The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1901-07-03

his successor within the time prC
n scribcd by law, WAS held last week i
:. Columbia and the jury returned vel
>, die. Of guilty with recommendation t
the mercy OF the court. This case ha
:, attracted much attention in the State
1 not only on account of The promincnc
: of the defendant aud his activity in poll
O tics during the past ten years or more
q but also from the fact that he was nc
: quilted last year upon Il charge tha
( was even more serious in connection
: with the duties Of his office.
y The case was given to the Jury II
Q twelve O'Clock Oh Saturday AMI at five
: : the court was informed that II vcrdc
had been reached. When the jur,
had been brought into court, slip o.
paper was handed to the clerk by tn,
foreman. This slip contained the Yer
dict which read: "Thc State again 81
w. a.. Neal. Guilty, with reGommcn,
dation to the mercy of the court. j
NJ. Van Metre, foreman" Neal was
in the court room at thc time. lie
verdict was read.
This is one of the few violations OF
law in which motive is left out of the
question, yet tho penalty is quite Sc
we're. The statutes declare that Il pub :
tic officer found guilty Of the charge in
the Indictment shall, upon conviction
| be liable to Il fine Of = 900 and inn
prsonmcnt for not exceeding twclv,
| months.
"Scction BOA of the criminal statute,
of 1893 Is the law under which the in
dtclment was bascu. 1t declares: "Il
shall be the duty of every sheriff. Judge
of probate, clerk of court of common
pleas, county treasurer and any other
state or county officer, entrusted with
funds BY virtue Of his Office, upon re.
turing from office to turn over to his
successor all moneys received by him
as such officer, within 30 days from the
llmc when his success spr shall have en-
tered upon the duties of his Ollice,n etc.
The features OF the case on Saturday
were the verdict returned by the Jury:
Col. Nelson scathing criticism OF the
pcmtcn;lary directors ana of the com
miltec which investigated the affairs
OF the penitenliary; the splendid argu-
mcnt OF Gen. Belliugcr and the charge
Of Judge Gary. After the consiruc-
uon of the law by the Judge, the Jury
could not find Il verdict Of not guilty.
The State seems to have been ma
tcrially helped by the resort OF the de-
cd to the use OF morphine. 1t appear
ed that this was a desperate chance for
the defense, and Gen. 1ellinucr's
shrcwd and logical cross questioning
drew from the physicians who testified
for the defense an admission that a
man is morally responsible rs long as
he knows right from wrong.
Judge Gary held that if Neal collect
ed tho money in question, and dld not
eXpcnd II Tor legitimate pcnitcntialy
and then failed to turn il
over ID his successor within thirty days.
then he was guilty under the statute.
The payment to the bondsmen was
not compliance with the statute and
not defence.
Judge Gary held that the law cx-
cuscd two classes: Children and
idiots or the insane. TO plead insanity
ii must be shown that the party could |
not distinguish between right and
wrong. If the party knew the differ
cncc between right and wrong insanity
was not a defence, but If he did not
know the difference between right and
wrong it was a complete defence.
When the verdict was brought in
and read Mr.. Boggs moved for new
trial, and it was decided that The |
motion will be heard on Monday morn
ing. In the meanwhile Neal is under
bond and was not deprived of his
liberty. f the new trial is not allowed
it is generally thought that an appeal
to the supreme court will be taken. 1t
may be noted that in the Assmau case.
which is the only other case of convic-
tion under the same statute as Neal
the offender was sentenced to three
months III the county jail
Mr.. L. III. Nelson opened for the de-
fensc. He declared that the Jury be-
fore convicting his client should be
satisfied that Neal had in his posses
sion-not indefinite amounts-but the
particular sums named in the indict-
mcnt. He cited supreme court decis-
ions showing that il must be proved
that all and not part of the money was
not TUNED over. He contended that
the money was legally disburscd as
shown by the evidence of Col. Jones
in connection with that of Neal. This
indictment makes four specific charges:
That Neal failed to turn over to his
successors 81 900 between N vembcr
22nd and December 10th, 1895. and
$544 between February 24th to 9th,
1897.
Mr.. Nelson went on to say that from
the period November 22nd to Decem.
Der 9th, 1895, Neal deposited over
" 900. This was the time when Neal
was accused of making away with
81 900. In February, 1897, 24lh to
9th, Col. Neal deposited over 5000.
This was at the time the S544 is charg
ed against him in the Indictment. Not
only did he deposit these amounts,
but he checked them out as supcrin
tendent.
The superintendent is allowed in the
absence of the board of directors to
pay out any money necessary in the
running expenses. Col. Jones tcstili, d
that Meals checks as superintendent
| showed where that monoy ,,,e 40