Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-04-12
END OF THE SIMS CASE.

The case of DR.. Sims, of Aiken county,
who was charged with nameless crime
against his wife, committed in December
last, and which was removed to Columbia
for trial, was disposed of last Friday,
mol. pros. being entered. The nature of this
alleged offence has never been printed in
the papers, though the public generally is
familiar with the facts as charged at the
time of the occurrence, when popular indig-
nation was so strong against the accused in
his own county that military protection
was necessary to prevent him from being
lynched.
When the case was called in the Sessions
Court of Richland, the following letter
from Mrs. Sims was read in open Court:
COLUMBIA, S. c., April 6, 1883.
TO the Court: l respectfully decline to be
sworn as witness against my husband in
this case and protest against being made to
testify. I did not wish my husband prose-
cuted, but only desired him bound over to
keep the peace. I did not know the con-
tents of the affidavit drawn up by the officer
until after the arrest was made and then /
did not 60 before the grand jury at Aiken,
because 1 did not wish my husband pun
iShed, and | only came here because l
did not wish to be brought under arrest,
as bench warrants were issued to bring
me. The circumstances of the case have
been greatly exaggerated by idle rumor.
MY husband has inflicted no bodily injury
upon me, and I have long ago forgiven
him for any wrong he may have done me.
I wrote the solicitor that l wished the
prosecution stopped, and l now pray the
Court not to destroy the peace and happi-
ness of our family and the welfare or our
INV Tcr 70 in
Most respectfully,
Mrs. D. NJ SIMS.
After the reading of this letter an effort
was made by the Solicitor to compel her
to testify, but Judge Hudson held that
wife could not be compelled to testify
against her husband in a case of assault,
and she being the only witness, the case
fell to the ground. This case presented
nice point of law, on the question of a wife
testifying against her husband for assault,
which has never been adjudicated by the
Supreme Court of this State; but the ruling
of Judge Hudson seems to have been all
that was left the Court to do under the law
and the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Commenting upon the termination of this
case, which has excited much public inter-
est, the Columbia Register remarks editori-
ally:
1t is sincerely to be hoped that Mrs. Sims
averment in her affidavit that 'the circum-
stances of the case have been greatly eXage-
rated by idle rumor' covers all the atroci-
ties of the case that went to the public ear
at the time. We cannot see how the un-
fortunate lady could consent to reconcilia-
tion ever more if the rumors prevailing at
the time were true. Let us hope, then,
that these were not true; and, under all
the circumstances, if the unhappy wife
wishes to hush the scandal deep down in
her own heart, we humbly think Judge
Hudson has done right in refusing to snatch
from her bosom the secret she would hide
from the public gaze. We sincerely be-
lieve that society will suffer no injury from
the ruling of the Court. We entirely concur
with counsel for the defence in the view
they take Of the sanctities of the marital
relations. The rule of the common law is
wise one, which inviolably respects these
sanctities of life and in regarding the fami
ly as the initial point Of human society,
and hence the corner stone of government,
and which cannot therefore be ruthlessly
disturbed without tearing asunder the bands
of society.