The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-07-01

partial jury can be gotten. Ihe rue
OF the Court is that YOU cannot decide
whether an impartial jury can be
sworn in until they are brought up and
put on their voir dire. We challenge
the anidavits OF Mr.. W. T. Martin and
Others. in which they state that the
newspapers have published articles
which were calculated to prejudice the
minds of the people and to hold the de-
fendant under public censure. Mr..
Crawford went.on to say that the news
papers published here. and especially
the State. had been especially temper
ate and mild in their reference to this
case.
Mr.. Crawford spoke for about one
hour and Il half and closed with a
strong plea that the change of venue
should not be granted.
COL. P. II. NELSON'S ARGUMENT.
Col. ?. II. Nelson then spoke in sup
port of the demand for change of
venue. Col. Nelson spoke in most
eloquent manner for one hour, going
over the legal phrases which are in
volved in the case. He hegan by say
ing that by the Constitution of the
State a fair and impartial trial was
guaranteed to every man. and he pro-
posed to show that a fair trial could
not be gotten here.
We do not rely on the affidavit OF
the defendant, but on $50 atlidavits OF
citizens of Richland County. The
Statutes of South Carolina. in Section
following grounds:
The Circuit Court shall have the
power to change the venue in ali cases.
civil and criminal, pending therein,
and over which said Courts have origl-
nal jurisdiction, by ordering the re-
cord to be removed to another county
in the same circuit. The application
for removal must be made to the Judge
sitting in regular term by some party
interested, or by the solicitor OF the cir
cult. or accused, supported by affidavit
that fair and impartial trial cannot
be had in the county where such ac-
tion or prosecution was commenced.
The State shall have the same right
TO make application for change OF
venue that a defendant has in cases OF
murder, arson, rape, burglary, perjury,
forgery or grand larceny: Provided,
no change of venue shall be granted
in such cases until a true bill has been
found by grand jury Ten days notice
of such application in civil and crlmI-
nal cases shall be given to the adverse
party, and if change is ordered 1t
Shall be to a county in the same judi
cial circuit"
In State VS. Coleman S S. c., 23S it is
held that a motion for a change of
venue addresses itself to the discretion
OF the presiding Judge. The change
of venue was granted by the Circuit
Judge, the Supreme Court saying:
"While here upon very general atfidaV-
its as to the improbability of a fair
and impartial trial in the county in
which the bill was found, the Judge
expressed his willingness to transfer
case to another county in the circuit
except PickenS. where there would be
no term Of Court
In the case OF Carroll VS. Carroll VS.
Charleston and SeaShOre Rallroad
Company, 81 S. c., it appears that only
the artidavit Of the plaintiff was sub
mitted, which recited two mistrials,
and the great influence Of the defen-
dant. the Consolidated Company.
Against that was submitted the atli-
davitS of none of the jurors and the
change Of Venue was ordered, the Court
holding that it was in the discretion
OF the 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-fOur
wears. The case was appealed and le-
ferred, and ordered to new trial.
The State moved for a change OF venue
and on single affidavit the change was
granted.
In another unreported case Judge
kershaw granted change OF venue,
in Fairfield County, on the atlidavlts
of three citizens.
In the case of Crawford. in this
county. the change was granted TO
kershaw County because OF prejudice
caused by the newspapers.
Public feeling has been 50 much en-
cited here now that people are actu-
ally afraid to make atfidavits on ac-
count of losing their position in vari-
Gus large corporations. In the Craw-
ford case, although there were only
ten atfdavitS submitted for the de-
| fence. Judge Watts granted the
change Notwithstanding the fact that
seventy-eight prominent citizens OF the
county said that q fair trial could be
gotten.
Mr.. Nelson then made reference to
the alhdvait Of Mr.. L II. Weston, who
said that he was elected to the Lcgisla-
ture in 1892.
Mr.. Nelson referred to the manner
in which Judge Andrew Crawford had
read this affidavit, saying that Mr.
Weston was elected in hard times,
Mr.. Nelson wanted the Court to know
that these hard times referred TO was
tie bitter fight between the Illlman-
ties and Conservatives. Although ne
belonged to the latters side. he was not
afraid to say that such state Of lee!,
ing existed now and that no one dlo
more to cause this than the late editor
y. G. Gonzales.
Some stress was put on the affidavit
OF Judge O. w. Buchanan, in which he
referred TO conversation between
Mr.. Nelson and County Auditor W
II. GibbcS. Mr.. Gibbes had alWays
been a close personal friend to Mr.
Gonzales and he did not blame him fol
his bitter feeling towards Mr.. Tillman
Your Honor will also take judicia
cogniZance of the Act OF 1902 at, passe
1850, where the duty is devolyed upoH
the county treasurer. the county aud
tor and clerk OF Court OF Common
!. Pleas and General Sessions Of selecting
and drawing jurors in the Circui'
! Courts of the State. Mr.. "ibbcs be
ing county auditor this duty desolvet
upon him. :,
S. c.. 400: The Judge on being con
WINGED that q fair trial could not u
had by reason Of the interestedness o
one of the officers who drew the jury