be wholly excluded; that rs confes-
sion or evidence it could affect Ellison
alone; that it was not made under the
sanction of an oath, and as to Gambrell
and Poore could not be corroborated; that
the testimony Of an accomplicc who was
witness might and should be strengthened
by other proof, but confession crimlnat-
ing others could not be corroboratcd rs there
was no testimony to support; that the jury
were, therefore, to consider the cases OF
Gambrell and Poore rs if they were not in
cluded in the same indictment against Eli
son, and were indicted alone.
Separating thus the cases of Gambrell and
Poore from that of Ellison, the Court SUBJ
mitted brief statement of the expressions
of Gambrell uttered by him before and after
the fire, reminding the jury, however, that
all that was said by Gambrell was before
them for consideration; that these express
sions or declarations were alleged by the
State to prove the commission OF, or q par.
ticipation in, the offence of arson, as charged
i'm the indictment. The declarations made
by Poore being of like character with those
made by Gambrell, were also submitted to
the iury in Poore's case The Court instruc-
ted the Jury that when declarations were
used as evidence of prisoners guilt, it was
incumbent on the State to show the admis-
sions were made with reference to the Of
fence charged in the Indictment, or some
matter relating to it; thatifthe declarations
were dubious in meaning, the accused was
not so much under obligation to explain,
as the State was bound to show the applica-
llity of the expression to the offence
charged that if the State had satisfied the
Jury that the declarations of Gambrell and
Poorc referred to the offence charged, and
also satisfied them of the commission of the
crime, the verdict should be guilty, but II
giving to the declarations reasonable force
and efficacy the question of guilt was doubt
full, or not proved, the verdict should be not
guilty. The Court instructed the jury that
Gambrcll and Poore having proved good!
character were entitled to the benefit OF
such proof; that in all cases, and especially
in doubtful cases, good character should
have weight.
The Court said that the case of Ellison
rested upon his alleged confession Of the
offence; not confession in general terms,
Il