The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1903-02-06
STEALING FROM THE F1AIDs.
All srich Cases Turned osett IS tlls
Magistrates. 81 81 y,

n On Thursday Senator Douglass bii
to make stealing from the field q mat
ter for Magistrates Courts was taker
up in! the House. Mr.. Lyles explained
that the chief purpose was to save
farmers trouble in going tD Court fol
such small thefts aud the Magistrates
Courts could easily dispose of sucl
matters. =
Mr.. Laney explained that these
cases went before the magistrates I'M
til 1894 and it vas by II mere over.
sight that such cases were taken out
OF the Jurisdiction of magistrates.
Mr.. Tatum and Mr.. Dennis urged
that tho negro thief who stole from
the field was not afraid of the Magis.
trates' Courts and Il thirty-day sent
cncc, but they were afraid OF waiting
in Jail until Court met and ithen re.
ceiving q long sentence.
| Mr.. Moss, OF Orangeburg, said the
farmers were willing to go TO Court tc
see that severe punishment was in.
f1icted on those who stole from the
field. The Magistrates Court is not
sufficient protection.
| A'Ah' AAOt octi tttNt A'lt. LIZ tlC ODDUSEU
the bill and wanted tic law left ,lll.
changed.
Mr.. Sarratt, of Cherokecii e made !;
clear argument in favor OF the bill.
Mr.. Forde said he was Il farmer, but
he wanted less trouble in getting after
the thieves from the tieSlo, $40 favor
ed the bill. ~, i''-'>
Mr.. Wingo favored the ;5ill as a
matter Of economy.
Mr.. Penrifoy urged that tic produc-
ers wanted tile bill. What was want
| ed was quick punishment. The bill
was on the right line and ought tc
pass.
Mr.. Banks, of Newberry, favored
the bill. He had live bushels Of corn
stolen from his field, but did not
bother to take the thief to Court, but
If the magistrate could have disposed
of the case he would have prosecuted
the fellow.
Mr.. jeremiah Smith opposed the
bill because it reduced the punish
mcnt. His people wanted the protcc-
tion Of high punishment.
DR.. Black said the present law was
good one and itwaS unwise to tinker
with good law.
Mr.. Pollock moved to indefinitely
postpone the bill.
After an hours discussion the House
reached vote. Mr.. Tatuln asked for
the yeas and nays, which resulted, by
49 to 80 in refusal to kill the bill
Mr.. ID. 0. Herbert urged that it
would be n great mistake to pass this
bill. 1t would be unwiSc to make any
changes in the present law. Tic
heavier the punishment the greater
the avoidance OF the crime. The bill
seeks to reduce the penalty from a
maximum Of five years to thirty days,
| the magistrates jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction Of the magistrates cannot
| be increased without Il constitutional
amendment. His people thought a
severe punishment would deter the
committing OF the crime. This change
is lnwisc and unsafe.
There was another call for the yea
and nay vote, and again by Il vote OF
4S to IS the House refused to Strike
out the cnacting words or the bill.
| The bill was amended So rs to make
the punishment not less than The cX.
tremc limit. The idea was TO impose
the full thirty days or one hundred
dollars tinc, and give nj discretion tc
the Magistrates CourMN reduce the
fine to less than th1Es .Ximum OF
thirty days or one 4 ed dollars
fine.
The bill was, after e than al
hours consideration; I'd. to its
third reading. It5r' at cases
of theft:from tJS 'Stried
sfS ,,-t t-sa- - N,.. =.
Court Of Gcrerar, ~: en5htH mn:
the bill as adopted .,Shment is
to be fixed at thirty days Tor one hun
Crpd dollars i,Ftl Ss5stl