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

ABBEVILLE, s.
"P. H. Nelson, Notary Public fo
South Carolina.
THE RULE OF COURT.
Involving continuances in such case
was read to the Court rs follows:
| Rule 27-MotiOns for Continuance
No motion for the postponment OF
trial beyond the term, either In Com.
mon Pleas or General Sessions, shal
be granted on account Of the witness
without the oath of the party, hit
counsel. or either, to the following ef
feet, to wit: That the testimony o.
the witness Ia material to support the
action or defence of the party moving
that the motion Is not intended for de-
lay, but Is made solely because he can
nat 60 safely to trial without such tes
tinony; that he has made use Of dill
igence to procure the testimony OF The
witness, or of such other circumsta nc
es as will satisfy the Court that his
motion In not Intended Cor delay In
all such cases were q writ Of subpoena
has been issued the original shall be
produced, with proof Of service, or the
reason why not served, endorsed
thereon or attached thereto. or II lost
the same proof shall be offered, with
additional proof Of the loss Of the
original Subpoena.
A party applying for such po stpone'
ment on account Of the absence OF q
witness shall set forth under oath, In
addition to the foregoing matters,
what fact or facts he believer the wit
ness would testify to and the grounds
Of such belief.
Counsel contended over TIE matter
for some time.
Mr.. Thurmond aud Col. Crawford
contended that the defence had utterly
failed to comply with the rule In any
particular and that 1t had not been
shown what the witnes &es would have
testified to had they been present.
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 letter to members OF
Mr.. Tillman's family, In which she
made mention of additional threats,
and that they were not fully. advised
ss To this witness, and they further
contended that no harm could come to
the State by delay, as the defendant
was IN jail.
Col. Crawford contended that the
view expressed by the Judges at q
recent meeting was to require u com.
pliance with the rule sO as to avoid
frequent continuances, and that the
rule contem plated that the opposing
side might be fully advised Of what
was sought to be proven by absen,
witnesses, and that al of this might be
agreed to aud the case not delayed.
He went on to urge that the affida-
Wits submitted, and the motion, as
made, did not comply with the rule In
any way.
Col. Croft contended that the de-
fence had shown due diligence in Its
efforts to get the two witnesses, and
that II was an utter surprise to counsel
that Miss Roper was not in the State
and that she could not be pre.ent foE
the trial. He had information that
Miss Roper would. II present, testify
to other things than were brought out
| in the affidavit used at the hearing
for bail, and that counsel did not know
from information that she would testi.
| fy IN to other threats. He then EN-.
phasized the value Of having witness
on the stand and having the jury judge
Of the credibility Of the witness by see
ing the person on the stand.
Mr.. Crawford insisted that 1t must
at least be shown what these absent
witnesses would prove or what they
were expected to shoy.
Judge Klugh thought that this posi-
ton was correct.
Col. Nelson said he thought The
adffidavits of the witnesses In question
were familiar to the counsel ant
others, but at the instance ofthe Court
he brought the affidavits used at thu
time OF the application for bail anC
read these to the Court.
| At the time of the application Capt
White made the following affidavit M
to what evidence was to be expected o
him:
South Carolina, County Of Richland
Personally appeared J. /. White, WHIT
being duly sworn, deoOses and says
That he recalls the event and circum
stances mentioned In the statement o
r. H. Holzenback. That he Is keepe
OF one of the committee rooms OF thu
Senate Of South Carolina. That At al
times during the session OF the Senate
he Ia in the lobby of the Senate. Tha
on Tuesday or Wednesday before th'
shooting OF N. G. Gonzales occurred
he was sitting by the front door of th'
said lobby talking 10 Richard Holzen
back. that to the best Of his recOl
lection It was Tuesday. The said mar
with whom the deponent converset
was clean shaven and wore glasses
and as he turned to go off deponen
asked who he was and was informed
} by someone that 1t was n. G. Gonzales
That after the deponent's last remarl
the said Gonzales turned Oft abrupt!
land depOnent does not know whethe
Inc walked into the Senate chamber o
Into the corridor. That the depOnen
communicated to the said Lieutenan
Governor and President of the Senat
the statement either on the Afternoon
Of Tuesday or Wednesday,, he canno
2 recall which, preceding the shoOtin
: on Thursday. The deponent il
Confederate veteran. having serve
E four years In that dreadful struggle
That he was also county commissions
Of Edgefield County for "A like periot
and that he Is an uncle by marriage c
Solicitor Thurmond and Of the Hor
w. A. Strom, late member of tn
: House of Representatives from Edge
D field County. }. a. White.
Sworn to and subscribed before m