Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1903-04-18

he was released. The next day he was
arrested again and had in his possess
sion certain goc Is that were Identified
as having been taken from the store.
He claimed to have found these goods
under an overhead bridge In Char
lotte. His testimony under the cross
examination Of the solicitor raised a
strong presumption Of guilt; but the
real evidence in the case was hardly
suficient to warrant a conviction, and
the jury returned verdict OF not
guilty.
Alice Jenkins, charged with violation
of the dispensary law, was acquitted.
| Geo. Washington, colored, was pre-
sented on the charge Of assault and
battery with intent to kill, and after
the jury had been drawn the defendant
remarked to the clerk that he was In
an Embarrassing position" that he
wanted to plead guilty. He was ac-
commodated and further proceedings
were obviated.
John Childs, charged with resisting
an officer, assault and battery with h,ns IN,
tent to kill and carrying concealed
weapons. Plead guilty Of carrying
concealed weapons.
| Jake Moore, tried on the charge OF
murder, was acquitted.
Johnson Gregory plead guilty OF vio-
lation Of the dispensary law Sem
fenced to six months or 500. Paid the
fine.
Mag McCreery, charged with mur-
der, was convicted Of manslaughter.
| John Childs plead guilty Of. the
charge of assault and battery with in
tent to kill.
Lumius Currence was tried on the
charge of murder. Currence killed an
other Negro named Andy Adams, in
Bethel township on December 20 last.
The testimony was to the effect that
Currence had given party and Adams
was an unlimited guest. There had
been a previous trouble between the
two Negroes. Adams made himself
very disagreeable and intolerable. He
showed that he wanted to fight and
that nothing. else would satisfy him.
Currence was also quite willing for
trouble, which was not long In COM
ing. The defendant claimed that he
did not shoot until his life was in i'm
inent danger; but on this part the
evidence was not altogether clear.
The defendant was convicted Of man
slaughter.
The case Of Cally Collins, charged
with the murder of ]. c. Sparks, on the
second day Of December, last, was TAX
en- up on Wednesday afternoon at
/
the grandfather of the defendant, and
was on a visit to the home Of Mrs.
Collins his daughter. Cally is only
about 16 years of age. He had been
running with bad company, and had
learned to smoke cigarettes and carry
a pistol. On the morning Of the kill
ing, he had made some request Of his
father, and on the request being denied
because 1t was not considered best for
him that it be granted, he became
petulant and sulky. At the dining ta-
BILE, Mr.. Sparks, the grandfather, re-
ferred to the mother, and said to CAL
lly's father something to the effect
that II Cally were his boy he. would
know what to do. Cally did not take
kindly to the old gentlen1an's sugges-
tion and asked him what he would do.
would just give you good dressing
down." Mr.. Sparks replied. Eyes, but
maybe I would not let you," Cally re-
piled, exhibiting a revolver that he was
carrying in an inside breast pocket Of
his coat. Just how 1t happened is not
clear. A shot was fired about that
time. The defense claimed that the
revolver fell out of Cally's pocket and
was discharged by the hammer strik-
ing the door. Anyhow the bullet
struck Mr.. Sparks in the small Of the
i
the back Of the neck Mr.. Sparks died
next day. The jury after carefully
considering all the facts, returned a
verdict Of mot guilty"
Nearly all of Thursday and the
greater part Of yesterday morning was
taken up in the trial Of Samuel Nc
Craven for the killing Of Thomas G.
Douglas in Fort Mill on the 30th day
Of November last. The killing was ad-
mitted; but was held by the ,defen-
dant to be in defense of his home and
to preserve his own life. The state
held that the deed was done with mall
BILE provocation.
According to McCraven's story,
which was fairly we'll backed up by
the witnesses for the defense, Doug
lass had come in between his sister,
Mrs. Anthony and her husband, caused
a separation and was living in adul-
1 terry. Douglass and Mrs. Anthony were
at Charlotte. The defendant rented a
cottage at Fort Mill and brought his
mother and sister there. He procured
work for his sister in the MILL Their
home was hundred yards from his.
He went to see them every day or two
to provide for their wants. One Sun
day In November he went over as usu-
al, and found Douglas there. He had
came down from Charlotte. that morn
ing, bringing his little daughter. He
ordered Douglas out Of the house and
Douglass attacked him with a chair.
He defended himself with a stick.
Douglas knocked him to his knees. A
revolver that he had been using as
night watchman, fell out of his pock-
ct. to the floor. Both men grabbed for
1t. Douglass caught hold Of the bar
rel and McCraven by the handle. In
the struggle the weapon was discharg-
ed and Douglas was killed. McCraven
claimed to have previously forbidden
Douglas to come to the house.
| The testimony of the witnesses for
| the state was to the effect that Mrs.
Anthony had been serving Douglas as
housekeeper and cook and taking care
Of his little daughter. Within fifteen
minutes after Douglas reached Fort
Mill that morning, he was at the cot
tage occupied by Mrs. McCraven and
Mrs. Anthony, and few minutes la
ter McCraven came on the scene. He
rushed into the house and shot Doug
las, practically on sight. There was
no previous alteration Of any kind at
the time and no struggle; therefore no
element Of self-defense in the tragedy.
| There were no eye-witnesses to the
shooting except Mrs. McCraven, Nc
Craven himself and Mrs. Anthony.
The state relied principally on testi-
mony showing the time Of the arrival
Of McCraven at the house, with refer
ence to the shooting for substantial
ton Of it's theory. All the witnesses
for the state were certain that there
could have been no struggle.
In their argument to the jury, Major
JAS +. and Mr.. John R. Hart, counsel
for the defense, plead self-defense, the
higher law" and accident. They
claimed that the defendant did not
really intend to commit homicide; but
he was justified in having done so, not
wthstanding that his act was probably
accidental.