The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-10-07
TIE FIRST MOVE.

Attorney Graham, as soon as the
Judge entered, rose with copy of
The State in hand and said. Il think
it my duty to call to the courts atten-
tion an article entitled 'Jugglery
With the Courts. Il object" inter
polated the solicitor. We are here for
the trial of this case and such matter
is not proper nor relevant to it."
Judge Gary said: My impression is
that Mr.. Graham desires to make d
statement in behalf of the Lexington
bar, and as such think it proper TO
hear him."
Mr. Asbill of the States counsel ad-
dress the court and said; Il consider
myself member of the Lexington bar
and I have heard nothing OF a state
ment on the part OF the bar y
Judge Gary-1t would not be proper
to hear the statement unless 1t comes
from-she whole bar. so rule.
Mr.. Sharpe remarked that it came
''from the majority of the Lexington
bar"
SWEARING THE JURY.
Nearly if not all the jurymen were
placed on their voir dires, and, with
out exception, they swore that they
had expressed no opinions and were
conscious Ct &c bias sor CT against the
prisoner, an attitude remarked by
some as singular in its unanimity, con
sldering the wide publicity the case
has received. After Parnell had an
swered the usual questions the solicitor
inquired if he had registration GER
tifcate. He replied athrmatively. The
solicitor swore Clerk Of Court George
and introduced the county registra-
tion books and on them Parnells
name did not appear.
a lengthy>argument enSued. The
defense presented testimony that the
original registration books had been
lost or not returned when used in az
election concerning the annexation OF
a part of rhis county to Rlchlano
county.
Messrs. Croft and Johnstone argued
that the name might have been omit
ed from the books and the State hav-
ing propounded the question on the
vior dire had waved the right to ap-
peal to the books as the highest evi'
dence.
STOOD HIM ASIDE.
Judge Gary held, however, that to
be legal juror one must bea qualified
elector and directed the inquiry to
that point. He was about TO allow
Parnell 10 90 to his home y miles dis
tantari search for the certificate when
Mr.. Thurmond consented to accept
his ruling with the evidence at hand.
Fis honor ruled that taking Par
nell's positive statement in connection
with the apparent irregularity Of the
books he would admit him to be
sworn, whereupon the solicitor excused
Parnell anC so yielded one Of his five
challenges. Parnell was the second
man drawn, and after his case was dis
posed of the remaining II jurymen
were rapidly secured.
The State had exhausted its chal-
lenges when eight or nine bad been
sworn and the defense had utilized all
OF its ten before the jury box was full.
THE JURORS.
Four of the 36, \. D. FallOW, Joel II.
Geiger, T. w. Dreher and Simon Cor
ley were excused by the court for one
or another cause.
OF the jurymen selected Saylor, RiS-
niger, Leltzsey, koon, Sharpe, Shealey
and Price are farmers; Wood. Lybrand,
Corley and Jumper are cotton mill
operatives, and Hicks is carpenter.
Wood is a boss Of weave room.
The following jurors drawn were
challenged by the defense: NJ. N.
kleckly, Eugene c. Williams, Luther
J. Hook, j. Laurence Jumper, John B.
Stack, L. O. Wil.on, 6. NJ. Lewis,
Thos. J. Roof. Geo. W. Derrick.
The following were challenged by
the State: John 8. Reed, John j.
Younginer, Noah II. Taylor, Murray
Parnell andJ Eugene Lorlck.