Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1905-09-13
TRIAL OF THE GARUTHERS.
Peculiar Termination of their Trial for Fe-
IoniouS Assault.

the Caruthers there seems to have
been two indictments. one for con-
spiracy and one for felonious as
sault. The trial for assault came
first. and the evidence was strong
against the young men that the
jury had little trouble in agreeing
upon their guilt. After they had
pronounced the men guilty and
it was up to the judge to pro-
nounce the sentence, the attorneys
for the defense demurred to the
pronouncement of sentence on the
ground of the qualifying phrase
"feloniously" being omitted from
the Indictment, which is specifi-
cally required in such documents,
and that this omission rendered it
of non effect. The prosecution,
it appears. acknowledged that it
was not in the original draft, but
that it had been interlined, and
that the clerk in reading it had
used the word ''feloniously.'
The matter was therefore left
in such shape that the force of the
Indictment depended upon the
court, which, of course, wes not
permissible. To settle the matter
in dispute, the bill Of Indictment
was called for; but the document
was pot to be found. and close
search failed to reveal it. Was it
non est? Not unless it had been
destroyed. But non comeatab'e
it surely was, so far as the prose-
cution was concerned, and the
whole matter went up Ill the air.
Justice was baked and the dignity
of the commonwealth was trailed
in the dust. And by what? A
piece Of legerdemain2 Possibly.
for tricks of this kind, while rare,
are not altogether unknown to the
legal profession; and that they
have been resorted to III desperate
Gees is matter of record. It is
possible. however, that the decu-
ment Aay have been laid dowN
loose somvhere and were carried
away to pars unknown by some
favorable wlnd--favorable tc. the
defense.
The attorney for the defense
asked that the charge of conspira-
cy be included in the other and
greater charge Of assault, to make
the punishment for the minor Of
Tense depend upon the punishment
for the other. This the Judge re-
fused emphatically. Had he con-
sented, it would have resulted in
a mistrial on both counts and the
prisoners would have been let out
on bail until the next term of the
court.
Under the circumstances, the
court did the only thing that re-
manned to be done-ordered new
trial at some future date.
The case Of conspiracy was then
taken up. This case developed out
OF the assault case, the evidence
indicating planned assault. This
trial resulted in conviction, and
the sentence imposed two years
imprisonment for the three pris-
oners before the bar.
Pending their Incarceration the
defendant attorneys will no doubt
ransack heaven and earth to find
means to prevent their clients be-
Ing put Oh trial the second time
tor the same offense, Such is law
and the practice thereof.
Inc most important questions
III tnls affair, to our mind, are:
LIS the abstraction Of an i indiAt-
ment punishable ofense? IF So
Will the State probe the matter I'd
Il nnd out >. whether there is guilt id
'ne affair, or whether it was
Nhlm OF the wind or some Other
prank Of nature? In other words
1re =, III .awyers' wy as Caesar said his wife
must be- above saspicion? " Il