The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1881-06-15
A STORY

w STORY.
"I never would convict a man OF cir.
cumstantial evidence if I were a juror
never! neverw
The speaker was a distinguished Grim
inal lawyer of nearly forty years active
practice, and whose fame extended far
beyond the limits OF his own State.
We had been discussing q recent cause
eetedre in which,-upon purely circum-
stantial evidence, o man had been con-
victed C an atrocious murder, although
many of those most familiar with the cir
cumstances of the case entertained the
gravest doubts about the justice of his
conviction; and he had been swung of
into eternity protesting his absolute in
nocence with his latest breath, and call
ing upon God to send his soul straight
way to perdition if he were not telling
the truth.
As most of onr party were lawyers
the conversation naturally enough drift
ed into q discussion of the dangers arls-
ing from convicting accused persons,
whose own mouths were closed, upon
purely circumstantial evidence, in the
absence of any direct and positive proof
of guilt, and case after case was cited in
which, after conviction and execution,
the entire innocence of the supposed cul-
prits had been clearly demonstrated.
Most of the laymen present agreed with
the distinguished lawyer, whose very
positive expression of opinion has been
quoted, while the majority of the law
yers contended, with that earnestness for
which lawyers are noted when adyocat-
ing their W side Of any question, that
Justice could never miscarry when care
full judges guard against the possibility
of unsafe verdicts by refusing to permit
a conviction except when every link in
the chain of circumstantial evidence has
been established beyond doubt, and the
whole chain been SO perfect and COM
plete as to leave no for any con-
sistent hypothesis Of innocence.
"The first murder case I ever tried"
said one of them, "was stranger than
fiction, as.vo will admit, and is quite
as remarkable as any Of the cases you
have referred to where innocent men
have been wrongfully convicted on cir
cumstantial evidence. It ought to
have been reported as an example Of
the unreliability of the direct and pos
tive testimony of eye.witnesses who
tell what they believe to be the truth"
He then related the main points of
what was certainly q most remarkable
and dramatic trial, and which consti-
tutes a fair Offset to some of the mem
orable cases to be found in every work
on circumstantial evidence. The mar
rative produced so strong an impression
upon my mind that subsequently, with
his consent, I put it into the following
shape, having first carefully compared
it with his notes of testimony taken
upon the trial of the case. 1t can be
relied upon as absolutely correct, with
the exception that I have used fictitious
names, for reasons which will readily
be appreciated when it is known that
most of the actors in the drama are still
living.
One winter evening, about s
o'clock, in the early days of the war,
in the quiet little town of f, while
patroling the streets to pick up stray
glers from the camp on the outskirts of
the town, Corporal Julius Fry was shot
and killed by one of three men of bad
character, who were in company and
upon terms of open enmity with the
soldiers. The men were arrested, com-
mitted to prison and brought to trial at
the next term of the court. Two Of
them were gamblers and desperadoes,
and supposed to have more than once
had their hands stained with human
blood. The third, whom I shall call
Short, though bealing an u%nenviable
reputation, was regarded as one unlikely
to Stay q fellow-man, except under COM
pulsion of circumstances. On account
of the character of the men and the
trouble they had already brought upon
quiet, law-abiding citizens, the senti-
ment of the whole community was
strongly against them.
In order to clearly understand the
force. of the testimony given upon the
trial and the subsequent result it is i'm
portant to bear in mind the physical pc
culiarities, dress and general appear
ance of each of the three prisoners.
Short was a small ma Of not more
than five feet six inches in height, slen-
der, weighing scarcely one hundred and
thirty pounds, with bright, fiery red
hair and side-whiskers, and at the time
OF the murder wore a white felt hat and
an old light blue army overcoat.
Ryan was fully six feet III height with
robust frame, with black hair and mus,
tache, dressed in dark clothes, and wore
a black Derby hat.
Grey was a heavy, broad-shouldered
man of medium height, weighing fully
two hundred pounds, with a full, black
beard reaching nearly to his waist But
as the evidence subsequently showed
that he had not fired the shot, it is un'
necessary to describe his appearance
more infinitely.
Certainly it is difficult to imagine
two men more unlike than Short and
Ryan, or less liable to be mistaken fol
each other, even by strangers, much
less by their acquaintance. There was
no possibility here for q case of mis-,
taken identity.
Short and Ryan were tried together
with their consent-Grey having asked
for and obtained q separate trial-and
each was defended by separate counsel
After the preliminary proof relating
to the post-mortem examination, the
cause of death and the Identification o.
the body of the deceased rs the person
named in the Indictment, the common
wealth called as its first witness {
woman, Mary Bowen. She bore a bat
reputation, but nobody questioned hel
purpose to tell, reluctantly, it is true
the whole truth. The prisoners were
all her fri nds, and were constant Wis
itors to the drinking saloon of which
she was proprietress, She was
woman Of powerful physique, almos
masculine frame, great force of char
acter and more than ordinary intelli
gence.
From her testimony it appeared tha
d colored woman with whom she hat
had some dispute had hit her on tn