Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1881-11-03

neQrt torces the blood into the cellular tissues
In aud about the bruises and produces a
widely different appearance from bruise
after death, which is purely local and shows
no inflammation or black appearance, such as
in life. Eohemosis is the nearest infallible of
any test, aod while no ono test oan be en-
tirey conclusive, the conjunction Of 80 many
pointing to living birth, satisfies his mind
both that tho child was born alive and died
from violence. The doctor also stated that
the large blisters found on the child could
not have been produced after DEATH and
farther that their size would have prevented
delivery without their bursting. Tho doctor
further stated it as his opinion the injuries
collectively could not have been inflicted bes
fore birth, nor in process of delivery from
natural oauses tot from any reasonable effort
on tho part Of tho diothor to assist tho de-
livery. nor through accident.
DR.. Burt Mitchell, of Walhalla. hgreed
with DR.. johnson that the injuries oollec-
| tivoly could not have resulted from accidert
or natural causes.
DR.. II. G. Davis, prominent young gphysi-
! oian from Seneca. on the part Of tho defonse,
differed to some oxtent from DR.. johnson,
and stated that several Of tho injuries might
havc resulted from natural causes. but could
not cay that oil of them had been 80 pro-
duced.
The defendants gave their version of the
matter, stating the child was born dead,
and they had not injured it in any way
The above contains tho leading facts in
tho case. We were, however, unable to give
fully or in order the testimony Of DR.. John
eon and may not haYo stated fully some of his
testimony.
After argument for defendants by Mr..
Calhoun and by tho Solicitor for the State
court adjourned until Tuesday morning at
8 O'Clock A, NJ.
On tho reassombling Of court His Honor
charged tho jury, calling to their minds the
solemn duty which dovolvcd on both tho
Judge and jury in cases involving life. Tho
law md society demand tho fnithful perfor-.
manco of the duty.
First question is whether tho child was
person alivo at the tmo the wounds wore
inflicted. No question rs to killing in utero
is before you. The charge is murder and it
is tho killing Of human being with malice
aforethought The child must have an in.
dependent existence before tho charge of
murder can DO sustained. The child, says
medical authorities may breathe before be.
ing completely born. If you conclude the
child was born alive, then tho next question
is, whether tho injuries found on the child
caused its death and who inflicted them
Both may be guilty or ono only may be
guilty. according to your conclusions, that
both being present, ono inflicted the injuries,
tho other aiding and abeting or consenting
thereto, or one only, if Tho other neither
knew or assented to the injuries. Both muy
be not guilty, if you conclude that the
mother undcsignedy produced tho injuries
and death in her efforts to hid delivery. The
State charges that death resulted from tho
wilful act Of tho parties and with intent to
produce death. This it must provo to your
satisfaction beyond o reasonable doubt. II
you have any doubt "a to the child being
born alive or of the injuries boing wilfully
inflicted, you should give tho prisoners the
benefit Of that doubt. You have heard the
evidence and tho issue is chiefly ono Of fuct.
There appears to bo nothing in this case on
which to base verdict of manslaughter.
The jury, after an absence Of three quar-
ters Of an hour, returned verdict of not
guilty.
The case Of the State vs. Wm. Higgins for
murder vas then takon up The defendant
was represented by Mossrs. Stribling and
Keith, Mr. Striblng examining the wit
ncsses. After tho close of tho testimony the |
caso was submitted without argument, and
being clearly case Of self defense, the jury
returned verdict of not guilty.
The following additional bill was handed
out: State vs N. Dunn and Mrs. Shed, living
in adultery, and on the retnrn Of true bill |
tho case was continued, tho defendants being |
on bail.
On Tuesday tho following additional casos
were tried;
State vs. Edward Owens for high and
aggravated assault and battery. Not guilty.
In the case of the State vs.. Edward Ovens
carrying concealed weapons, tho Solicitor
entered o not pros
In tho case of tho State vs. II. IIembroc
for high and aggravated assault and battery,
the jury returned o verdict Of guilty.
The defendants in these cases were repro
sented by Mossrs. Keith & Werner.
A few cases Of small moment remain to
bo disposed of, and the criminal business will
be conclud
The Court of common Pleas will open by
noon ou Wednesday.
Tho Solicitor entered mol pros in several
cases on payment of tho costs.