The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1903-04-15


torney for defendant the said defend
ant cannot go safely to trial without
the testimony of Capt. White. That
due diligence has been used to procure
the attendance of the said witness, as
deponent is informed and believes that
the warrant for his arrest was lodged
with the sheriff of Richland County by
Il. Nelson, Esq, also one of the at
torneyS for the defendant. on the 2lSt
day of March, 1903. That Miss Mary
Julia Roper is also a material witness
for the defence, and is also absent
That deponeut is informed and be
lieveS that a warrant for the arrest of
the said witness was lodged with the
sheriff Of Richland County ON the 2nd
day of April, 1903, which said warrant
was sent by the said sheriff of Rich
land County to the sheriff of Spartan
burg County, Miss Roper being resi-
dent of city of Spartanburg, and the
said warrant was returned on the 4th
day of April, 1903, endorsed n. +. /.
That deponcnt has been informed that
Miss Roper is temporarily i'm the city
OF New York, and has received aSSur-
anceS that she VIII return to the State, B,
and be present 10 testify at the next
term of this Court. That due diligence
has been used to procure the attend
ance OF this witness, and i'm dcpOnent' 5
opinion his client cannot safely go To
trial i'm 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, 1903.
Il. II. Nelson,
Notary Public for South Carolina.
THE STATE OBJECTS.
Solicitor ThurmOnd promptly arose
and said: The rule of Court pre-
ScribcS how cOntinuanccS will be
secured and we submit these atlidavitS
do not come up to the rule of Court.
If the rule is complied with it may be
the State will he in position to enable
the defendant to proceed to trial any
way at this term of Court. We ask
that the rule of Court bc complied
with"
Col. Andrew Crawford, OF counsel
for the State, added: 1t seems to
me, under the rule aS last amended,
that even where the rule is complied
with, the essential feature of which is
to set forth all the facts, then the atli-
daviU 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 lie
made II 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-
fective.
Il submit we are entitled to have
this case go on, first. because there is
not compliance win the rule Of
II the compliance is made. we can
admit that, If the witnesses were
placed upon the stand, they would
swear TO the things and matters set
forth in the affidavit, and then the
case will proceed"
STILL ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. p. III. Nelson said: I'VE
thought our friends were SO thorough
ly advised of what these witnesses
testify to in the main, (their atlidavitS
having been used and copies having
been furnished some time ago. we
ala not think it necessary 10 embody
in a separate affidavit what we expect
them TO testify ON the trial. Antici-
pating that point might he made we
have prepared this atlidavit from Mr..
Croft:
"State of South Carolina, county of
Richland. George w. Croft. being
duly sworn, says: That in addition to
the affidavit of Miss Mary Julia Roper.
deponent is informed and he believes
tnat she, If present, would testify to
the matters therein stated, and de-
poncnt is informed that she would
TESTIFY to threats and matters more
pointed even than those therein set
forth.
That owing to absence and distance
from the city of Columbia none of the
attorneys for the defendant have ever
had an opportunity of seeing or talk
ing with her, and therefore deponent
cannot give in detail the threats and
U iler matters about which they are in
formed she would testify.
That j. III. White, if present. would
testify to what is contained in the atii-
daVlt OF X. III. HolZenback. referring
10 the conversation between him and
\. &. Gonzales, and that he communi-
Gated the same to the defendant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this sth day of April, 1903.
&c. w. Croft.
~ II. Nelson, Notary Public for
South Carolina.
THE RULE OF COURT
The rule OF court involving cont inu-
ances in such cases was read TO the
Court as follows:
Motions for Continuance: No mo-
tlon for the pOStponcmcnt of trial be-
yond the term, either i'm Common
Pleas or General Sessions, shall be
granted ON account of the witness,
without the oath of the party, his
counsel, or either. to the following eff
feet, 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 go safely TO trial without such
testimony; that he has made use OF
diligence TO procure the testimony of
the witness, or OF such other circum-
stances as will satisfy the Court that
his motion is not intended for delay.
In all such cases where Il writ of sub
pOcna has been issued the original
shall he produced, with proof of SER
vice, or the reason why not served. en-
dorScd thereon or attached thereto. or
If lost, the same proof shall be offered.
wit In addit iOnaI DrOOf pf he loss of I he