The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-04-09
'TlLLNlAIV ].
!. SECURES; ::
! !. !. DELAY ".
.Arraignment Postponed pIIl'''
to June I erm 0f5Court.
THIS #ACTION;WAS
a GREAT SURPRISE. ST:
ITO AOOulloOll lnoAOO ~ tOoOPOAiOoI
ment to Secure Witnesses.
THE PROSECUTION
OBJECTED [,: E; |. 10 g DELAY E N.''
PrisonerWasF Accompanied Into Court
By His Uncle, Senator T Tillman, Who Y
Appeared More Concerned #
Than Did Prisoner Himself
Brilliant Array ot
G ounsel.
THE PROSECUTION
OBJECTED 10 DELAY
4
f(1B3y 5AssHoein ted prcss.,

Az #COLUArBIA,g s.. c., April S.--James Fl.
tTillman, who shot and killed N. q. Gon-l
zales, the editor OF the Columbia State.
on January 18th last. was taken to the
Criminal Court here to-day for the pur-s
pose Of having him plead to the lrdlct-3
3ment returned against him last M Monday
for murder and carrying concealed and
unlawful arms, as they are termed II In
this State t5 4! i;
# Tho arraignment was not made. how
ever. and the proceedings. which It was
thought would be OF 4 a purely formal
character. turned out to be highly sensa-,
stional.s The trial Of the defendan mt had
been set for next Monday, and both sides.
had caused the report to be 4 circulated q
that they we're ready for trial. Much to-
tho surprise OF the spectators and law
.yers here, the defense to-day availed
themselves Of the; opp portunity presented
to secure a continuance, on the ground
that it had been impossible to obtain the
attendance Of Il two material wit itnesses,s
Cap stain !. and Miss Mary julia
5S lTl3 SENATOR WITH II1nd.. M
5S Tillman, the defendant, was brought
into court shortly before the proceedings
were convened. He was accompanied by
his uncle. Senator Benjamin r.. Tfllman.3
who appeared to be very much more
deeply concerned about the proceedings;
than the prisoner himself "a.
& Distinguished counsel "a ppeared on both
sides. The people We're represented by
Colonel Andrew Crawford and S olicitor
i. William Thurmond. and the defense
by Congressman George w. Croft, who
was at one time the defendants law part
ner, and Patrick n. .5s N Nelson. H 81
THE prosecuting officer opened the pro-
sceedings with a request for mn arraign-
3ment. Counsel for the defense interrupt
ed to enter aNmotlon& for n continuance
on the ground of the absence % Of two witt.
lnesses. already mentioned. They pre-
,sented amdnvits from the Witnesses,
which In n measure Indicated what they
PROSECUTION. OBJECTED. Il
The prosecution promptly announced;
that 1t was entirely, willing to III accept
these nffldnyfts, and strenuolsly objected
to any further delay in the case. .'@l' The
point was made that the efense had had
ample time to prepare for the trial and
the nfldavits were all that was necessary
In tho defendants behalf. So far MS the
witnesses in question were concerned. .3
IS The prosecution5urged that q rule had
been made recently@to prevent continu-
.ances under such circumstances as those
shown 3inG this case, but the court ruled
against them and granted n&continuance
until the June term on nnfaffldnvit OF de-
fendant's counsel stating that It had
been impossible to get the witnesses here
in time for this term. Tho solicitor for
the prosecution then urged that the de-
fendant be nrrnigned mt this term, hut
Judge Klugtt declined to nccede to this
request and the prisoner was remanded
and the case continued until tho Juno
term of court. @