The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1903-04-15

will ask Mr.. Nelson, who IL associated
with me, to read these afildavits.
Mr.. Nelson read the following af
fidavIts: =,
The first affidavit was Ia connection
with Capt. White, which read:
Edgefield, s. G., April ., l903.-This
il to certify that j. a. White Is suffer
Inc from diybetes, q a serious type
also suffering from partial paralysi,
and incontinence of urine, and con
fined 10 his room and under treat
ment. Butter q tatteIson.
sworn to before me April 7, 1908.
J. d. Allen. J. p, E. Z.
After this affidavit had been read
Mr.. Nelson read this endorsement on
the subpoena for Miss Roper, the
other witness In the case, who was
wanted:
I hereby certify that I have made
dilligent search for Miss Julia Ropel
and cannot find her In this county
Am Informed that she Is In German
Memorial Hospital, New York city
N. Y.
John E. Werner. Sheriff: j.. c.
April 2, 1903.
state of South Carolina, County o1
RichIand: Before me personally ap.
pcared George w. Croft. who. being
duly sworn, says: That he Is one oi
the attorneys for the defendant above
named. That Capt. J. A. White, q
witness for the defence In the above
entitled case, is, "a appears by the al
fidavit of Blu tier & Patterson, physi-
clans of the town of Edgefield, In the
State aforesaid, confined to his room
ON account OF serious illness aud Will
not be able to attend at the present
term OF this Court. That the testi.
mony Of the said witness Is material
TO the defence and the defendant can
not 90 to the trial In his absence.
That this motion Is not intended for
delay, but il made solely because In
the opinion of deponent as attorney
for defendant the said defendant can
not 90 safely to the trial without the
testimony Of Capt. White. That due
diligence hss been used to procure
the aftendanceNof the said witness as
depouent is informed aud believes,
that the warrant for the arrest was
lodged with the sheriff Of Richland
County by p. 81. Nelson, Esq, also
one Of the attorneys for the defend
ant, on the 2lst day Of March. 1908.
That Miss Mary Julia Roper is also
material witness for the defence,
and Ii also absent. That deponent is
informed and believes that . warrant
for the arrest OF the said witness was
lodged With the sheriff Of Richland
County on the End day Of April, l9oS,
which said warrant was sent by the
aid sheriff OF Richland County to
the sheriff Of Spartanburg County,
Miss Roper being o resident Of the
city Of Spartanburg, and the said
warrant was returned on the 4th day
Of April, 1908, endorsed N. E. l.
That deponent has been informed
that Miss Roper IL temporarily In the
city OF New York. and has received
assurances that she will return to the
State, and will be present to testify
at the next term Of this Court. That
due diligence has been used to pro.
cure the attendance Of this witness,
and in deponent's opinion his client
cannot safely 60 to trial in her absence
and this motion is not made for de
lay, but solely for the reason above
stated. G. w. Croft
Sworn to and subscribed before mt
this sth day Of April, 1903.
P. H. Nelson.
Notary Public for South Carolina.
SOLICITOR THURMoND
promptly arose and said: The rule
Of Court pre- cribes how continuances
will be secured, and we submit these
affidavits do not come up to the ruls
OF Court. II the rule Is compiled
With 1t may be the State will be In {
position to enable the defendant 4
proceed to trial any way at this tern
Of Court. We ask first that the rul,
Of Court IL complied with"
COL. ANDREW CRAWFORD,
of counsel for the State, added: II
seems to me, under the rule as las
amended, that even where the rule Il
complied with, the essential feature o.
which is to set forth all the facts, ther
the affidavit is submitted to counse
on the other side, and II counse
agrees to accept the statement
that would be made IL the witnesse
were present, then the case will 60 on
"Now, In this particular instsnc,
our friends have failed to max,
known to US what facts they propos
to prove by these two witnesses. Ii
that particular their showing is ND
solutly defective.
~ submit we are entitled to hav
this case 60 on, first, because there ]
not q compliance with the rule o
Court In any particular, and secondly
| II the compliance Is made, we can I'D
NIT that, II the witnesses were place'
upon the stand, they would swear &
the things aud matters set forth II
the affidavit, and then the case vii
proceed"
| MR.. r. II. NELSON
said I'VE thought our friends wer
% thoroughly advised Of what thes
witnesses would testify to In the maiI
(tneir affidavits having been used an
copies having been furnished som
time ago. we did not think it nece.
sary to embody In q separate afiidav
what We expect chem to testify on th
trial.
Participating that point might b
made we have prepared this aifldav
from Mr.. Croft:
Estate of South Carolina, county G
Richland. Geoege w. Croft, beiu
duly sworn, says: "That in additio
to the affidavit of Miss Mary Julia RI
per, depone nent II informed and he bs
lieves that she, II present, would te
u tify to the matters therein stated, All
deponent is Informed that she woul
testify to threats and matters mol
Il aainfad auan ihan ihosa lheeain q.