The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1901-07-04
THE NEAL CASE ON TRIAL.
Famous Case Proceeding In Columbia
"A Sensational Development.

Famous Case Proceeding In Columbia
"A Sensational Development.
Columbia, Special.-The trial of the
State against ". A. Neal, former SUI
perintendent Of the State penitentiary
was commenced Thursday afternoon
ut 4 o'clock. There was nothing start
ling, nothing new in the evidence SUBJ
mitted and the case progressed indif-
ferently. The charge against him Is
failure Of an official to turn over
money to his successor within 80 days
Of the expiration Of his term of office.
The only unusual incident in this
trial was the peremptory summons II
]. S. Fowler and w. O. Hammond I'd
appear in court Mr.. Fowler appear,
ed and was fined $40 for delaying the
court, but the fine was suspended un-
til he can have chance to show cause
why it should not be paid. Mr.. Ham,
mond never appeared in court yester-
day afternoon. These two Anderson
county farmers hired convicts fron
the penitentiary during Col. Meals ad-
ministration and their names were
mentioned just lately in connection
with the Anderson slavery" cases.
When the case was called, Mr.. Ju-
Illus E. Boggs of Pickens, leading at.
torney for COL Neal, moved 10
quash the indictment on the ground
that the statutes of 1895 5,section 3O4 Of
the criminal code, under which this
prosecution is brought, is inconsistent
with the acts of 1898, section sol.
The former section makes it mis-
demeanor for an official to fail to turn
over funds to his successor within 30
days. The latter says nothing about
the time within which an officer shall
turn over moneys, but says that "whc-
ever shall embezzle" such funds shall,
upon conviction, be held guilty Of
! felony. and punished by a fine in
proportion to the amount of the en-
| bezzlement, while the punishment in
the other act is fixed at fine of 81 900.
He claimed that the repeating clause
Of the later act nulifies SO much Of the
act of 1895 as related to public funds,
and that if the indictment were
brought under the first act It should
be quaShed.
Solicitor Thurmond arose to reply
to Mr.. Boggs, but Judge Gary indl.
Gated that there was no use.
The judge overruled the motion.
saying: This indictment does not
charge embezzlement. 1t is made un-
der the statute which makes 1t unlaw-
full for Z public official to fail to turn
over funds" He continued that the
effect of Mr.. Boggs' proposition would
mean that the charge in the indict-
ment be changed to embezzlement.
| and that Mr.. Boggs had argued that
Neal is not guilty Of embezzlement.
The case is analogous to the propoS!-
tion of doctor who was called in
to treat a case which he could not
diagnose. The doctor declared he was
good on fits, so he would just throw
the patient into fits and then cure
him.
1t is rather a coincidence that on
each side are employed solicitor
and an eX-solicitor. Mr.. Bsllinger, the
attorney general, was solicitor, as
was Col. Nelson, who represents Neal.
Solicitor Thurmond and Solicitor
Boggs are on opposite sides in the
case
When the drawing of the jury was
commenced, E. H. Flowers. C. B. Hoff-
man. H. J. Hennies, c. ]. Reckling. j.
H. Altee. W. T. Martin were objected
to by the defense. G. B. Radcliffe was
objected to by the State.
The following were sworn: j. NJ.
Van Metre T. J. Roberts, c. II.
Flynn. Bass Byrd, J. C. Plumer. l.. S.
Hoyt. H. w. Walker, Jr.. T. C. Thorn.
ton. L. C. Williams, C. F. Daniels, J.
d. Rials, J. L. Mckee.
Solicitor Thurmond read the indict.
ment to the jury.
The indictment charges that Col.
Neal neglected to turn over to his sue
cessor within 80 days of his getting
the Office the following sums, all from
the hire Of convicts: w. @. Hammond.
check. $500: J. S. Fowler, check, $500;
Fowler & Cooley, check, 1856; J. S.
Fowler, check, 5000. The two amounts
first named were paid to Col. Neal in
1895; and the two last named in "S9L
On the Maximum Capital.