The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1881-02-09

before: he and his wife, so far as I know. have
lived together ~peaccably, perfectly peucea-
bly,:
Of testimony, very little OF which was heard
BY this scribe. When asked how far It was
from the Spanish oak tree to where the limb
was lying. he said. ut was nowhar thar
PROPOSITIONS OF LAW.
Mr., Magill-May 1t please your Honor: Be-
fore l address the jury / desire to obtain the
Courts assent to the following propositions OF
law:
l. That the plea of "rot guilty by reason of
insanity" Is not one of confession and avoid
ance. (Wharton on HON. Sec. Hs.)
2 That IT Is enough for q prisoner. who sets
up the plea Of insanity, to establish his de-
IN HON. 667. Is n. Y. 81: State VIC. Lawrance,
81 Me-; Loetfner VS.. State, 10 Ohio
3. That when any evidence tending to over
tnrow the presumption OF sanity. Is given,
the Jury are to examine. weigh. and pass up.
on 1t, with the understanding that, although
the initiative In presenting the evidence Is
taken by the defence, the burden OF proof up
other. is upon the State to establish the CON
ditions OF the guilt. State vs. Bartlett 43 n.
f.; state vs.. Ghrbutt II Mich.
4. That a prisoner, indicted for murder,
though the proof should not establish O total
want Of responsibility by reason Of insanity.
yet. If 1t showed that his mind waa so far inn
paired ne to render him incapable OF q dellb-
crate. premcditntcd murder, should be con-
victcd only OF n~lanslaughter. Al Conn Sill
Whar. on HON.. Sec. G6S and 5S4.
D. That " the Jury are satisfied that insani-
ty exists In a degree. but entertain q reasOna-
BILE doubt us 10 whether 1t exists in such a de-
gree hat the prisoner should be held totally
Irresponsible, 1t Is their duty TO acQuit him OF
murder and find n verdict OF manslaughter.
Whar. on HON. Sec. 6S.
8. That where there is q reasonable doubt as
to one Of the facts essential to establish gull,
It Is the duty Of the jury 10 acquit. State W.
-. That If q prisoner. charged with murder,
peace, SUCH good character may be sufficient
to create a reasonable doubt Of his guilt al.
though no such doubt would have existed but
for such good character. Al Ala
GUILTY OF URDER
Mr.. .MngIli's propositions OF las were nc
cepted by Mr.. Solicitor Cothran rs good law.
and the Court also held them 10 be gOod. The
Court rcad from the manuscript OF the abnrc
during hiss charge to the jury In this ase.
which charge seemed TO lean In mercy TO the
prisoner. who Is evidently q man OF weak
mind. After a short absence the jury brought
In a verdict of guilty.
Joe Armstrong, Charles PEPPER and
John Young In Court.
THEIR ATTORNEY OBJECTS TO HEIR BEING
Q UPON TRIAL OF IRREGC
LARITY IN pREL1MINARY
~PoCEEDINGs.
Solicitor Cothrnn-" May II please the
Court, there Is another murder case to be
tried, and l would like to have the prisoners
arrui4ned SO that the attorneys for the defence
may haye an opportunity OF seeing the III
Tie prisoners Joe Armstrong, Charles Pep
per and John Young, charged with the murder
OF William Maddox, were placed In the dock.
Colonel Orville +. Calhoun May 1t please
your Honor, before the prisoners are arraigned
| would like to bring to your Honor's atten-
ton ceralin facts connected with this case.
The Grand Jury has found two true bills
against the prisoners ut the bar: one for muir.
der, and one for assault and battery with In
tent 10 rape. Now, your Honor, the nr"cael-
ings in these cases are very reamrkable. l
have made dlllgcnt Inquiry. and do not be-
lleve Tint any preliminary examination has
heen held In either case-in fact, the prisoners
have not been arrested upon the charge OF rs.
while they lay in Jail under the charge OF
murder the other charge Is brought against
them, and without any preliminary eNnmina-
ton, or without their even knowing that they
were charged with such a crime; a true bill is
found against them, and they are now expect
ed 10 stand their trial for q crime which they
did not have notice Of before they were ar
raigned at the bar. This, may 1t pleasc the
Court, Is not fair to the prisoners. and Is con-
trary TO the spirit OF our law and the Consti-
tuition. 1t Is not right that u citizen should
be snAtchcd up on suspicion and imprisoned
without first allowin! him a preliminary
hearing"
Colonel Calhoun then read section 9, page
l79. OF the Revised Statutes, mud commended
that that section mndc 1t the duty of every
trial justice 10 hold preliminary examinations
In cases OF felony when brought before them,
and that no trial justice had u right 10 inprls-
on H person simply on the written affidavit OF
u prosecutor. He then said:
II shall make q motion first, that the prlS-
oners be allowed Il preliminary hearing; and
IL this motion Is refused, I then make q mo-
ton that tho case be postponed to the next
term of the Court"
The Court-The prisoners cannot have a
preliminary hearing after a true bill has been
found. Mr.. Solicitor, what have you 10 say
In opposition nf the set5nd motion7 ----
Mr. Solicitor-May 1t p!ease the Court, /
will agree to POSTPONE the trial OF the charge
for murder, on condition that the case for Az
sault and battery with intent TO rape. lie
tried.
colonel Calhoun-I refuse to agree to try
either of the caseS ut this term of the Court.
We have had less chance To prepare II defence
to ripo, than In the other case.
Mr.. Calhoun, and you can prepare your affi.
davis in the other case 10y the tune we reach
1t.
TO NEXT COURT.
The case against Charles Pepper, John
Young md Joe Armstrong for the Maddox
murder was continued, rs was also the case
ngiinst the same parties for assault with In
tent 10 commit u rape.