The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1881-03-09

which falls to conform to these requisites is
fatally detective. Now we have seen Tint as
by the Act Of 1870 into W classes: first,
"tiosc of Il high and aggravated nature,' and,
second, "thOSc below that grndc.' The first
class being exclusively cogniZabie by a Trial
Justice, and the seer nd exclusively cOgniZable
in the Court of General SESSIONS. Where Il
party then is charged with assault and battery
before the Court Of General Sessions the In;
! dictmcnt should show on It's face that the us
Sault and battery charged Is OF Il high and ag-
gravatcl nature. This Is necessary to give the
Court jurisdiction and to put the accused to
answer I'm that Court.
Does the indictment In this case contain n
charge uf assault and battery Of that kind on
its lnce? There is nothing in the description
of the ot!cnSp which would distinguish it from
an ordinary simple assault and battery. 1t Is
| not alleged. even In general terms, that ii WAS
! high and aggravated, nor arc there any spe-
rial circumstances OF nggravatlon stated
"bcat, wound and itl-trcat" are the words
used descriptive OF the %ollcnSc.
Ihcsc arc sufficient To show that nm assault
and battery Is charged, but ihc.' 10 not indi-
alto It's cliaracter-wlctl.c til" beating,
wounding and ~ill.trcni melt was mild, com
rarntivcly so, or high and aggravated does not
appear. This is left to conjecture and yet this
is the cSSe zee OF the oflrISc In the Court OF
General Sessions. In the absence In the In
dictment Of something showing the character
and grade of the Oilensc. how can 1t be said,
even after conviction, that the accused has
been convicted of an assault and battery of n
high and aggravated nature, and how could
the Court graduate the punishment? The de-
scription in this Indictment would he proper
in q charge OF The lowest grade, hut where q
high and aggravated OtIenSc Is intended some
thing more Is necessary. Serious bodily harm,
; intent to Kill. 5ntent TO comnli Il felony, the
! use Off stick or deadly weapon, or some, uing
showing agsr:tvation should appear.
Did the jury in this case know that they
were passing upon the question whether the
offen-e was high and aggravated? This they
should have known. because the punishment
OF that oflrnSc Is very different from the OF.
: fenS, below that grade, being the difference
! aud Il small punishment by fine and not more
than thirty days in the county Jail.
1t Is true that the Act of 1870 driningtllc jul.
risdiction Of Trial Justices in criminal cases
In reference to assaults and batteries leaves
it to the discretion Of Trial Justice in the first
instance when q party Is brought before
him to determine whittier lie will take juris.
dicliun or bind the accused over; but the Act
certainly never intended that his Judgment
in this matter should he final and that he
should have the power 10 fix indiSruiably the
character of the oilense " hen 1t came before
the higher Court.
The o:lensc in the higher Court consists OF
two ingredients: First, That 1t should be al
assault and battery. Second, That 1t should
he OF Il high and aggravated nature. If the
Trial Justices Judgment, MS to the Inst ingrc.
| dent when he sends the case up, Is conclusive
then this strange result would follow THAT
of the two ingredients which make up the of:
| Tense before the Court ~ Sessions, the Trial
Justice has already tried one without jurS
and without opportunity to til" accused to dc.
Send, and the jury In the Court Of Sessions Is
20 Try the other, and which pcrhnps Is the
least important. Two tribunals adjudicating
different ingredients OF the same Oilense-
such could not have been the intent Of tho
Act Of lS1n.
The indictment In this case. In the judgment
Of the Court, is fatally defective on It's face. In
the fact that IL docs NOT charge an assault ant
! h0ttary Of n Ii ipll and ursrl waited nature either