The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-02-10
GETTING READY FOR TRIAL.
Completion Of the Panel..-Argument
to Grant Defence the Last WOrd..~
Motion Refused. 80

TUESDAY MORNING, Feb. O. 1886,
Court convened at 1910 o'clock Attendance
Of officers and attorneys the same az on yes.
terday, except Clerk Zeigler, who was absent.
on account Of sickness. The Judge ordered
the roll ct Jurors that were ee swGTn
present. The Judge then drectedthe Sheriff
TO call The roll Of the extra venire which had
been drawn yesterday afternoon. All OF tue
ton. Waiting his appearance the business OF
the Court was suspended. T. W. Morton ap.
peared Is minutes after ten O'Clock. The
Judge directing that the drawing OF the Jurors
should begin, 1t was discovered that Master
Eddie McIlwaine, who had been. taking
the names out Of the hat on the previous day.
was absent. A further delay OF fiVeminutes>
occurred.
Thos. Sutherland was called and sworn or,
his vo.r dire. He had expressed an opinion on
this case, which opinion had been lornet
from reading the newspapers. he was not.
asSe s psSse4 OF bias Gpoa ps ksa
the judge Notwithstanding the forn,ation
OF an opinion from reading the newspaper ae-
counts and from what you have heard, car
yenaer S9n or eap aii an % according
to the law and testimony, as 1t may be gwen
"Yes, sir: think could" He was present.
When the last juror had been sworn, the
Judge directed that the officers Of the Courr
proceed TO call and countthe jurors. Inc As.
siStant Clerk called the names, and me Sher-'
itf counted. The panel was full and allswornr
as follows: IS
Jurors Sworn to Try the Case.
J. n. Nichols, H. Burnett,
Foster ": Wright, W.. .Boxlnam:
J. T.. Ellis. w. r. McAdams'
William Wilson, ]: b. Anderson,
w. r, Speed, Thomas Sutherland.
After the arraignment, which was in the u.s.
ual manner, the Judge directed the jurymen
20 retire to the room and elect one OF their
number foreman. William Wilson WAS chc-
SCI The 'eH Jndge said "The Jurors on the regular
venire, are excused, not discharged, until
Thursday morning." Upon enquiry as U
whether the pay of Jurors would be stopped,
the Judge said that 1t would not.
Dir. Benet ask ed the Court, as matter OF
kindness to tile prisoner, that he be allowed
to sit BY his counsel, which request wosgraht-
The Solicitor then called the witnesses for
the State. Hottie Belton did not answer. me
Sheriff was directed to have her brought INTO
Court. The Solicitor announced that he would
not delay the case on acrount OF her absence,
but would not close without her presence:
The defence then called witnesses on their
The Judge instructed bailif not to allow
persons to sit on bench next to Jurors or I'D
stand near to them.
Mr.. Benet then made motion to be allowed
to open and close the argument. anu quoted
many authorities in civil actions, when, rea-
soning by analogy, would support his motionr
but under the circumstances we repLIpouce "m- .
Iy very imperfect notes Of his speech. AS we
understood, he said, substan TALLY: l would
like to renew, your Honor, at this term OF the
Court, q motion which made at former
trial Of this case before Judge W aiiace. tiS
but fair, your Honor, to say that ne Te11seG
that motion, but a brother Circuit Judse doe"
not make authority to govern you IN Inc con-
sideration Of the matter. Our special plea az
cumstance of the killing. We there
fore assume the burden OF proof. The only,
issue raised is this: Was the prisoner OF
sound mind at the time Of the homicide? we
nit that on the evening of the day before
Christmas in 1884, that this prisoner hd 20 IN
to Auerbach's store, and with pistoi in, DIG s
hand did kill Arthur Benedict: we admlt al
witnesses. The indictment charges, however
that he did so wilfully, and with malice afore-'
thought. This we deny. Your Honor knows
that the presumption Is, that mere mere was w somnd @
mind can commit crime. II that is the la",.,
the question Is the one of unsoundneSs or
mind at the time Of the homicide. we put IN
plea Of not gnilty because s0,,Ied Q, To ons
and close. and would submit 5S. G. Brown ,S ~ v:
kirkpatrick, to support our claim. tts true
that was a civil case, but the ru!e snouiN
further proceeded at length to argue the point,
and to quote numerous authorities Ill CIVIL
cases, which, reasoning by analogy, wouid
SrE The Solicitor, in reply, thought the p,ealings
in the case and the argument to su>taln inc
motion were entirely irreconcilable.. EonnseL
for defence proposed to admit the aitcgatlGns
contained in the Indictment o, mahSes snuo Hme
is fact to be proved. Insanity Is asso folacs
to be proved, the same as an alibi or 4 case oi
selfdclcncc is proved. he proposes to ofier
fer testimony to prove the fact: 1873. SO:
Mr.. Benet replied to this that the allega'
tions in Indictment were simply on .ne Pr re-
sumption Of sanity. If ne were ihsIhe 10
found insane ali these charges fly to the wind;
We admit ali that Mr. Riley; we admit oil
that Mr. Hammond. the, intendant OF the
town, says: weadini: hff 1nat Inc neSncS say &
verbal allegations of rnalice as lacts: II We
did it would be murder. we admit me Kill
ing but not the murder. We assume bnrden
of proof and ask to open ana close. IL We
we're to c,ttcr general plea OF guilty we would
be- gone, but this Is n special plea:
The Judge said: I hold that the State mas
the right to open and close. VIII hote your
Mr.. Benct, II you desire.
The State proceeded to put its witnesses on
the stand William Riley. town marsfai. be-
ing SWORN first. Other witnesses for the state
followed in quick succession, and much In
the order in which they were sworn at the
previous trials. At six o'clock last night
nearly MI the witnesses for the defense had
been sworn. The States witnesses in reply
will be heard this morning. We believe the
testimony, so far. is essentially the same MS
II cretofore published in the Press and Banner,
.1o,oh +hera oro some i'm M ,atcrial differences
in the evidence of some OF the witnesses for