The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-02-04
STEALING FR0M TIE FrELEs.
All Such Cases Turned Ove:: 20 inc
Magistrates.

On lnufSUdy Stlldl0t l'buHluH ullI
t. make stealing from the field L mat
ter for Magistrates Courts wa:; taken
up in tie HnuSc. Mr. Ly!eS explained
that the chief purpose was to save
farmers trouble ia going u Court fnr
such small thcitS and The Magistrates
Courts could easily dispose o: such
matters.
Mr.. Laney cXplainct; that these
cases wen! before the magistrates un-
til 1891 and it was by mere over
sight that such cases were taken out
of the Jurisdiction of magistrates.
Mr.. Iatum and Mr.. Dennis urged
that the negro thief who stole from
the field was not afraid O., the NlaglS-
trates Courts and L thirty-day sent
ence, hut they were afraid OF waiting
in iail until Court met and then re-
ceiving Il long sentence.
Mr.. Moss. OF Orangcburg, said the
farmers were willing to so to Court TO
sec that severe punishment was ln-
nicted on those who stole from The
field. The Magistrates Court is not
sufficient protection.
Mr.. Lotion and Mr.. DeNore opposed
the bill ana wanted the law left un-
changed.
Mr.. Sarratt. of Cherokee, made a
clear argument in favor Of the bill.
Mr.. F0rde said he was farmer, but
he wanted less trouble in getting after
tie thieves from the field, and favor
ed che bill.
Mr.. Wingo favored the bill as a
matter of economy.
Mr.. Peurifoy urged that tie produc-
ers wanted the bill. What was want
ed was quick punishment. The bill
was on the right line and ought to
pass.
Mr.. Banks. of Newberry. favored
the bill. He had five bushels of coru
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
ment. His people wanted the protec-
tion Of a high punishment.
DR.. Black said the present law was
a good one and it was unwiSe to tinker
with a good law.
Mr.. Pollock moved to indefinitely
postpone the bill.
After an hours discussion the House
reached vote. Mr. Tatum asked for
the yeas and nays, which resElted. by
10 to 50 in 4 refusal to kill the bill.
NJ. D. O. Herbert urged that 1t
would be a great mistake to pass this
bill. I6 would be unwise to make any
changes in the present law. The
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 constitutional
amendment: His people thought a
severe punishment would deter the
committing of the crime. This change
is unwiSe and unsafe.
There was another call for the yea
and nay vote, and again by vote of
IS to 5S the House refused to strike
out the enacting words Of the bill.
The bill was amended so as to make
the punishment not less than the ex-
treme limit. The idea was to impose
the full thirty days or one hundred
dollars fine, and give no discretion to
the Magistrates Court to reduce the
fine to less than the maximum OF
thirty days or one hundred dollars
fine.
The bill was, after more than an
hours consideration, ordered to its
third reading. 1t provides that cases
of theft from the field shall be tried
by the magistrates and not in the
Court Of General Sessions. and under
the bill as adopted the punishment is
to be fixed at thirty days or one nun
dred dollars.