The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-10-30

CarfaWay, auu y. IL. Diou SoIon' !uo
first witness on the stand was B. P.
Barron, Esq, who testified:
The alleged forged paper was in my
possession at one time, and was given
me by either Mr.. I. T. Bagnal or Mr..
J. II. Lesesne. This paper was never
handled by me except as attorney and
counselor, and was never sent off by
me to any one for collection. I de-
cline positively to answer any ques-
tions relative to this paper, as I was
counsel for the defendant.
The effort of the solicitor was to
show that this paper was in Mr.. Bar
rons hands, and that Mr.. Barron had
attempted to get it paid, and that the
paper had at one time got away into
another's possession. Mr.. Barron
seemed much disturbed abont being
put on the stand, considering it an
injustice to put the defendants attor-
ney on the stand. He declined to
testify whether he had the paper for
collection or not, or to tell who put
the paper in his possession. Later on,
he stated that by common consent OF
his clients the paper came into his
possession. He considered the integ-
rity of his life at stake in aswering
these questions. The solicitor asked
Mr.. Barron: "Did not I go to your
Office before the May term Of court,
and say to you, that as solicitor I want
that paper and am entitled to it; that
I have been informed that the grand
| jury will probably present Dinkins,
and if they do will as solicitor be
obliged to bring an Indictment against
him? And did you not tell me that
the paper was misplaced; that you had
searched for it but could not 6nd it !?
And did not I subsequent to this go
to you again, and ask if you had found
the paper, and you said to me that
DR.. Richardson had, to your great
surprise, brought the paper to you
and told you he had found it among
his papers, and did I not then ask you
for it, and then you told me that you
had given the paper to DR.. Dinkins,
with the remark that it had been your
observation that when a man bad a
paper that was liable to burn his fin
gers he had best destroy it. And that
you thought DR.. Dinkins had either
burned it or torn it up y"
To this Mr.. Barron said that he
had not.
The solicitor then with great en-
phasis repeated the same questions,
and Mr.. Barron reiterated the same
denial, and said "If you were to re-
peat this question out of the court
house r The Solicitor interrupt
ing said I am prepared to ask the
question any where or in any place.
Here the Judge interposed and said
he would preserve order. Consider
able excitement prevailed throughout
the court house. Mr.. Barron then
came off the stand, and the Solicitor
insisted en- being allowed to go on
the stand and swear to the truth OF
the statements included in the ques-
tions he had asked Mr. Barron. The
Judge allowed the request, and So
icitor Wilson went on the stand and
swore to what he had said.
Mr. Barron then arose, and address
ing the Judge said: I do not mean
to reflect on the integrity of the gen.
tleman, but say that his memory is at
fault.
The Solicitor then addressing the
Judge, said: I swear that my state
ment is correct.
Dr. Dinkins was then put on the
stand who testified: Mr., Barron did
not give me this paper, and putting
aside hearsay know nothing OF this
matter.
]. G. Huggins testified: I did see
this alleged paper in possession of
my father, and I know it was given
to B. P. Barron for collection, and
he collected it too, pretty good law
yer,
Mr.. Barron was again put on the
stand and swore that when the paper
came into his possession he was re.
tanned by DR.. Huggins and by B. S.
Dinkins as attorneys. He could not
disclose anything without dishonor
to himself and his profession.
The Judge then decided not to
make Mr.. Barron testify what had be-
come of the paper.
The Solicitor said he had ample
proof, in case the Judge would COM
pei Mr.. Barron to tell what had be-
come of the paper, to convict, but if
he could not get this information
he would be compelled to noll. pros.
the case as he had, depending on the
statement of MIR. Barron, alleged in
framing the indictment that the paper
had been lost, and he could not prove
the contents of the paper until he had
proved its destruction.
The case was then noll. pressed.
During the controversies between Mr..
Barron and the Solicitor, the jury
was excluded from the court room.
Messrs. B. P. Barron, j. F. Rhame,
and A. Levi represented Mr.. Dinkins
in this case.
The other cases disposed of are:
Eliza Jane Hardy, housebreaking
and larceny. Not guilty.
VIM. NJ. Butler, carrying concealed
weapons. Pleaded guilty and fined
S25.
Mack Bennett, larceny Olive stock.
Guilty but recommended to mercy.
Isaac Butler, hog stealing. Guilty.
Ed Scott is now on trial for the
|