The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1903-04-17

|
said warrant was returned on the 18th
day OF April, 1903, endorsed n. T.. l..
That dcponcnt has been informed that
Miss Roper is temporarily in the city
OF New York, and has received assur-
;tnccS that she will return to the State,
and be present to testify ut the next
term Of this Court. That due diligence
ancc OF this witness, and In depOnent'S S
opinion his client cannot safely go to
trial in her absence, and this motion is
not made for delay, but solely for the
reason above stated. G.. w. Croft.
| Sworn to and subscribed before me
this:Sth day Of April, 1908.
p. II. Nelson,
Notary Public for South Carolina.
THE STATE OBJECTS.
Solicitor ThurmOnd promptly arose
and said: The rule Of Court pre-
scrlbeS how cOntnrlances will bc
secured and we submit these aildavits
do not come UP TO the rule of Court.
If the rule is complied with it may be
the State will he in Il position to enable
the defendant to proceed to trial any
way at this term Of Court We ask
that the rule OF Court be complied
with"
| IT. wi. NthllCM SluNlOlu, vi COllIlSCl
for the State added: st seems to
me, under the rule us last amended,
that even where the rule is complied
with, the essential feature Of which is
to set forth all the facts, then the ALI
daviJ is submitted to counsel on the
other side, and if counsel agrees to ac-
ccpt the statements contained in these
ailidavits as statements that would Lc
made if the witnesses were present,
then the case will 20 on.
Now, in this particular instance
our friends have failed to make known
to us what facts they propose to prove
by these two witnesses In that par
ticular their showing is absolutely de-
fcctivc.
~ submit we arc entitled TO have
this case 20 on, first, because there is
not Il compliance with the rule OF
Court in any particular. and secondly,
il the compliance is made we can
admit that, ii the witnesses were
placed upon The stand, they would
swear 10 the things and matters set
forth i'll the affidavit, and then the
case will proceed"
STILL ANOTHER AFFIDAyIT
N1l. j = IL. NclSOLl Sillu. W.
Thought our friends were SIS thorough
ly advised of what these witnesses
testify to in the main, (thcir anidavits
having been used and copies having
bcen furnished some time ago. we
did not think it necessary to cmbody
in 4 separate ai1idavit what we expect
!. them to testify on the trial. Antici-
pating that point might be made we
have prepared this affidavit from MIR.
Croft:
State of South Carolina, county Of
Richland. George w. Croft, being
duly sworn, says: That in addition to
deponcnt is informed and he believes
that She, if present, would testify to
the matters therein stated, and dc.
J poncnt is informed that she would
testify to threats and matters more
pointed even than those therein set
forth.
That owing toabscncc and distance
from the city Of Columbia none of the
attorneys for the defendant have cvcl
had an opportunity of seeing or talk
ing with her, and therefore deponcnt
cannot give i'll detail the threats and
formed she would testify
That }. II. White, if present, would
testify TO what is contained in the alli-
davit OF Il. III. IIOlZcnback, referring
Il 70 The conversation between him and
\. G.. Gonzales, and that he communi-
Gated the same TO tho defendant.
Sworn TO and subscribed before me
this Sth day Of April, 1903.
&c. w. Croft.
~. II. Nelson, Notary Public for
South Carolina.
1 TIL; RULE OF COURT
4 The rule of court involving contnl-
ances in such cases was read to the
Court rs follows:
/ Motions for Continuance: No mo
tion for The postponcmcnt Of trial be-
yond the term, either in Common
Pleas or General Sessions, shall be
granted on account OF The witness,
without the oath Of the party, his
lect, to wit: That the testimony Of
The witness is material to support the
action or defence OF the party moving:
that the motion is not intended for
delay, but is made solely because he
cannot 30 safely TO trial without such
testimony; that he has made use of
diligence to procure the testimony OF
The witness, or Of such other circilm-
stances as will satisfy the Court that
IlIo iiioNIOii IL IlOJ llllcIlucu IQf Qclay.
In all such cases where Il writ Of sub
pocna has been issued the original
shall be produced, with proof Of ser.
vice, or the reason why not served en-
dorscd thereon or attached thereto, or
II lost, the same proof shall be offered,
with additional proof OF the loss OF the
original subpoena. y party applying
lor such poStpOncmcnL on account Of
the absence OF 4 witness Shall set forth
under oath, in addition O The forcgo-
| ing matters, what fact or facts he be-
licves the witness would testify to and
the grounds OF such belief.
THE LAWYERS SPAR.
Counsel contcndcd over the matter
for some time
Mr.. Thlrmond and Col. Crawford
contcnded that the defence had utter
ly failed to comply with the rule in
any particular and that IL had not
been shown what the witnesses, would
have testified to had they been pres
cnt.
The defence said among other
things that none Of counsel had ever
yet seen Miss Roper and that they did
not know exactly what she would
testify to: that she had written Il let
| ter to members of Mr. rIillmop-c fam;