The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-11-04

'1AO S' -~~o NV ~ e
up to testify to the character OF kearse
and Jenny, which he stated was good.
DR.. D. II. Rice also testified to the
good character of Kearse and Jenny.
Capt. II. S. Batchelo:, clerk of the
Colleton County Court, was acquaint,
ed with DIR. Alderman, whose reputa,
ton for peace and order was good.
lie had contributed nothing to the de,
fence.
r. (. Jones had known Kearse and
Ackerman all OF their lives and knew
their regulations were good. lie had
Clipped in for the defence.
Col. B. r. Lewis, Of Barnwell, was
acquainted with Brant, Jenny, kearse
and Alderman. Their reputation, he
said, we're good.
On the cross-examination Col. Lew.
is was asked if Frank Brant's reputa
ton was as good as the rest of the peo
pie of the county. Then the solicitor
asked Col. Lewis if Brant had not
been in several scrapes in court, among
them shooting scrape and fight at
a church. ''Do you call that coed
reputation?' said the solicitor. Col.
Lewis admitted that it was not exactly
in keeping with the law.
Capt. j. Kinara, a member o. the
Legislature fran Colleton, swore that
the reputation Of the defendants were
good. On the cross examination he
stated that he was interested and had
paid out money for the defence
II. W. Deer swore the same as al!
the others
J. W. Bell, a trial justice and ex.
county treasurer, was put up to show
that Sandy Campbell had been con
victed OF stealing cotton. Solicitor Bel
linger objectedto the testimony and ask
ed that the jury retire while argument
was being had. T:,e court ruled that
the testimony be stricken out, because
a trial justice hai 40 jurisdiction in
the case of larceny, therefore testimony
wss incompetent. Failing in that the
Jury was recalled and the witness was
allowed to swear TO Mr.. Ackerman's
reputation.
All swore that the general reputa.
ton of the defendants was good.
DR.. J. II. Roberts was put on the
stand to testify as to character and did
so.
DR.. J. B. Waatley testified that the
the defendants was good.
When asked by the solicitor if he did
not know that Brart was turbulent
man DR.. Whatley said that he did not
know of Brant doing anything to
hang or be put put in the penl!entlary
for.
L. G. Owens was the last witness
put up to testify as to character, and
Judge Earle remarked that he thought
it was about time, for he did net thin K
it necessary to put up the whole of
Colleton county to prove character OF
the defendants.
A SURPRISE.
After a few moments consultation
the attorneys for the defence decided
that they would introduce no more
testimony. Their announcement
seemed somewhat sudden, as the de-
fence had introduced absolutely no
testimony going to prove an alibi or
else. There was not a person
in the court room who believed the
men innocent, especially since none OF
them were put on the stand to make
statement. The prisoners themselves
were utterly Indifferent to everything
going on about them, they simply
smiled al one another.
In rebuttal the State placed Court
Stem ographer Claude E. Sawyer on
the stand 10 testify as to the statement
of a witness, Solomon Grant, who at
Walterboro swore he recognized four
men and at Aiken only three.
Tom Haynes, colored. who was IN
charge of the States witnesses, was
put up to swear that persons had at,
tempted to tamper with the witnesses.
w. Fl. Ncwbold, the chief detective
of the State, was put up. Detective
Newbold stated that he knew Solomon
Grant and A. G. Walker. He had
seen the two together on Folks place
in Coilevon county. He heard Grant
make a statement to Walker. He
heard Solomon Grant say that he re,
cognizd Alderman. Mr.. Newbold de.
sired to make statement regarding
Walkers affidavit which be had taken
down. The solicitor then took the
stand to testify as 20 the loss OF the af
fidavit. The solicitor stated there that
he wished to prove the contents OF the
paper. The court told him that the
paper had not been found. The detec.
tive was again put on the stand and
the paper was proven. The solicitor
wished to show by copy that in the
contents Of the lost affidavit Grant had
stated that be had seen Herman IN
the crowd.
The defenceannounced that it would
have three speeches in argument, and
the court allowed { hour for each.
The solicitor had, therefore, three
hours if he chose, but did not consume
but half Of that.
Judge Earle's charge was a Judicial
masterpiece and he gave the defend
ants the full benefit Of the law, as is
shown in the request for charge,
which Judge Earle allowed.
All of the many witnesses will go
home tomorrow.
1t Was Too Fishy.
COLUMBIA, S. c., Oct. 2S.-It does
seem sometimes hat man will go to
any extent and to any expense just for
the purpose OF evading the Dispensary
law. a case in point was learned of