Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1903-07-22
CIRCUIT COURT.

When THE ENQUIRER went to press
last Friday afternoon the lawyers were
|. addressing the jury in the case OF VIM.
| A. Harper indicted for the murder OF
Arthur A. Dillinger. The arguments
were concluded during the afternoon
and after hearing the charge OF the
court, the jury retired with the papers
and returned in q short time with
verdict of not guilty.
/ After the Harper case had been dis
posed Of Judge Klugh called upon
James McI,ester, convicted OF man
slaughter in the killing Of Jack Fos-
kett, to stand up. His honor took oc-
casion to make few remarks to NC
Lester, and among other things said that
1t was difficult to see how the jury had
arrived at a verdict Of manslaughter
ira the case. He seemed to be Of the opin-
ion that the verdict should have been
murder. However, he saw proper TO
impose a sentence of only five years at
hard labor in the state penitentiary or
on the public works Of York county.
The next case taken up was that OF
James Hammond, indicted for assault
and battery Of high and aggravated
nature. The prosecuting witness was
Superintendent Buchanan Of the Ar
cade MILL at Rock Hill, and the ofrense
was committed about two years ago.
According to the testimony Of the pros
HIyhn rQ0antlV
been discharged from the service or
the mill, was in the building where ne
had no business talking to busy opera
tiyes. Superintendent Buchanan or
dered him out and he refused to 60.
Buchanan tried to put him out ana
drawing a pistol he snapped 1t at
Ruchanan's breast. Then with Buch-
anan still covered, he walked out or
the building. The defendant claimed
that he did not snap the pistol. The
Jury found verdict of guilty Of as
sault and battery Of high and aggra-
waited nature, and the court imposed a
sentence of $50 fine or three months
lin the penitentiary or on the public
works. The fine was paid.
Major Hart and Congressman Fin
ley, counsel for E. P. H. Nevins asked
for a new trial because Of certain
language that had been used by the
solicitor in his speech to the jury, and
" hich language they maintained was
prejudicial to the cause Of the defen-
&c
in effect that the solicitor had referred
to the defendant as a son n-of-a-bitch"
at least by construction. The solicitor
had used such an epithet In his argu-
nent: but he apologized to the court
for it next morning and explained that
he had not used it in a personal sense.
He explained that he had used the ex-
preston inadvertently. and was quite
sorry for having made such an un-
warranted break. The court held that
in his opinion the solicitors language
had no effect on the verdict Of the
jury: he also called attention to the
fact that the language had occurred
in the testimony and for various rea-
sons that he outlined he denied the
motion. He sentenced Nivens to pay
Il fine of $50 or to serve three months
on the public works or in the state
penitentiary. Then he signed an order
allowing the prisoner a suspension Of
sentence for twenty days in order to
give him time in which to get up the
money. Nivens was allowed to go at
liberty without bond in the meantime.
The case Of the State against Ham,
nlond being the last criminal case, so