The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1903-07-03
tradict their statement by showing

tradict their statement by showing
that ON the Sunday after the shooting
prayers We're offered to spare the life
OF this useful citizen.
Mr.. Crawford then read the names Of
some twenty physicians OF the county,
who mlnglc with the masses more than
any other class Of citizens, all of whom
SAY, without al exception, That the ac-
ciisca can get Il fair trial here. 10
show that the prosecution had obtain
cd the opinion OF all classes OF citizens
i'm the county, Mr.. Crawford went over
The names OF the lawyers, doctors,
county officers, druggists, city officials,
county delegation TO The Legislature,
cankcrS, railroad men, about one hun
drcd and fifty merchants, and the
farmers, who sworc that fair trial
qualified jurors. Both sides are limit
Ell III the same way in the drawing OF
lllc jury. The other side present :}:,l
ailidavits and we have 42l; This makes
1872 of the citizens whom TiIlman
would not have to fear; :i5l who have
made ailidavitS for the defence are not
prcjildiced against him and the 42l
who have stated specifically ihat;l fair
trial can lie had.
The 5n0 remaining can he putOn their
vor dire and am sure that an i'm
partial jury can he gotten. The rule
uI The Court is That you cannot decide
whether an impartial Jury can be
sworn in until tileyarc brought up and
put on their vuir dire. We challenge
The anidavils OF Mr.. w. II. Martin aid
OF hers, in Which they state lhat tie
newspapers have published articles
which were calculated to prejudice the
minds OF tic people and 10 hold The de-
Iendant under public ccnSlrc. Mr..
Crawford ON to say that the news
lapcrs published here, and especially
the State, had been especially temper
ate and mild in tllcir reference TO Lhis
case.
Mr.. Crawford spoke for about one
hour and Il half and closed with IL
strong plea that the change of venue
should not he granted.
COL. l.. II. NELSON'S ARGUMENT.
Col. J.. ii. Nelson then spoke in sup
port Of the demand for IL change of
venue. Col. Nelson spoke in Il most
eloquent manner for one hour, going
over the legal phrases which are in
vo!ycd in the case. lie began by say
ing that by the Constitution of the
State Il fair and impartial trial was
guaranteed to every man, and he pro-
posed to show that IL fair trial could
not be gotten here.
We do not rely on the aildavit of
the defendant, but on $50 ai1idayits of
citizens of Ricllland County. The
Statutes OF South Carolina, In Section
2,i:'5, allows change OF venue on the
following grounds:
Tile Circuit Court shall have the
power 10 change the venue iii all cases.
civil and criminal. pending therein,
and over which said Courts have origi,
nal jurisdiction, by ordering the re-
cord 10 bc removed To another county
IN the same circuit. The application
for removal must be made to the Judge
sitting III regular term by some party
interested, oi by the solicitor Of tile cir
cult. or accused, supported by affidavit
that fair and impartial trial cannot
De had III The county where such ac-
Iioh or prosecution WAS commenced
The State shall have tho same right
10 make application for Il change of
venue that Il defendant has in cases Of
forgery or grand larccny: Provided,
no change Of venue shall be granted
III such cases until a true bill has been
found by grand jury. Ten days notice
OF such application in civil and crimi-
lal cases shall be given to the adverse
| party, and If Il change is ordered il
SHALL be TO Il county in the same Judi
clal circuit
IN State VS. Coleman S S. O., 23S it is
held that Il motion for change of
venue addresses itself to the discretion
of 'he presiding Judge. The change
Of venue was granted by the Circuit
:.i.u1sdlgc9;, the Supreme Court saying:
while here upon very general ailidaV-
its us to the mprobability of IL fair
and impartial trial in the county in
which the bill was found, the Judge
expressed his Willingness 10 transfer
case TO another county in the circuit
except plckcnS, where there would be
no term Of Court
In the case OF Carroll VS. Carroll VS.
Charleston and Scashore Railroad
Company, 6l 5. c., it appears that only
ihe ailidayit OF the plaintiff was sub
mitted, which rccited two mistrials,
and The great influence of the dcfcn-
dani, the Consolidated Company.
Aga nSt that was submitted the aiii-
dayits Of none OF The jurors and tie
change OF venue was ordered. the Court
holding that it was in the discretion
OF tile trial Judge to order the change
on the former trial.
In the case OF the State VS. Jones the
defendant was convicted OF manSlaugh-
ter and sentenced to twenty .our
years; The case was appealed and Ic-
ferrcd, and ordered to Il new trial.
Ihc State moved for Il change of venue
and on single ailidavit The Change was
granted.
In another nnrcportcd case Judge
kcrSiiaw granted Il change of venue, i,
III Fairfield County, on the anidavits
OF three citizens.
In the case Of Crawford, in this
county, The change was granted to
kcrsiaw County because Of prejudice
, caused by the newspapers.
Public feeling has been SO much cy-
cited here now that people are actll-
ally afraid TO make atlidavits on ac-
count OF losing their position in v:lri-
otIS large corporations. n the Crlw-
lord case. although there were only
len nllidavtS submitted for the de-
fence, Judge Watts granted the
change notwithstanding The fact that
scvcnty-ciSht prominent citizens OF the
county said that Il fair trial could be
gotten.
Mr.. Nelson then made reference TO
The atlidvait Of Mr. Il III. Weston, who
SAID That nc was elected TO the Lcgisla-
turc i'm 1892
Mr.. Nelson referred to the manner
IN which Judge Andrew Crawford had
read this alldavit, saying that MIR.
Weston was elected i'm hard times.
MIR. Nelson wanted the Court 10 know
that these hand times referred TO was
the bitter fight between the I'ilIman-
ties and Conservatives. Although he