The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-02-03

omit the words of the affidavit, giving only
the names:
J. w. Sign, Abbcville,
J. II. oldham, Greenwood.
Benct Reynolds. Greenwood.
r. f. Riley, Greenwood.
NJ. A. CaSon, Hodges.
B. 5. Barnwcll, Ahbeville.
r. p. COthran. Abberille.
Thos p. Thomson. Abbeville.
w Joel Smith, Abbevile.
A. b. Morse, Abbeville.
j. S. Hammond, Abbeville.
S. G.. CaSon, Ahbeville.
w. +. Bell. Abbeville.
]. f. Munday, Long Cane
]. c. Marshall, Calhoun Mills.
F. B. Calhoun, Abbevlle.
C. Hughes. Abbevile.
Samuel Agncw. Due West.
DR.. w. P. Addison, Troy.
l.. D. Conner, COX keShury.
DIR. II. d. Wilson, Abbevlle.
Capt. ]. Cochran, Intendant town of
Hodges.
R. G. Brownlee, Due West.
r. s. Galloway, Due West.
Geo. c. Bradley, Troy.
J.. McDill, 'ue West.
S. P. Brooks, Phoenix.
f. NJ. Pope, Ninety-SiN
f. NJ. Iipscomb, Ninety.SiX.
NJ. Richardson, Nincty-Six.
Solicitor Orr-I think that the aft davts sub
mittcd are sufficient to show that Mt least
some Of the facts warrant the change of venue
as asked for, but If further evidence is neceS-
sary, the records of the Court in this case
would satisfy the Court of ar improbabiity
of getting an impartial jury to try this case.
We have sought to get ntiidavitss from differ
ent localiies-from representative men in
their respective neighborhOOdS-t0 place the
facts before your Honor. don't know that
it Is necessary to quote authorities, except the
Act. The granting of the motion fora change
of the venue isa matter entirely within the
discretion of the Judge, as will be seen BY Sec
ton 2ll4 Of the Statutes. The only motion
similar to this which was carried to the STU
preme Court, that know of, is the case Of the
State against Addison, which was refused
purely on technical grounds. The affidavit
was made by the prosecutor and not by the
Solicitor. That motion, your Honor, was en-
tertained. but was dismissed only because OF
technicalities.
In the case of the State against Coleman
from this county, the defence made n motion
for a change of venue and asked that y coun-
ty outside Of this circuit he selected. The
Judge offered to allow them to change to
county in the circuit, which was declined by
defenGnut's counsel. They appealed and the
judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed.
The Court intmating in Its opinion, the case
should be tried in the circuit.
Archibald, page 252, is to the same effect.
Note |, and cases there cited. Similar mo-
tions for the same purpose having been sus
tanned In several of the States, particularly
Wisconsin and New York.
The Code Of New York in Its provisions is
very similar to our own. See Voorhees, Code.
Our statute is even more specific in the right
Of the sse 10 or ha
been construed by the Court Of Appeals Of
New York in the celebrated case Of the People
against Webb, 1st Hill l79. which is the lead
Ing case ON the subject, and quoted by Arrhi-
bald. Bishop and Wharton. Tha. case holding
that it is not only the right OF the State 10
change the venue by statute, but by the COM
mon Law.
Bishops Criminal Procedure, Sections 6S-73,
and particularly Section 73, holds that either
party may apply for a change Of venue. The
venue may, be changed by public prosecutor
l should not make the motion If did not
deem it necessary. Full particulars of this
case have been published twice in the county
newspapers. We had trouble in getting jury
the last time. think it would be a hard mat
ter to geta jury which would give verdict
in this case. 1 have tried it twice. Two mis-
trials have been recorded. I could have made
this motion earlier, but preferred to try the
case here, because of the Inconvenience it will
occasion witnesses, if they are compelled to
go to another county.
The Judge-Has the issue hcen joined?
Solicitor Orr-It has, your Honor. A plea of
the time OF the commission Of the homicide.
MIR Benet-May it please your Honor
Solicitor Orr-I have given notice Of an in
tention to move the case to Anderson county.
it may be transferred. except that Anderson
county is the only adjoining county in the cir
cult, and would be most convenient for the
witnesses and counsel. The Court is next held
there, SO that there would be very little delay,
if The motion were granted.
Mr.. Benet-The counsel for the State is cor
rect in saying that notice Of the motion to
have the venue changed to Anderson was
served on us on the 18th of January. The no
tice did not state the grounds upon which the
motion would be made. The notice was not
by any OF the affidavitS. We
were ignorant OF the purpOrt of the nftidavitS
first time that we have seen this stack Of atii-
davitS. We ask your Homer to grant us time
to file counter atiidavits, should we think it
necessary. l understand, your Honor, thai
the defendant has the right to answer the affi-
davits just submitted, either by counter affi-
davits or by oral testimony.
The Judge-Certainly Mr.. Bcnet, he has the
right.
Mr.. Bcnet-Without discussing at the pres
ent time what we may consider defects In the
mode in which this application is made, we
ask to defer the argument until tomorrow
The Judgc-At what hour do you propose to
take up the consideration of this question?
not know at what hour it would best suit to
open Court.
Mr.. Benct-Halfpast nine O'Clock these
Is quite carly, your Honor.
The eJudge-Then, suppose we say ten o'clock
tomorrow morning.
Mr.. Benet-I agree TO that hour your Honor.
The Judgc-1t is SO ordered and we will pro-
ceed with other business for the remainder Of
theday.