Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1896-07-01
THE REESE CASE.

II. Williams, at DlacNSpuiS, WILL NV
come ND for trial at this term of the court.
That fact is settled, and the question of
interest now is whether or not Reese, who
is cha rged as principal, and Luckey who
is charged as accessory, will be admitted
to bail. There has already been one tilt
on the subject, and the applicants got the
worst of it. This was on technically.
Argument will be renewed in few days
on the merits of the case, and as to how
the issue will be decided, Of course, can
not be foretold.
The material witnesses began to arrive
last Thursday night. The first comers
were Mrs. Ellen Anderson, one OF the
principals, Mrs. E. D. Patterson, OF De-
morest, Ca, her mother, and w. Gallo
way and wife, of Dalton, Ca, her brother
in-law and sister. Several others came
down from Blacksburg on Saturday
morning. These were all for the defense.
The witnesses for the State came down
from Blacksburg on Monday, and alto
gether there was quite small army OF
them.
From Friday and Saturday on up to
Monday, the question of the greatest in
terest, was whether or not the case would
come to trial. The defense had previously
announced its readiness; but the State
was not so positive. Solicitor Henry,
however, gave it out that he was looking
for certain material witnesses on the
early trains of Monday morning, and
promised to 90 into the trial in the event OF
their arrival. These witnesses failed to
arrive, whereupon the solicitor gave no.
tice of his intention by failing to give out
q bill of indictment.
The defendants counsel were looking
for just such move and were prepared
tor it. Major Hart was assisted by Colo
mel Leroy F. Youmans, Of Columbia, and
T. F. Mellow, Esq. They had arranged
to follow up the solicitors failure to give
out bill with demand for trial, and
upon being refused, a demand for bail.
The contest was commenced in the after
noon, when Major Hart explained that
on the 18th of June, Marion r. Reese and
Daniel F. Luckey, charged with the MUIR
der of Charles T. Williams, had surren-
dered themselves for trial, and claimed
that under the statutes, they had right
to q trial at this term of the court. In
support of his claim, he read from the
Criminal Code as follows:
Section 80. If any person committed
for treason or felony, plainly and specl-
ally expressed in the warrant OF commit
ment, upon his prayer or petition in open
court the first week Of the term to be
brought to his trial, shall not he indicted,
sometime in the next term after such
commitment, it shall and may be lawful
to and for the judge of the circuit court,
and he is hereby required, upon motion
made in open court, the last day of
the term, either by the prisoner or any
one in his behalf, to set at liberty the
prisoner upon bail, unless it appear to
him, upon oath made, that the witnesses
for the State could not be produced the
same term; and if any person committed
as aforesaid, upon his prayer or petition
in open court, the first week of the term,
to be brought to his trial, shall not be in
dicted and tried the second term after
his commitment, or upon his trial shall
be aquitted, he shall be discharged from
his Imprisonment.
Colonel Youmans argued that the Sec
ton read fitted the case exactly; that the
prisoners had surrendered that they had
not been indicted f; but were demanding a
trial, and upon refusal then they were en-
titled to bail.
His honor said that he construed the
section to mean that if the prisoners should
fail to get trial on demand at one term
of the court, they were entitled to be ad-
mitted to bail upon their failure to
secure trial at the next term Of the
court. Colonel Youmans insisted that
they were entitled to trial at the first
term of the court after their commit
ment, laying particular stress on the
word commitment. His honor finally
seemed to come to Colonel Youman's
view Of the case, but did not so express
himself
Solicitor Henry argued: l. There was
no such commitment as was required by
the section read, the commitment being
merely all informal delivery to the sheriff
by his deputy without special legal au-
, thority. 2. That there was so signature to
the warrant upon which the defendants
were arrested, and that the defendants
were not in prison at all but merely in
voluntary confinement. 4. That bail
could only be demanded at the first
term after the next term from the term
for which they were committed.
Colonel Youmans went into an elaborate
argument in which he recited the origin
of the writ of habeas corpus, and showed
that its principal object was to prevent
the holding of an accused in prison when
trial would result in acquittal. Judge
Gary seemed rather inclined to side with
Colonel Youman's view of the case, when
Solicitor Henry settled the whole matter
by asking permission to submit the afti-
davit provided for in the latter portion OF
the section under discussion. The affidavit
he submitted was follows:
Personally comes j. K. Henry, solici.
tor, and upon oath, says that so soon as
he was apprised that the two defendants,
Reese and Luckey, charged with the
murder of Charles 7. Williams, although
engaged with the work of the term for
Chester county, he made his preparations
to take up the, case, and during said term
telegraphed the clerk of the court fol
the papers for the York term. Deponent
is informed by the clerk that he was a5-
sent from his Office, and the delivery OF
the papers was delayed in consequence.
So soon as deponent could possibly COM
plete his work upon the papers for York,
he went to Blacksburg to investigate this
case, Blacksburg being the town in York
county where the homicide i'm question