The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-06-19
Court Continued.

The case of Eugene Lowry charged
with murder was being tried when we
went to press last week. The prisoner
was found guilty with recommenda-
tion to mercy, and the Judge sentenced
him to life Imprisonment.
The next case was an exposition OF a
most revolving degradation, a white
man by the name of Charles A. Brad
ham, deserted an excellent woman who
was his wife, to take up and co-habit
with white strumpet by the name OF
Martha Mccall, the mother OF several
negro as well as white children.
This Mccall woman is most repulslve
looking creature, unkempt and filthy,
and what could have possessed Brad
ham to desert his wife, a highly re-
spectacle woman is mystery. The
charge of adultery was proven to the
satisfaction of the jury who brought IN
a verdict of guilty, and the Judge SEN
fenced Bradham to the penitentiary for
one wear or pay fine of $3.50, and he
sentenced Martha Mccall to the pen.
itentiary for 9 months or pay fine OF
500. Both went to the penitentlary.
The case of W. NJ. Butler indicted
for assault and battery with intent to
kill resulted in mistrial after the jury
had remained in the room several hours.
The case of Tom Kelly assault with
intent to kill was called and the defen-
dant failed to answer. The case was
tried in his absence, and a a,verdlct OF
guilty was rendered. The Judge LETT
sealed sentence.
Several appeal cases were argued to
the Judge.
The case OF Samuel J. Clark against
The Manning Publishing Company.
Decision reserved.
The case OF Henry Minis against the
Town of Manning and the Atlantic
Cost Line. Magistrates order confirm
ed aud appeal dismissed
The case OF Tom Carter against the
County of Clarendon. Magistrates
court sustained and appeal dismissed.
In case of the estate Of S. Q. g.
Richardson against Mrs. Fl. G. Gallu-
chat, foreclosure OF mortgages, the
court reserved his decision.
Judge Buchanan was very severe IN
his criticisms Of Magistrate Youmans
ruling in case of Andrews Manufac-
turing Co., against N. G. Stack, in
which the company had brought suit
against Stack for small amount,
part OF which the defendant held a re-
ceipt for. "he case was for certain
time, and .either Of the parties ap-
peared, and Magistrate Youmans dis
missed the case. The Attorney for the
plaintiffs appealed. In sending the
matter back to the Magistrate, the
Judge spoke very sneeringly OF the
boldness of the 'little fellow" who had
the nerve to dismiss this case, and went
on to express himself in language,
which in our opinion was, unnecessary
and totally unjust. Notwithstanding
Judge Buchanan's TRADE, calculated
to mortify man, good lawyers say
that Magistrate Youmans did right.
We do not think it proper for Judge
to indulge in sneering and sarcastic re-
marks about an officer with inferior
jurisdiction, even il that officer did
make a mistake in his ruling. A mag
istrate getting a salary OF $500 year
cannot be supposed to know as much
law as Judge who gets $1,000, yet the
records of the Supreme Court show that
the magistrates decisions are confirmed
about as many times as the decisions OF
some Judges. It is not smart in one
clothed with authority to speak IN a
manner to humiliate, when he knows
that the party spoken OF cannot defend
himself. We heard Judge Buchanan's
remarks concerning Magistrate YOU
mans and we are sorry that he spoke as
he did. If he continues In that line on
all of the circuits his judicial career will
not last very long after the next ses-
sion of the General Assembly, because
people will resent an injustice.