Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1907-04-09
HOMICIDE NEAR ROCK HILL.

lHeTe was d uOllllSluC AsNNss
Hill last Sunday. Mr.. Beaufort M,
Sturgis shot a negro named Fred
Barnett and Barnett died yesterday
Coroner Louthian was sent for imme-
diately upon the death Of Barnett, and
empaneled a jury which, after in
vestigating the case as fully as was
practicable under the circumstances,
rendered a verdict to the effect that
the killing was justifiable. Immedi-
ately after the death Of Barnett, Mr..
Sturgis surrendered to Sheriff Brown,
and retained Congressman Finley
for his defense, and 1t was understood
this morning, that he would appear
before Judge Dantzler at Chester this
afternoon in habeas corpus proceed
ings. The facts Of the whole case
are fully set forth in the following af-
fidavit of Mr. Sturgis:
Personally appeared Beaufort M.
Sturgis, who being duly sworn says
that he Is citizen Of the state OF
South Carolina, and resides one mile
from the city Of Rock Hill, in York
county; that he Is In the custody OF
Hugh G.. Brown, as sheriff Of said
county, committed on warrant is
sued by L. w. Louthian, as coroner
for York couI y in the said state. that
the said warrant is based upon the
finding Of coroner's jury. held on the
8th day of April, 1907, in a case enti-
tied the State VS.. the dead body OF
Fred Barnett" the said coroners jury
ho,,ip found fhot ENrad Ra rnatt came
to his death from two gun-shot
wounds at the hands Of deponent, the
wounds being inflicted on April 7th,
1907 at 2 o'clock in the night time and
the deceased Fred Barnett having died
on April Sth, 1907.
The deponent alleges that when he
shot the said Fred Barnett, he was
acting in self defense in protecting
himself from death or from great bod
lily harm, and in justification OF said
act, he prays reference to all the tes-
timony taken at the coroners IN
quest to wit: Nancy Barnett, Sarah
w. w. Fennel, and deponent further
alleges that about 2 o'clock Saturday
night, last, deponent was awakened
by loud cries and screams Of Nancy
Barnett, and the oaths, abusive and
threatening language Of Fred Barnett,
her husband.
That the said Fred Barnett and his
wife, Nancy have been during the
present year employed on plaintiffs s
farm in said county and state, where
they lived, that, on account Of the ac-
tions Of Fred Barnett and Nancy Bar
nett, deponent arose from bed, dress
ed himself and walked from the house
where deponent lives to the house
where the said Fred and Nancy Bar
nett lived, distance Of about two
hundred yards on the farm OF depo-
nent, and found that the said Nancy
Barnett had fled from her house on
account Of the actions Of her husband,
Fred Barnett, in abusing and threat
ening to kill her, that the deponent
demonstrated with Fred Barnett In a
mild way and asked him what In the
world he meant by carrying on that
way.
Fred Barnett then turned on depo-
nent and used violent, scurrilous Ian
guage, oaths and epithets, aimed at
deponent and asked deponent what ne
had to do with him and his wife
and called deponent "a d son
of q B." and made at deponent In
a violent, dangerous and threatening
manner and deponent saw that he
pressed the deponent with the BELIEF
that II was a weapon of some kind.
Deponent did not at first know what
the weapon was, that Nancy Barnett.
who was then some 40 or so yards
distant, having been driven from the
house. as deponent was informed, py
her said husband, called to deponent
and said, look out, he has razor,
that the said Fred Barnett, under the
stated, advanced on de-
ponent and when within few rect,
deponent told him to stop and not
come any further.
Fred Barnett replied, Il know you
have some shooting irons and now IS
the time to use them" At this time
the said Fred Barnett was almost IN
striking distance Of the deponent and
continued to advance with his hand
raised, with what deponent afterwards
ascertained to be a razor in his hand.
Deponent fired three shots, two OF
which took effect and, as deponent Is
informed, caused the death OF said
Fred Barnett.
That the said Fred Barnett, during
the year 1906 and during the present
year, was in the employ OF the depo-
nent.
Deponent has never had any per-
sonal alteration with the deceased
prior to the one stated above, that ne
had no enmity or malice OF any KIND
against the deceased, that what ne
did was in defence Of his person, ano
to protect himself from death or great
bodily harm at a time when he had
good reason to believe that his life
was in danger, that, at times the said
Do woG n violent. dangerous