The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-11-01
MRS. FANNIE BlsKIA Nor GUILTY.
THE STATES TESTIMONY TAKEN
EUT WAS ALLEGED OUT OF
COURT.
Motion for a Direction of Verdict
Granted-T;le Expression of the
Court.

From the Daily Item October p.
The trial of the case of the State VS.
Fannie S. Baskin for arson, having
by consent Of counsel been set for
today, came up for trial this morning
The defendant was arraigned ana
plead mot guilty. and the pleas hav-
iHg been entered, jury was imme-
d;ately impanelled, consisting Of the
following gentlemen:
]. B. Player, W. E. Kolb, S. 3.
Newman, j. X. Newman, 7. a. Tnis-
pen. 6. E. Cox, J. X Minis, j. j.
Team, W. O. Bradford, F. C. Manning.
W. G. S. Seymour and S. S. McEl-
veen.
The State then proceeded through
Solicitor Jno S. Wilson TO prove its
case by putting upon the stand Messrs.
Joye, r. S. Hood H F. Hege, J. K.
Bradford, Mrs. R. S. Noise, Miss Dull
Gle Noise, Mrs. E. A. Lowry and
Messrs. E. a. Lowry R. NJ. Sanders
and H. w. Holloway, all of whom
testified to practically the same state
ment of facts, as follows: That on
October Sth, 1904, the room occupied
by Mrs. -Baskins at the residence of
Mr. E. A. Lowry on South Sumter
street was discovered to be on fire;
that Mrs. Raskn had left for Bishop
Vile about an hour before the discov-
cry of the dense smoke IN the house;
that no one entered the room until the
firemen arrived; that wardrobe in
the room was found to be almost COM
pletely destroyed by fire, the base
board was burned from two to
three feet and that a quantity Of rags
saturated with kerosene oil We're
found in the wardrobe, an oil can
was just in front of the wardrobe,
practically ell Of the clothing in the
room had been removed, and that the
damages caused by the fire were con-
fined exclusively to the room that was
occupied and rented by Mrs. BaSkin.
At the conclusion of taking the tes-
tinony for the State, Major MaSion
Noise and T. 3. Fraser, Esq, counsel
for the defendant, moved the court
for a direction Of verdict Of 'tn6t
guilty. on the grounds: CD That
there was a fatal variance in the
allegations Of the Indictment and the
proof, it being absolutely necessary
that the two conform.
(2). Under no circumstances can a
person in possession OF room in a
house be indicted for arson, unless it
be proved that room in the house
occupied by another was also dam
aged.
These questions of law were argued
at length by all the lawyers engaged
in the trial Of the case, counsel for
the defendant contending that if the
legal possession of the room was es
tablished, there being no testimony to
show that any other portion of the
building had been damaged by reason
of the alleged fire, then the defend
ant could not rightfuliy be indicted
for arson. Solicitor Wilson contended
that the State decisions upon which
counsel for the defense relied, were
not applicable to the case at tfe bar,
insomuch that the defendant had
changed her room that she had form
erly occupied and therefore remained
in the quarters that she occupied at
the time of the fire, against the will
Ct the rightful tenant Of the house
and in the capacity of trespasser.
Judge Watts came to the conclusion
that the position taken by the solic-
itor was not warranted by the facts
as produced on the stand and deliv
cred his opinion as follows:
ct am bound by the decisions Of the
Supreme Court in this State and they
announce an opinion in that Horny
case which is new law to me. I
thought that man could be convict
ed of burning his own house if he did
it with intent to defraud or anything
of that sort, but they have held diff
ferent rule All the testimony in tins
case. shows that the defendant was
in possession of that room when Mr..
and Mrs. Lowry rented it, and the
landlord, Mr. Joye, said he had rented
il to her before he rented to Mr.. ana
Mrs. Lowry. Even if she set fire in
that room and didn't burn anything
out of it. / am inclined to think under
the decision Of the Supreme Court
she cannot be convicted OF arson. If
| it had communicated itself to the part
of the house occupied by. Mr.. Lowry
why. then if she set fire to it malic-
iously she would be guilty Of arson.
| P,,t If she made an effort along that