The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-06-25
4 CHANGE OF VENUE
GRANTED. THE CASES REMOVED
To OranScburg--An Appeal VIII be
Made at Once to the Supreme Court.

To Oranecburg--An Appeal Will be
Made at Once to the Supreme Court.
In the Court of General Sessions at
Charleston on Thursday last, Judge
Buchanan presiding, the chief matter
Of interest was motion made by AS
sistapt Attorney General Townsend to
remove the venue of the six cases for
violations against the dispensary law,
which were ignored by the grand jury
on Tuesday. The motion was made
under section Is of the dispensary law
which provides: THAT when any bill
of Indictment shall have been given
out by the solicitor, Or by the Attorney
General, or an Assistant Attorney
General, to any grand jury in any
county of this State at any term of the
Court Of General Sessions therein,
charging any person or persons With
any violations of any of the provisions
of the Statutes of this State relating
to spirituous, alcoholic, malt or intox-
icating liquors, and such grand jury
shall, in the opinion of such prose
cutting officer, from prejudice, caprice,
undue influence or other improper
cause, refuse to find true bill there
on, it shall be then and there compe-
tent for such prosecuting officer to
move for, and for the presiding Judge
to grant, at his discretion, a change of
venue and place of hearing and trial
at such stage of the proceedings when
such Judge is satisfied with the show
ing of such prosecuting officer, to be
made on the minutes of the Court or
upon affidavit that fair and impair
tial consideration cannot be had be-
fore such grand jury"
Messrs. Murphy, Farrow & Legare,
who represented one of the defendants
in the cases named, through Mr.. Far
roM, resisted the motion for change Of
venue. Mr.. Farrow first made the
point that the State could not intro
duce affidavits Of witnesses as to facts
alleged to have occurred before the
grand jury, as the proceedings of the
grand jury were secret and inyiolate.
Judge Buchanan held that the affi-
davits of what the witnesses had testi-
fed to before the grand jurors by way
of question or otherwise could be in
troduced.
Assistant Attorney General Town
send then made number of affidavits
from the witnesses who had appeared
before the grand jury, stating what
they had testified to in each case. The
assistant Attorney General also intro
duced an affidavit of his own in which
he stated that in his opinion the testi-
mony submitted to the grand jury was
ample to warrant the finding of true
bills in each of the six cases selected
and submitted to them.
Mr.. Farrow resisted the motion on
the ground that motion for change
of venue could not be made by the
State until issue was joined. That the
inquisition of the grand jury was no
part of the trial of citizen, and that
the Constitution provided for change
of venue only where it was made to
appear that a fair trial could not be
obtained. He said that he had been
unable to find a single case either
where State or the Grown had come
into Court and impeached the action
of its own grand jury, except in one
case in the dark days of Radical rule
in South Carolina, Ghen such a pro-
ceeding was had before Judge Moses,
and even then the motion was refused
on the ground that it was repugnant
to the letter and spirit of the Consti-
tuition. The grand jury had ever
stood as a bulwark between the subject
and the Grown and between the citi-
zen and the State.
Judge Buchanan, in ruling upon the
legal points made, expressed great
satisfaction that there was Court Of
review before wholr all such questions
could be taken on appeal, and he ex-
pressed the hope that i'll question Of
SO much Importance as the present one
an appeal would be taken and q decision
by the Supreme court obtained as soon
as practicable. This would be better
for the State and better for the citizen.
He therefore overruled the motion
to declare an Act unconstitutional and
proceeded to hear the argument and
the facts.
After hearing argument from Mr..
Townsend in support of the motion for
change Of venue on the facts presented
ard from Mr.. Farrow in reply, the
Judge granted the motion for change
of venue of the six cases named and an
order was taken transferring them to
| Orangeburg county.
In anticipation of an appeal Judge
Buchanan filed the following report
of the proceedings with the clerk Of
the Court, to be sent up with the re-
cord:
South Carolina, Charleston county
Report to Supreme Court-State VS.
Hemme, Mollenhauer, Stencke,
Lovatt, Bowen and Clark.
mentsunder Dispensary Act-Motion
to transfer under Section As.
This motion came on before me at
Charleston, June 10, on affdavits, the
records I'd minutes of the Court.
Upon the argument of these matters Mr..
Farrow, of Messrs, Murphy, Farrow &
Legare, appeared for the defendants
in the case of the State VS. Clark, and
contended that so much of the Act as
provided for change of venue before
Indictment was found or after the in
dictment was ignored by the grand
Jury, was unconstitutional, and null
and void, and moved to exclude all
evidence that was before the grand
| i,1r1. uhen the cases were before them