The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1903-10-14

| II
Mr. Gonzales, and also in hearing the
testimony of witnesses in support of
the credibility of Holsonback. Mitch
ell was recalled to the stand to testify
in his own behalf, after the terrific at
tacks on this reputation by five or six
witnesses who live in Orangeburg and
Columbia.
The proceedings generally were char
acterized by the immense latitude,
longitude, area, space, variety, volume
and detail of the testimony heard.
Concerning some of these witnesses,
testimony as to religion, politics, and
pedigree we're touched upon, either N
the questions or answers. Illustrating
this and without intending to pass in
any way upon the soundness or weak
ness Of Judge Gary's view, he delivered
one ruling that created an impression
nothing short of startling. John Liv-
ingstone of Orangeburg was on the
stand and had sworn that he would not
believe T. D. Mitchell on his oath.
Mr.. Nelson entered upon the cross ex-
animation and inquired If he support
ed Tom Johnston Of Sumter for con-
gress against J. William Stokes Of
| Orangeburg. Mr.. Elliott objected.
MI. Nelson said substantially that it
was desired to know whether or not
the witness was white man in white
| mans community supporting a hacker
of negroes. Mr.. Bellinger protested
vehemently !; factional and State poll
tics had already been injected into the
trial and the name of Sentaor Tillman
had been dragged in; had the time
come in South Carolina when mans
credibiliy in the courts turned upon
how heyoted?
Judge Gary ruled and ruled prompt
ly in the following words, as reported
by the stenographer: Generally
speaking, Mr. Bellinger, I think your
view the correct one, but under our
peculiar conditions down here it may
affect man g character will not say
anything further before the jury. I
will not state what intended to say
before he jury, but shink this COM
petent.''
Whether or not this ruling OF the
special Judge is to carry with it the
full weight of ali that its language
implies is not here to be discussed.
A little examination and reflection
will show to the average reader that it
was important and far reaching, if it
should be appealed to in the future in
the trial of causes in South Carolina.
It is not unlikely that it will excite
comment beyond the borders of this
State. Later in the day, the prosecu-
tion appealed to the precedent set
when j. B. Odom of Johnston was on
the stand to assist in rebuilding the
reputation for truth and veracity of
Richard Holsonback, who appears to
be the special pet, priced and pre-
cious witness for the defense. Reply
ing to question by counsel for the
State, Odom admitted to being a Re-
publican. Mr.. Nelson asked if he
were national or State Republi-
an and he said that be was a Repub-
lican in national politics.
When the court opened Judge Gary
announced that on reconsideration he
had concluded that he went a little too
far in excluding evidence as to the eye
sight Of Mr.. Gonzales, and he stated
that he would not allow the prosecu-
| tion to be prejudiced on that account.
He would, therefore, allow time. for
obtaining witnesses on that point if
the prosecution so desired. The prose
cutoin did desire such witnesses, but
later in the day stated that they could
not reach Lexington until the after
noon train arrived. An agree -ent
was then reached and read in court,
both sides consenting, for the admis-
sion Of the following as evidence and
as true:
"That N. G. Gonzales habitually
wore glasses, was near-sighted; his
eyesight was so defective that he could
not see sufficiently we'll without glasses
to walk the streets witho-t them. p
a feature Of the day W. the strong
attack upon the reputation for truth
telling of 7. D. Mitchell, unanswered
save by himself, who will be re1nem-
bered as the man who accosted Mr..
Gonzales, so he said, on the street at
night and broached the subject Of Till
man with Mr.. Gonzales. It was Mitch
ell's first and only conversation with
Mr.. Gonzales, to whom he had never
been introduced. Mitchell testified
that Mr.. Gonzales told him, eff Till
man batted his eye at him he would
fill his so full of lead that he could
not tote it off, Chief of Police
Fischer of Orangeburg, Mr.. Living
stone of the same town, G. B. Sim
mons and Mr.. E. W. Parker of Co.
lumbia were among those who swore
that they would not believe Mitchell
on his oath. The climacteric point Of
this line of testimony, however, was
reached when Mr.. j. A. Salley, cot
ton oil mill superintendent in Orange
burg, sworn for the State, declared
that he would not believe Mitchell on
his oath and stated in answer to Mr..
Elliott's queries that he had been sum-
moned to Lexington by the defense,
their expectation being that he would
swear to Mitchell's good character.
Later Mitchell was recalled to the
stand and allowed to testify in his own
behalf and related that Livingstone
had had him prosecuted for violating
the fish laws, in order to obtain a re-
ward, and that he had opposed Fisch-
er for chief of police. Mr.. Salley, he
said, had supported him for the latter