Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-04-10
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

| The case of j. IL. Riddle, admlnlStra-
tor, plaintiff, against Marion R. Reese,
defendant, for $4,000 damages, alleged to
have been sustained by the estate OF
Charles T. Williams, on account Of the
death of the said Williams at the hands
of the said Reese, was concluded on
Wednesday morning with verdict for
plaintiff in the sum OF $1,000.
The trial, as predicted in the last issue
of THE ENQUIRER, developed no new
features of especial interest, being in the
main repetition of the case made by the
state on the occasion of the recent prose-
cution of Reese and Luckie for murder.
Among the witnesses put up by the
plaintiff, were Messrs. J. w. Duff, J. It.
Darwin, r. S. Withers, Ira Hardin, D. L.
Brown, Miss Mary Harrington, Mrs.
Charles IT, Williams, DR.. j. P. Glenn
mons, J. H. Williams, Berry Stokes,
colored, John NJ. Guyton, Joseph Hay
den, J. B. Allison and Smith Williams.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case,
on the groundthat it had not been shown,
by a preponderance of the testimony,
that NJ. r. Reese was the slayer of Will
liams. The motion for nonsuit was re-
fused, and the defendants declined to put
up any testimony, relying, so far as the
jury was concerned, altogether upon ar
gument.
The case was argued at length by coun-
sci on both sides, and after hearing the
judges charge, the jury retired and re-
turned within about an hour with the ver-
dict stated above.
Mr.. Mellow gave notice of motion for
new trial and, by appointment, the
motion was argued on Thursday morning.
The principal points in Mr.. McDow's
argument were that there was nothing in
the testimony to warrant such verdict.
The only testimony that connected the
defendant with the killing, was that of
Miss harrington, and it was easily proba-
BILE that she may have been mistaken in
her belief that she saw Reese and Luckie
near the dead body of Williams. Even if
they were the parties seen by Miss Far
rington, there was nothing to show that
Reese did the killing, and much more
reason to believe that if either party did
it, Luckie was the man. In addition to
this, Mr.. Mellow claimed that the case
had been pre-judged from the beginning /;
that notwithstanding the caution of the
court, it had merely registered again the
verdict that had been rendered by the ju-
ry in the criminal case, and that to give
the plaintiff the property under the cir
cumstances like these, really amounted to
confiscation.
Major Hart spoke very briefly. He said
that he had no sympathy with the mo-
ton for a new trial. He did not care to
put the county to the additional expense
of a new trial, which he considered un-
necessary. He had felt convinced from
this county, or in any other where the
people were so familiar with the develop
ments in connection with the criminal
case, there could be but one verdict, and
that would be against the defendant. He
felt equally certain that if the case were
heard upon its merits before jury which
had no preconceived opinions, the de-
fendant would win. His honor, however,
having seen fit in his discretion, to refuse
change of venue, Major Hart was con-
vinced that he must seek another remedy,
meaning an appeal to the supreme court.
Further than this, he did not care to say
anything in regard to the pending mo-
ton.
In reply, Mr.. Finley differed with coun-
sci in the opinion that there was no tes-
timony that was calculated to connect
Reese with the killing. He recited the
testimony Of Miss Harrington, and also
pointed to the conduct of Reese imme-