Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1903-04-11
TRIAL OF JIM TILLMAN.
It Is Postponed on Account of Absence
of ALLEGED Material Witnesses.

er lieutenant governor or South caro-
lima, charged with the murder Of N. G..
Gonzales in January last, which was
called in Columbia on Wednesday, has
been postponed until the July term of
the court. The continuance was grant
ed Wednesday morning by Judge
Klugh, upon the application OF coun-
sci for the defense, who claimed that
two Of the most important witnesses
for the prisoner would not be able to
be present. The motion was strongly
opposed by the prosecution, who alleg-
ed that the defense had not submitted
to the rule Of the court.
The grounds upon which the contin-
uance was requested by the defense
were the absence Of two witnesses,
who, the defense allege, are Of great
Importance to the case. It is stated
that one Of these witnesses, Captain
A. ]. White, is expected to testify that
Mr.. Gonzales went to the state house
before the tragedy and inquired for
Mr.. Tillman, stating that he had once
made Tillman "show the white feather
and would do it again" The defense
also states that a Miss Roper. a train
ed nurse, who claims that she had
heard Gonzales bitterly denounce Till
man, could not be present for her tes-
timony today.
It was claimed by the defense in ask
ing for a continuance Of the case that
they could not go to trial in justice to
their client without these witnesses,
and especially as they understood that
Miss Roper would testify to addition
al threats, that were not known to the
defense at the time when the original
affidavit was filed upon the former ap-
plication for bail.
Affidavits were presented to the ef-
feet that Captain White, was Ill, and
was suffering from partial paralysis,
and a serious type of diabetes and that
Miss Roper was in the German Memo
rial hospital, New York, and that while
she would be here for the trial, If post
poned, that she could not be here If the
case were pressed now.
The state, by Solicitor Thurmond
and Colonel Andrew Crawford, urged
that the defense had not complied with
the rule of the court, and that there
was not a sufficient showing OH which
to ask for a continuance, and that the
case should go to trial. It was con-
tended that the defense should have
fully developed what the absent wit
nesses would have testified to, and then
the state might, to further the trial.
agree to the admission Of the evidence
Of the absent witnesses.
The defense at the instance Of Judge
Klugh, read the affidavits Of Miss Ro-
per, Captain White and Robert Hol-
zenbacker, as submitted at. the appli-
cation for bail, and the further state
ment was made that Miss Roper had
written members Of Mr.. Tillman's fam
ily Of further threats that were not
known at the time for the affidavit fol-
bail.
The state urged that a sufficient
showing had not, in it's opinion, been
made for a continuance.
After full discussion, Judge Klugh
rendered. his decision continuing the
case until next July, and in so doing
he said:
"The rule Of court like any other law
because It is law authorized by statute
has to be given a reasonable constitu-
ton. The motion as submitted to the
court probably does not technically
comply in every respect with the rule
as it provides that the facts that the
witnesses would testify to should be
incorporated in the affidavit submit
ted upon the motion. In that regard
and the facts perhaps in other regards
the motion may not comply with the
rule. but I think it complies substan-
TALLY now, the constitution Of the rule
like the constitution Of any other law
must be in accordance with common
It is true and it has come within my
observation even in criminal cases
where the facts are set forth in the af-
fidavit to which the witnesses If pres
ent would testify, the opposing side to
the motion might admit that the wit
nesses would so swear If put upon the
stand before the jury, and some agree
ment like that frequently obviates the
necessity for continuance.
But in case involving the greater
issues that can be involved in any
case that comes before court Of JUS
tice that practice is not binding UPON
the court. The whole matter indeed
is submitted to the discretion Of the
court under the terms of the rule. The
jury are the sole judges Of the facts in
the case. In order to arrive at the
facts the jury must determine the
credibility of the witnesses, and it is
not fair to jury, especially in a case
involving grave issues, to ask them to
pass upon the credibility of witness
who is not before them.
$50 that would be sufficient reason in
this case, it seems to me, to warrant
the court in granting this motion. In
addition to that counsel states. in his
affidavit, in reference to one Of these
witnesses where attendance was ex-
pected and whose absence at this time
the affidavit states, was unknown to
deponent, would testify to matters
more thoroughly that come within the
privilege of deponent.
Satisfactory reason Is given why
the additional matters to which the
testimony would be addressed are not
set forth fully, in the affidavit, to
which counsel has not had the oppor-
tunity to confer with the witnesses;
that the witnesses absence has occur
red since the affidavit To which refer