The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-11-01
MRS. FANNY BAsKlNs NOT GUILTY.
The States Testimony Taken, But Was Ad-
judged 0at of Court = Defendant Well
Known in Clarendon.

The trial of the case of the State VS..
Fannie S. Baskins for arson, having by
consent of counsel been set for today,
came up for trial this morning. The
defendant was arraigned and plead not
guilty" and the pleas having been en-
tered a jury was Immediately impan-
eled consisting of the following gentle
men: J. B. Player, w. E. Kolb, S. r.
Newman, J. K. Newman, T. y. Thig-
pen. G. f. Cox, J. K. Minis, J. j. Team.
W. O. Bradford, F. G. Manning, w. G.
S. Seymour and S. S. McElveen.
The State then proceeded through
Solicitor John S. Wilson to prove its
case by putting upon the stand Messrs.
Joye, r. S. Hood, H. F. Hoge, J. K.
Bradford, Mrs. r. S. Noise, Miss Dull
Gle Noise, Mrs. E. \. Lowry and Messrs.
E. A. Lowry, r. N. Sanders and H. w.
Holloway, all of whom testified to prac-
tically the same statement Ct facts, as
follows That on October Sth, 1904, the
room occupied by Mrs. Baskins a5 the
residence of Mrs. E. y. Lowry on South
Sumter street was discovered to be on
fire that Mrs. Baskins had left for Bish-
opville about an hour before the dlscoV-
cry of the dense smoke in the house ::
that no one entered the room until the
firemen arrived: that a wardrobe in the
room was found to be almost completely
destroyed by fire, the basement board
was burned IRON two to three feet, and
that quantity of rags saturated with
kerosene oil was found in the wardrobe,
an oil can was just in front OF the ward
robe, practically all of the clothing in
the room had been removed. and that
the damages caused by the fire were
confined exclusively to the room that
was occupied and rented by Mrs. Bas.
kins.
At the conclusion Of taking the testi-
mony for the State. Major Marion Moise
and T. B. Fraser, Esq. counsel for de-
fendant, moved Che Court for I direction
of verdict of NOT guilty." on. the
grounds l. That there was a fatal va
rance in the allegations OF The lndlct-
ment and the proof, it being absolutely
necessary that the Two conform. ,. In
der no Circumstances can g person IN
possession of room in house be in
dlcted for arson unless it be proved that
a room in the house occupied by another
was also damaged.
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 ii the legal
possession of the room WIS established.
there being no testimony to show that
any other portion Of the building had
been damaged by reason Of the alleged
fire, then the defendant could not right
fully 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 bar, inaSmuch that the
defendant had charged her room that
she had formerly occupied, and there
fore remained in the quarters that She
occupied at the time OF the fire against
the will of the rightful tenant Of the
house and iu the capacity OF a trespas-
ser.
Judge Watts came TO the conclusion
that the position taken by the Solicitor
was not warranted by the facts as pro-
duced on the stand and delivered his
opinion as follows:
q 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 l thought
that man could be convicted of burn
ing his own house if he did it with intent
to defraud or anything of that sort. but
they have held different rule. All the
testimony in this 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 it to her before he rented to Mr..
and Mrs. Lowry. Even if she set frelu
that room and didn't burn anything out
OF it, I am inclined to think, under the
decision of the Supreme Court, she can
not be convicted of arson. II it had
communicated itself to the part OF the
house occupied by Mr.. Lowry, why,
then. if she set fire to it maliciously, she
would be guilty OF arson. But if she
made an effort along that line and failed
by reason of the fact that the fire was
merciful and did not burn or char any
thing occupied by the Lowrys, under
the decision of the Supreme Court I
have cot to direct a verdict of not
guilty, so the foreman will write out
verdict of not guilty. Sumter Item,
October y.
Terrific Race with Death.