The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-04-15

sheriff OF Richlaltd County ON the 2nt
day of \ pril, 1908, which SAID warran
was sent by the said sheriff OF Elch
land County to the sheriff OF Spartan
burg County. Miss Roper being a resi-
dent OF city OF Spartanburg, and ths
said warrant was returned on the III
day of April, 1903. endorsed \. f. l
That deponent has been informed tina
Miss Roper is temporarily IN the cit,
of New York, and has received aSSur
ances that she willreturn TO the State
and be present 70 testify at the hex
term of this Court. That due diligence
has been used to procure the attend
ance Of this witness. and in deponent,
opinion his client cannot safely so t
trial in her absence, and this motion i
not 'uade for delay, but solely for ths
reason above stated. G. W. Croft.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
thisssSth day of April. 1903.
P. H. Nelson,
=, Notary Public for South Carolina.
THE STATE OBJECTS.
Solicitor Ihurmond promptly ar'se
and said: The rule of Court pre-
ScribeS how cont!nuanceS will oe
secured and we submit these atlidarit
do not come up to the rule OF Court
If the rule is complied with it may bt
the State viii be in a position to enable
the defendant to proceed to trial an.
way It this term OF Court. We asl
that the rule Of Court be compiled
with.
Col. Andrew Crawford, of counSe
for the State, added: 1t seems t.
me, under the rule as last amended
that even where the rule is complied
with, the essential feature of which i:
to set forth all the facts, then the atfi
daviu is submitted to counsel on th'
other side. and if counsel agrees to ac
cept the statements contained in these
attiaavits as statements that would tt
made if the witnesses were present
then the case will go on.
Now, in this particular instance
our friends have failed to make known
to US what facts they propose to prove
by these two witnesses. In that par
ticular their showing is absolutely de-
fective.
II submit we are entitled to have
this case 60 on, first. because there Is
not compliance with the rule OF
Court in any particular, and secondly
if the compliance is made. we Car
admit that, if the witnesses were
placed upon the stand, they woulc
swear TO the things and matters sci
forth in the affidavit, and then The
case will proceed"
STILL ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. P. Fl. Nelson said: I'VE
thought our friends were so thorough
ly advised Of what these witnesses
testify to in the main, (their aflidavits
having been used and copies having
been furnished some time ago. we
did not think it necessary to embody
in separate affidavit what we expect
them to testify on the trial. !Antici
pating that point might be made We
have prepared this affidavit from Mr..
Croft:
state OF South Carolina, county OF
Richland. George W. Croft. being
duly sworn, says: That in addition tt
the affidavit of Miss Mary Julia Roper
deponent is Informed and he believes
that she, if present, would testify t
the matters therein stated, and de
ponent is informed that she woule
testify to threats and matters more
pointed even than those therein sci
forth.
That owing to absence and distance
from the city OF Columbia none OF the
attorneys for the defendant have evel
had an opportunity OF seeing or talk
ing with her, and therefore deponent
cannot give in detail the threats anc
other matters about which they are IN
formed she would testify.
That J. H. White, if present, woulc
testify to what is contained in the ath
davit of r. H. Holzenback, referring
to the conversation between him ane
y. G.. Gonzales, and that he communl
Gated the same to the defendant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this Sth day of April, 1903.
&c. w. Croft.
'sP. H. Nelson, Notary Public 70,
South Carolina.
THE RULE OF COURT.
The rule of court involving continu
rood tO thS
Court as follows:
Motions for Continuance: No mo
tior for the postponement OF trial be-
vond the term, either in Common
Pleas or General Sessions, shall be
granted on account of the witness
without the oath Of the party, his
counsel, or either. to the following ct
feet, to wit: That the testimony o.
the witness is material to support the
action or defence OF the party moving
that the motion is not intended TO
DELAY, but is made solely because 1t
cannot go safely to trial Without sucl
testimony: that he has made use O.
diligence to procure the testimony 0
the witness. or of such other circum
stances as will satisfy the Court thai
his motion is not intended for delay
In all such cases where writ OF sub
poena has been issued the orlgina
Shall be produced, with proof OF ser
vice, or the reason why not served, en-
dorsed thereon or attached thereto, OF
if lost, the same proof shall be offered
with additional proof of the loss of the
original subpoena. y party applyln!
for such postpOnement on account o
the absence of a witness shall set fortl
under oath, in addition to the forego
ing matters, what fact or facts he be
lieves the witness would testify to ant
the grounds OF such belief.
THE LAWYERS SPAR.
Counsel contended over the matteI
for some time.
Mr.. Thurnond and Col. Crawford
contended that the defence had utter
ly failed to comply with the rule i!
any particular and that it had no
been shown what the witnesses woult
have testified TO had they been pres