The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-09-15
away by Mr.. Solicitor Zimmerman,

WHO sWeAIS Ill Ills testimony that ne
never had seen the original; that it
was never served upon him at Lex
ington, as Duncan swears it was, aud
that his marginal entry was merely
as a memorandum for himself, as
this was copy being used in court,
to remember to look up the original
and see if the copy corresponded with
the original; he having a cause, as
he says, reasons sufficient unto him
self, for suspecting the good faith Of
the whole transaction at the hands
of Mr.. Duncan.
All this is against the truth Of Mr..
Duncan's grossly expressed charge as
against Solicitors Zimmerman and
Benet, and we unhesitatingly and en-
phatically find it as aforesaid and un-
true, and upon the testimony com
pletely exonorate these genetlemen
therefrom.
Returning now to the main issue,
as to the truth or falsity Of the charge
of Mr.. Duncan having knowingly pre-
sented to this court an affidavit pur-
porting to be made by Taylor, but
not, in fact, made or authorized by
him, we have found: That it would
be improbable for man to confess
to crime from which another had
been tried and convicted and at whose
trial he had testified he was not at
the place and knew nothing Of it ;
that the allegations of the disputed
affidavit are not true, which renders
it still more improbable that he would
make such an affidavit; that he had
no motive for doing the shooting or
making an affidavit falsely confess
ing it, and that the circumstances,
beyond Taylor's mere denial of it, go
far toward showing that he did not
in fact make it; while in support of
it's genuineness, there is molly the
bald testimony of Mr.. Duncan that
he did make it.
While even under this state of
facts we might be unwilling to decide
(and the writer Of this opinion feels
that he would not concur in so de-
ciding, realizing the facility with
which negroes may repudiate their
aifidavits, under apparently corrobor-
atlve circumstances, and the jeopardy
in which every lawyer would stand
were a disbarment to be predicated
upon this alone) that the affidavit
was in fact never made by Taylor,
we can not here hesitate to do SO
when against the probable truth of
Mr.. Duncan's testimony leans the
heavy weight of his mortally wound
ed reputation for truth and veracity
as witness.
Mr.. Duncan, having become a Wit
ness in the matter, his reputation fo,
truth and vcracity as such became
assailablc, and on behalf Of the State
nearly a score of representative mem
bers of the Richland bar, and men
Of other callings, living in Columbia,
were called upon to testify and did
testify that Mr.. Duncan s reputation
for truth and veracity was known to
them, was constantly discussed and
was bad, and that he could not be
believed upon his oath in any matter
affecting his own interest: and the
cross-cXamination Of some Of these
witnesses disclosed Il cnmplotcly
shadowed reputation generally at the
bar.
So also it is in the official reports
of this court we find respondent
herein, Jno. T. Duncan, admitted tc
the bar during the year 1896, VOL 49,
5. c. Reports, initial page.
In G4th S. G. page 4G1. we find
thr opinion of the court delivered by
Circuit Judge Bcnct, acting associate
justice, concurrcd in by y. ]. ponc
justice of the supreme court, now
chief justice, and Circuit Judge Hud
son, then acting associate justice, il
dlsbarmcnt proceeding against this
same respondent, wherein he was
barely eXonerated from q charge OF
malpractice as an attorney, with some
condemnation and kindly admonition
The opinion of this court in that
matter commenced by animadvertine
upon the unique feature of it, in that
it was instituted at the instance OF
a single member of the bar only. IN
this similar proceeding here against
the same respondent, within 73 years
only Of his said admission to the ban
and notwithstanding said kindly ad.
monition and the ordeal Of if. VIC
find again fact unique--that the