The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1903-07-01

with the case. The defence must show
beyond doubt that Il fair trial can
not be had. Must it be shown 10y the
number of ALI iavitS? Theu we have
them. by the intelligence of the aili-
ants? Then we have them BY their
representative character; by the varied
occupations? If 50, then the prescott
tion has them.
They want to show that by few
newspaper clippings that a fair trial
cannot be had. All of the preachers of
| Columbia have given aiiidavitS show
ing that Tillman can get an impartial
showing. The defence wants to con-
tradict their statement by showing
that on the Sunday after the shooting
prayers were offered to spare the life
of this useful citizen.
Mr.. Crawford then read the names Of
some twenty physicians Of the county,
who mingle with the masses more than
any other class of citizens, all of whom
say, without an exception, that the ac-
cuScd can get fair trial here. To
show that the prosecution had obtain
ed the opinion of all classes OF Gil iZenS
in the county, Mr.. Crawford went over
the names of the lawyers, doctors,
county officers, druggists, city officials,
county delegation TO the Legislature
cankcrS, railroad men, about one hun
dred and fifty merchants, and the
| farmers, who Swore that fair trial
could he had. There are only 300
qualified jurors. Both sides are limit
ed in the same way i'm the drawing of
the jury. The other side present 33l
alidavitS and we have 42l; this makes
| I12 OF the citizens whom Tillman
would not have To fear: 35l who have
made aIlidavitS for the defence are not
prcjudiced against him and the I2l
| who have stated specifically that Il fair
trial can be had.
The 900 remaining can be put on their
voir dire and | am sure that an i'm
partial jury can be gotten. The rule
OF the Court is that you cannot decide
sworn in until they are brought up and
put on their voir dire. We challenge
the atlidavtS of Mr.. w. II. Martin and
Others, i'll which they state that the
newspapers have published articles
which were calculated to prejudice the
minds of the people and To hold the de-
fcndant under public cenSure Mr.
Crawford went. .on tOSay that the news
papers published here, and especially
the State, had been especially temper
ate and mild i'm their reference to this
case.
Mr.. Crawford spoke for about one
hour and half and closed with a
strong plea that the change o. venue
should not be granted.
COL. l.. II. NELSON'S ARGUMENT.
Col. II. II. Nelson then spoke i'm sup
port OF the demand for change of
venue. Col. Nelson spoke i'm most
eloquent manner for one hour, going
over the legal phrases which are in
volved In the case. lie began by say
frs tis.se y ~ 1 ~. ea
State fair and impartial trial was
guaranteed 10 every man, and he pro-
posed to show that fair trial could
not be gotten here
We do not rely on the affidavit of
the defendant, but on $40 anidavits of
citizens OF Richland County. rhe
statutes OF South Carolina. in Section
=, 40, allows change of Venuc on the
following grounds:
The Circuit Court shall have the
| power To change the venue i'm all cases
civil and criminal, pending therein,
and over which said Courts have erigi-
nal jurisdiction, 10y ordering the re-
cord to be removed TO another county
IN the same circuit. The application
Tor removal must be made to the Judge
interested, or by the solicitor of the cir
cult, or accused, supported by aiiidavit
that Il fair and impartial trial cannot
! be had III the county where such ac-
ton or prosecution was commenced
The State shall have the same right
TO make application for change of
venue that defendant has in cases of
murder, arson, rape, burglary, perjury
forgery or grand larceny: Provided, :,
no change of venue shall he granted
in such cases until true bill has been
found by grand jury. Ten days notice
of such application in civil and crimi-
nal cases shall be given to the adverse
party, and II a change is ordered it
shall be to a county in the same judi
cial circuit"
In State VS. Coleman 8 :. c., 23s il is
held that a motion for Il change of
venue addresses itself to the discretion
OF the presiding Judge. The change
OF venue was granted by the Circuit
Judge, the Supreme Court saving
while here upon very general ailidav-
It's as 10 the imprObability O. fair
and impartial trial in the county in
which the bill was found, the Judge
expressed his willingness to transfer
case TO another county in the circuit
except PickenS, where there would be
no term of Court"
In the case of Carroll VS. Carroll vs.
Charleston and ScaShorc Railroad
Company, I'll 5. c., it appears that only
the affidavit of the plaintiiI was sub
mittcd, which rccitcd two mistrials.
and the great influence of the defcn-
dant, the Consolidated COMPANY.
Against that was submitted the atli-
daVltS OF none of the jurors and the
change OF venue was ordered, the Court
holding that il was in the discretion
of the trial Judge to order the change
on the former trial.
In the case Of the State VS. Jones the
defendant was convicted of manslaugh-
ter and sentenced to twenty-four
years. The case was appealed and Ie-
fcrrcd, and ordered to new trial.
The State moved for a change OF venue
and on single anidavit the change was
granted.
In another unreportcd case Judge
kcrShaw granted change of venue,
in Fairfield County, ON the anidavits
of three citizens.
I'm the case of Crawford. i'm this
county. the change was granted to
kcrshaw County because of prejudice
caused by the newspapers.
Public feeling has been so much cX-
cited here now that people are actu-
ally afraid to make andavits on ac-