Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1896-11-25
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.

Luckie, recently convicted of the murder
of Charles T. Williams get new trial,
it will be from the supreme court. Not
from Judge Watts. His honor has heard
argument on the motion and ruled that
the trial was fair, legal and impartial.
The motion for new trial, which had
been pending since the 18th instant, was
called last Monday at II o'clock. Reese
and Luckie were brought into the court
room handcuffed together. Since the
effort of Reese to escape, the sheriff has
been unwilling to allow him any more
privileges. The handouts were removed
while the argument was going on; but
Deputy Scoggins kept close watch
throughout for any movement that
might be attempted on the part of the
prisoners. Luckie was neatly shaved
and dressed in his best. His appearance
was about the same as during the trial.
Reese was unshaven, hollow-eyed, and
appeared to be very weak. When he
turned his head, the scar made by the
deputy's bullet not long ago, was ex-
posed to view. The wound appears to
be all but healed up.
The appearance of the prisoner in the
courthouse was the signal for the assemb-
ling of number Of interested spectators.
Perhaps so or 100 people gathered to hear
the proceedings, and the argument con-
sumed about four hours.
Before argument was commenced,
Major Hart submitted several affidavits.
One was from T.. M. Dobson and T. j..
Nichols, members of the trial jury, to the
effect that w. NJ. Stowe, bailitf, slept
with the jurors, and stated to them that
they were being watched by detectives.
An affidavit from T. w. Clawson, also
member of the jury, was to the effect
that w. Mason Stowe, heard all discus
sions, and that he had said that he had
warned the jurors that they were being
watched by detectives in the employ OF
the defendants, and it was necessary that
they be very careful, lest in the event OF
verdict of guilty, the defendants might
be granted new trial. An affidavit from
George w. Moore was to the effect that
upon the arrest of Mrs. Anderson, he was
deputized to guard her, and that she said
to him that she alone fired the shots that
killed Charles IT. Williams. This was
about the 7th of February last.
Colonel Youmans then stated the al
legged errors of law upon which he asked
for a new trial. In brief, his grounds
were as follows:
l. The indictment was defective in
that it failed to state the time and place
of the killing.
2. The indictment alleged that the
assault upon Williams had been COM
mitted with a pistol; while the proof
showed that death was caused by bull
let. The point was that the state had
failed to prove what it had charged.
8. The court was in error in allowing
Robert A. Anderson to testify against
his wife.
4. The court had erred in admitting in
evid ence the letter found on the body OF
Chales II. Williams purporting to be a
letter to Mrs. Ellen Anderson, when, as
matter of fact, she never received such
letter.
5. The court was in error in admitting
in evidence letters found among the
fleets of Charles It. Williams and pur-
porting to have been written by Mrs.
Ellen Anderson. The effect Of these
letters was to attack the character Of
Mrs. Ellen Anderson before she was put
upon the stand to testify, and thus not
only destroy her credibility with the
Jury but also destroy the credibility OF
the defendants Reese and Luckie, in
corroboration Of her testimony.
6. These letters had been allowed in
evidence on the solemn promise OF the
state to prove that they were intended to
decoy the deceased to Blacksburg; yet
the state had failed to show single
sentence that would be contorted or
construed in an effort to decoy the de-
ceased.
I. That if the court should fail to con-
slider any of these grounds as sufhclent
for the granting of a new trial but 1t
should consider that in all of them togeth-
er there was sufficient ground-then the
new trial should be granted.
Colonel Youman's argued the various
points he had raised at length. He also
referred to the affidavits mentioned above,
and claimed they showed that undue in
fiuence had been exerted on the jury. He
claimed that undue license had been al
lowed the prosecution in its arguments,
and characterized the speech Of Solicitor
Henry ss the voicing of a highly wrought
and inhamed public sentiment and pre-
judice. He alleged that the audience had
applauded the prosecution at three differ
ent times during the trial, and although
his honor had done what he could to put
down such misconduct, it was impossible
to eradicate the effects of such exhibition
of feeling from the minds Of the jurors.
His honor called the attention Of Colo
mel Youmans to the fact that the counsel
for the defense had not asked the court to
call the counsel for the prosecution down
at any time during the progress of their
argument for undue license. Major Hart
stated that he had his honor to challenge
the solicitor when that official referred to
the 40 o'clock conference" etc. His hon
or was unable to see that anything had oc-
Cured during the argument OF which 1t
was necessary to take cognizance at this
time.
In reply to Colonel Youmans, Mr..
deLoach re-read the indictment COM
planned of to show that it was not defective
as alleged. He could see nothing else in
the defendants objection worthy Of notice,
except, perhaps, the objection to the dam
aging letters of Mrs. Anderson. Mr..
deLoach called attention to the fact that
his honor had fully instructed the jury
that these letters could not be taken as
for or against anybody else than Mrs. An
derson. Mrs. Anderson was now out Of
of the case, and whether the admission of
these was right or wrong, no objection
that could now be urged against them
couId possibly effect the case of Reese or