The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-04-03
DAMAGES FOR MURDER.
A REMARKABLE SUIT TRIED IN THE
GREENFILLE COURT.
A Man in the Penitentiary Sued by the
Wife of the Man He Killed Unusual
Incidents of the Trial-An Attack on an
Attorney-The Dead Man a Bigamist.
(Greenril7e Nears Of Sunday.)

if not the first one of It's kind
ever tried in a South Carolina
court, occupied the attention of
the Court of Common Pleas yesterday.
It was the case of MIS-. Sally Hughes,
executrix, against Richard H. Jacobs,
action for $4,000 damages for the kill
ing of her husband, John or ''Doc"
Hughes by R. H. Jacobs on Christmas
day, 1886. The suit was brought by J..
T. Nix, representing Mrs. Hughes, soon
after the killing occurred and has been
pending since, but had never been
brought to trial until yesterday.
1t will be recalled that Doc" Hughes,
who, with his wife and family of five
children was living as an ordinary
''renter" in cabin on the place of r. H.
Jacobs. about four miles from this city,
was shot and killed by Jacobs IN aquar-
rel over the alleged burning by Hughes
of rails from the pasture fence. Jacobs
was arrested and tried for murder. He
was convicted of manslaughter and SEN
fenced to serve five years in the State
penitentiary. After numerous motions
for new trial and appeals. to the Su-
preme Court and after every legal device
had been exhausted by the counsel for
the defense, the sentence was put into
execution, and Jacobs is now, a man Of
nearly 60 years, wearing the shaven
face, cropped hair and striped clothes of
common felon in the great State prison
on the banks of the Congaree.
The action for damages brought by
the widow of the dead man for the kill
ing her husband, though measure sell
dom ever resor.ed to in this State, is a
perfectly legitimate legal action, being
based on Section 21S3 of the Revised
Statutes, which reads as follows:
"Whenever the death of a person
shall be caused by the wrongful act,
neglect or default of another, and the
act, neglect or default is such as would,
if death had not enSued, have entitled
the party injured to maintain an action
and recover damages in respect thereof.
then, and in every such case, the person
or corporation which would have been
liable, if death had not ensued, shall be
liable to an action for damages, not
wlthstanding the death of the person
injured, although the death shall have
been caused under such circumstances
as make the killing in law felony"
In the trial of the case yesterday. the
attorneys for the plaintiff were J. T.
Nix, who conducted the examination of
the witnesses, Colonel W. H. Perry and
B. N. Shuman. The defendant was rep
resented by Captain 4. Blythe, conduct
ing the examination Of witnesses on the
part of the defense, Hon. ". c. Benet
and Irvine & Mooney. Much of the evl-
dence produced related to the manner
and circumstances of the killing Of
Hughes and developed a story not mater
tally different from that brought out on
the murder trial, saving that the teSti-
mony of the wife and eldest daughter of
the dead man had much stronger col
oring in his favor than on the previous
trial.
Aside from the testimony relating to
the manslaughter, which was admitted,
of course, by the defense, the efforts of
the counsel for the plaintiff were di-
rected towards proving that the de-
ceased, Hughes, was a strong, able
bodied man and a good worker; that he
followed at various times the trade of
a rock-mason and of q carpenter in ad-
dition to working on the farm; that he was
not an old or feeble mans- and that he
was the sole support of his wife and
children. In tcstifying as to how much
Hughes made year, the witnesses for
the plaintiff varied in their estimates
from 5000 to $500. Through crossex-
animation and otherwise, the further
facts we're elected from the plaintiffs
witnesses that Hughes was wandering,
thriftless character, moving his family
from place to place, and not staying
more than a year at any, that he was a
drinking man ana that he had failed
to accumulate any property durlug his
lifetime.
The most startling incident of the ex-
animation was the attempt on the part
of the defendants counsel to prove that
J. T. Nix had gone to the house of Doc
Hughes the day after the killing and
had induced Mrs. Hughes, while the
body of her husband lay yet unburled,
to sign contract for the bringing of a
damage suit against Jacobs, of the pro-
ceeds of which he (Nix) was to get one
half and Mrs. Hughes the other.
On this point, the answers OF Mrs.
Hughes to the questions of the cross
examining counsel were slightly evasive.
She testified that Mr.. Nix had come to
her house the day after the killing and
that she had first approached him about
the matter Of damages, asking him if
there was any law to help her or if there
was anything that could be done. Mr..
Nix had assured her, she said, that if
there was any law, she should be pro-
tected. She admitted that she had
signed some kind of paper for Nix that
day but could not say what it was.
The plaintiffs case having been closed,
W. C. Benet interpoSed motion for a
non-suit on the ground that no proof
had been produced to show the damages
alleged to have been sustained by the
wife and children of the dead man. The
motion was refused by Judge Norton,
and the case of the defense was opened.
The evidence submitted by the defense
was in writing altogether and consisted
of the testimony taken before Probate
Judge Douthit in the case OF Amanda
MelYina Hughes IN re Sa]lie Hughes,
action to set aside the appointment of
Mrs. Sallie Hughes as Administrative OF
the estate of John, ''Doc." Hughes, and
the testimony Of Richard Il. Jacobs in
| his trial for murder.