The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1898-09-28
Court Proceedings.

When we went to press last week
we noted the of trial Jesse and Tom
Hill for the murder of Mary Lybrand
on July 9th last. The trial consumed
Wednesday and was given to the jury
on Thursday morning. After being
out only a short while the jury re-
turned verdict of guilty as to Jesse
Hill and guilty with recommends
ton to the mercy of the court as to
Tom Hill, which gave the former a
death sentence, and was pro-
nounced in the following impressive
words: ut being solemnly demanded
of the prisoner at the bar, Jesse Hill,
if he hath any thing to say why the
sentence should not be passed upon
him, he saying nothing farther unless
he has before said,
Wherefore, it is considered by the
Court, (and pronounced as the judg-
ment of the law that the said Jesse
Hill be taken hence to the place from
which he last came, there to be kept
in safe and close custody until Fri
day, the third day of November,
next; and that op that Friday, be
tween the hours of ten in the fore.
noon and two in the afternoon, be be
taken to the place of execution pre-
scribed by law, and then be hanged
by the neck until his body be dead,
and may God have mercy on his
SOUL" Tom Hill was sentenced to
life imprisonme ent in the penitentiary.
The trial of Mr.. J. M. johnson for
killing Mr.. W. B. Seay some weeks
ago, was called in the Court Of Ses-
sions Thursday. But little if any
difficulty was experienced in getting
a jury as both sides seemed ready
for the case to begin and not disposed
to delay the progress of the trial.
The defence was ably and skillfully
conducted by J. Brooks Wingard,
Esq who was assisted by Messrs:
Eird & Dreher. Solicitor Thurmond
looked after the interest of the State.
1t is said by many who closely
watched the unfolding of the testi-
mony and the development of the
case that it was prosecuted with un-
usual vigor, ability and promptness.
The Solicitor seemed to have felt the
responsibility resting upon him, and
taking no undue advantage, rose to the
re quirements of the occasion. His
address to the jury is said to have
been mastery and brilliant effort,
which for eloquence, profupdity and
logical reasoning has never been
surpassed in our court house. The
Solicitor requested the Judge to
charge on the following points.
l. If A stabs B and retires from
the fight, B would have no right to
shoot A because he had been stabbed
by him.
2 Malice may be formed in Sec
ond, and if A stab B, and B to avenge
t be stab and not to protect himself
from serious bodily harm or death
shoots A, it would be murder in B
if be had malice, but manslaughter
if he had no malice and shot through
sudden heat and passion upon sutt-
cient legal provocation.
3. If A, police officer, resents an
approbious epithet, his official capa-
city gives him no higher rights than
a private individual would have had
under like circumstances.
1. A police officer has no right to
shoot man merely to effect an ar
rest for misdemeanor.
5 If one man lays his hands upon
another in a rude and revengeful
manner, that would be an assault
and battery.
6 One wrongfully assailed has no
right to take the life of his assailant
unless there is no other way Of say
ing himself from serious bodily harm
or death. Provocation at time OF
killing will not excuse slayer when
there was previous malice.
7. Self defence is bottomed upon
necessity and DO man is excusable for
taking human life unless there IS a
ne cessity to do 30 to save Llmselt
from serious bodily harm or death.
s. To entitle one to the plea of self
defence three things must be estab.
lished by him by preponderance OF