The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-02-08


BY Mt. Benet:
@. Who came?
A. The young man who I delivered the
9HS d9eiiveEed Il the eIS package | back ext to me.
BY the Solicitor:
q: Did you retain the order that they pre-
A. didn't
@. What became Of 1t?
A. Mr.. Bracknel had it, and told me to
send 1t here.
bak ye s What whS Seen%sg sa0Dget Of ths pack
A. 1 sent 1t back to the National Bank OF
Abbeville,. through instructions from Mr..
Hammond, the agent:
Cross-examined by Mr.. Benet:
@. How long have you known Mr.. Frank
A. Three or four years.
@. Do you know his reputation for honesty !?
A. Always been good.
The Solicitor-We close.
The Defence Offers No Testimony.
Mr. Benet-We have nothing In reply.
The Argument.
Mr.. Cason argued for the defence. Solicitor
Orr spoke for the State. Mr.. Benet In reply.
The Jury Desire ito On with the
Case.
The Court-Gentlemen OF the Jury: 1t now
lacks only five minutes till recess shall you
hear the charge or walt until after dinnera sa,d
That large majority of the jurymen desired
to proceed with the case.
Charge OF the Judge..-Prisoner in
the Hands of the Jury.
His Honor, ]. ]. Norton, then charged the
jury as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury:
The defendant here is accused OF forgery,
and utterIng forged note. Forgery is false
| ly making or uttering such writing with a
| willingness to defraud any person. =
The first question is, whether this note
| forged? Are the signatures genuine or not?
II the writingis not genuine, then II Is forged.
II you should come to the conclusion, then.
that there was that e hete
to defraud the bank OF thousand dollars,
which has been testified before You, in con-
sequence of having been deposited as collat-
eral think 1t ia your duty to come to the
conclusion that it was with an intent to de-
The next question is. whether Mr. Frank
lin forged those signatures to that note? II
not, you must not conclude that they were
II you believe that he aided. or abetted, or
assisted in having them signed; If you come
to that conclusion, 1t is not necessary to go
II you come to the conclusion that he ut
tered or passed to the bank the note with In.
tention to defraud the bank, you will hnd
him guilty on the second count. Upon the
questions already submitted, except the
identity of Mr.. Franklin, 1t is circumstan-
tial, but 1t is necessary for you 10 pass upon
the fact whether he was, or not, the one who
Then, is Mr.. Franklin the guilty party ?
Did he sign those names, which are testified
to here as not being genuine. TO the note?
Upon that, gentlemen, you will recall the tes-
timony. AS to the signature; and as to the
handwriting, there is no testimony whatever
going to show that Mr.. Franklin was seen to
sign the note by any person; and 1t would be
altogether circulnstantial as TO whether ne
signed the note or not. AS to the fact Wheth-
er he aided, and assisted, or procured the
signatures to the note, 1t would be circuIn-
stantial.
AS to the fact Of his passing the note on the
bank, that is known to you. The proof on
positive; the proof by Mr.. Frank Wardlaw,
his son, is positive.
It is urged on the part Of the defense that
these gentlemen are entirely mistaken, In the
no pecullarity in his appearance, or conduct,
or anything which would fix upon their
minds the person OF the defendant so as to
enable them to testify here before you, that
risk their defense upon the good character,
which they argue has been proven for the de-
fendant; upon his thrifty circumstances,
duct he displayed when he was accused Of
| committing the crime. Gentlemen, good
character is OF the highest value; 1t Is to be
weighed as circumstance, and more , or less ss
1t has been known for short or long
time, as the man has advanced In the public
estimation by his good conduct MIR. Fore
Hanckel, or Dr.. Wilson, or Mr.. jackson, or
any OF these ministers, were accused before
| you of larceny, 1t would require rather more
| evidence and stronger proof to convict these
gentlemen than it would one who had no
acter. But gentlemen, the reputation which
man has obtained will! not shield him., II
the proof satisfies you beyond reasonable
doubt that he is guilty, no matter how high
and exalted that character may be. But the
| circumstances are to be weighed according 10
! the amount Of proof in making up your
minds upon the subject
| The State insists, Gentlemen, these are
circumstances in regard TO the. thriftiness OF
| the defendant, in regard to his lending mon
| ey, in regard to his provision for his family,
In regard to his willingness to appear oeiore
| his accusers, Is circumstantial. All those
circumstances are to be weighed by you In
behalf Of the defendant
In behalf the State IL is urged that Mr..
Wardlaw and his son Frank are not mlstak-
en- In the Identity Of the person who was
| present; because the State alleges that 1t is
proven that Franklin knew the signatures OF
Kennedy and Wideman, who were signed on
that note. and that tits o good signature OF
each of their signatures; 1t Is urged because
| these gentlemen are men OF property In the
same Eeighborhood and known to be men
OF influence and that Is a circumstance
| showing against him. 1t is also urged by the
| State that Franklin had the knowledge OF
those circums stances that his relatives received
| the notes delivered at Troy from the bank.
! That no proof has been made Of any other
person who resembles Franklin, who had the
same opportunity, who had to go for and de.
| liver these notes to the express Office; that
Mr.. Franklin was identified as having been
in Abbeville on the day that the note was
presented at the bank; and therefore Mr.
| Wardlaw is likely to be correct in his 1dentl.
| fication of him; that Mr.. Franklin knew of
| the circumstances; and that he was in Au-
gusta and promptly applied for that money
| which was sent there to Mrs. Jane Z. VIII
| hams that he did try in the night time 10
| get his brother-in-law, when that money was
| afterwards sent to Troy, TO go for the money
at Troy for him. Now the State relies upon
these, and on other circumstances, when
thcy allege has been proven. 1t Is for you 10
say whether those circumstances nave Deen
proven; and if such has been proven they
are to be taken us u whole and not sinElT, to
break down the testimony OF Mr.. WartlaW
and his son. If you believe beyond y reason
able doubt that The circumstances nave not
been sufficient to break down that testimony
bevond n reasonable doubt, then You: yer
a r,,uSf ln truilly upOu the second count