The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-06-13
Sheriff.

Sheriff.
To the People of Abbeviue County:
The grand jury at the recent term of the
Court, made out a report containing grave
charges against me in my official character.
The examination Of the offices was made as
Is well known by all expert appointed by the
grand jury, and no opersonal investigation was
made by the members Of that body. The ex-
animation was ex-parte, and no opportunity
was given me to explain except IN Few
cases, and In most of these my explanation
was ignored. Having no other way to reach
the public. l take this method of explaining
the cases which have been cited against me
by the expert
that have repeatedly collected costs from
Abbevile county which should have been
collected from other counties.
In reply would say there here may aSyyf 6e two % or
speaking, have been charged to other counties
than A6beville, and for this Item the expert
is entitled to credit: 1t Is not too late to re-,
properly have paid them in The first instance.
The error has been Of no advantage to me,
for the costs were the same no matter from
what county received.
ii. The second charge is that In one cnse
have collected costs from both counties, citing
the case from York Of Sandy Robertson.
The certificate Of Capt. j. NJ. White, hereto
attaCDeQ SHOWS now LtllS ID1Sulke WAS
| It was explained by me to the expert but he
was not satisfied.
III. The third charge is that in two in
stances have collected costs from the county
and also from the defendants. The cases cit
ed are the State vs.. Tom Williams, and the
County vs. the 9. L. Il $. Railroad Co. In the
Tom Williams case the work for which the
| charge was made was made on the 22nd day
| Of October, 1887. l attempted 10 have him
and two others arrested for disturbing reli-
gious worship. but they could not be found
and were not arrested. The expenses were
properly charged to the county and tn were In In
November, 1887, just nine days alter the work
| was doue. On the 10th day of January of the
| present year Williams surrendered himself:
The Solicitor instructed that the case might
be settled upon Williams paying his share OF
| the costs; this was done, and the amount OF
costs paid by him (s5.O0) was placed to the
credit Of the county on my books for the pre-
sent fiscal year. In the railroad case the
| work consisted in the service of papers at diff.
| ferent times, all of them are marked paid on
! my book except this item of 81. 1t was not
paid by the defendant so far as Ikno'0 and my
If it has been paid it is the only instance
cited, OF failure to credit In the nine years
that have been Sheriff and will gladt0 re-
fund IL.
Nv. The fourth charge against me is that l
have charged one dollar for each witness In
II warrant. The expert construes the Act
| (free bilD 10 mean only one dollar for all the
| for the Courts to decide. am ready and have
| always been ready to have the Courts con-
strue this free bill, and will ch.erfuty abide
| charged what believed to be right, what
my attorneys advised me was right. and
what the County Commissioners thought to
be right. II their decision had been other
wise on the presentation of my first or any
other account containing this charge, there
would have been no other charge OF like
character afterwards until the Courts had de-
cidcd the question.
But even if the Courts should construe the
| fee bill as the export construes 1t, deny
that the excess would average $500 per year
| for the time that have been In Office or be
1t would be. Again, does he not know that
the present fee bill has only been In force for
little over fre years? Then why does he
say eight or len years?
| He cities the case Of Ferguson. In this case
there were over sixty witnesses for both sides,
and they we're scattered from NeWoerry
and all over this county and in Anderson,
| five warrants. Under his rule l would get
four or five dollars for the arrest OF all, (and
mileage.) AS l have said above. l am more
than willing for the Courts to decide this mat
| v. The fifth charge is that 1t is my practice
| TO charge 50 a day for the attendance or my
deputies at the trial Of prisoners have been
80 we'll paid for arresting and that these
charges will average fifty dollars year since
| I have been in office.
| This charge has never been made so far as
1 have been able 10 find, toher, the trial came
off on the same day that the prisoner was ar
rested. Except In one or two cases where II
required, the attendance Of more than one
deputy, as in the Promised Land Riot case
pened that case was not heard until sever
| al days after the arrest, as my jail book Will
show. In many cases the parties were not
arrested by me at all, but by others. l refer
rTsI, ta1 ante
The expert is mistaken as TO the amount
charged always being two dollars. 1t Is fire..
quently one dollar or one dollar and half:
The amount charged In these cases was paid
| by me to my deputies and waited on the conn
" to refund It. He is also greatly mistaken In
saying 1t wllldreraGe fifty dollars per year since
I have been in office. The whole amount OF
such charges will not exceed one hundred
| dollars in the n Inc years.
| vi. The sixth charge against me Is that
have charged six dollars mileage for bringing
DR.. Riley here AZ witness when / did not
| travel the same.
In reply will only say that the first papers
we're sent by me to the Sheriff of Oconee.
| The second 10 the Sheriff Of Pickens. The
third to Prot MeCaslan Of Piekeps and -, the
what they charged. and my charges are en-
tirely correct. If the Court decides otherwise
| I will refund It.
VII. The seventh charge Is that have
Frequently charged for travelling expenses OF
witnesses, &c, and the case of McCanty Is
cited.
In that case my books snow, and my &C:
count shows, that only one dollar and hall
was charged, and that Is what the deputy
says he got. The other two dollars referred To
was for seven other witnesses, brought here
by different man, on different day. which
said man will certify 10.
The case had been continued several times
The Court was In session waiting on these
witnesses for the State and the witnesses re-
fused TO come unless brought.
! VIII. The eighth charge Is that frequently
charge Raj lroad fare and hotel bills for depu.
| ties In serving warrants for witnesses, besides
mileage. There are only three cases that
could possibly come under this head, and
they are unwilling witnesses who refused to
come unless brought For one Bench war.
| rant was Issued, and they clearly come under
| that section OF the fee bill which allows the
Sheriff six cents per mile and oil necessary
expenses.
TX. The ninth charge is Indirectly made In
| that Tony Hamilton and other colored men
| have drawn pay as constables which they
were not entitled to, and that am responsi-
| BILE for the same because they have at diner
ent times been In my employ as farm labor.
e;s. AS to Henry Chalmers, he was never In
my employ as q farm luborer. and received
his ticket as any other constable, and so far
Tom Mckinney and Henry Adams. They
did full work for the Court, and in their settle
| mentS with me recsivcd full pay for the same
notwithstanding their denial! AS 10 Tony
Hamilton. This man has been In my employ
| for twelve or more years. l have used him Mt
nearly every Court to bring water, bring
wood, sweep, clean up, &c, both before Court,
Court adjourned. Also at night, when juries
were locked up, Also to carry orders from