The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-12-18
TWICE A WEEK. $50 A YEAR
JONES CASE REVIEWED.
Union Man Who is Charged With
Numbering His Wife Before the
Supreme Court.

Columbia, Dec. 16.-The first ques-
tion taken up before the supreme
court today in the complicated case
Of W. T. Jones, charged with the
the murder Of his wife, was the ap-
peal by the State from the order Of
Chief Justice Pope, staying the trial
Of Jones at Union pending the appeal
from the order Of Judge Hydrick de-
nying bail to Jones. The court de-
cided that the order Of the chief JUS
tice was erroneous and that it should
be reversed. Chief Justice Pope Of
course did not sit during the argu-
ment Of this appeal from his own Or
der and the senior associate justice,
Justice Gary, presided, and after the
court had retired and recoh ened, an
nounce the decision Of the court. The
formal opinion will be filed later.
When the case was called this
morning, Mr.. George Johnstone, for
the defense, stated that there were
four matters before the court; the ap-
peal by the defense from the order of
Judge Hydrick, the appeal by the
State from the order Of the chief JUS
tice,. the motion pendente lite and the
motion for bail in the original juris-
diction Of the supreme court. The
defense was willing to abandon the
appeal from Judge Hydrick's order
and was willing to move to reselnd
the order Of Chief Justice Pope, and
as to the motion pendente lite, that
was not now of any consequence, and
the defense preferred to proceed on
the motion in the original jurisdiction
Of the supreme court.
Mr.. P. H. Nelson, for the State, an
nounced that the State would not con-
sent to the resembling Of the chief
Justices order, but desired to argue
the matter, whereupon the chief JUS
tice withdrew. This was the. initial
victory for the prosecution in the un-
tangling of the legal web.
Mr.. J. A. Sawyer, for the State
then read the argument Of the State
in the appeal from the order OF the
chief justice and Mr.. Johnstone made
the argument in reply for the defense,
contending that while he considered
the order proper, else he would not
have applied for it, he did not no"
consider it anything but an academic
question before the court.
The argument in the Jones case
consumed the entire morning session
and at two clock the court took re-
cess until four o'clock when the case
was again taken up.
Further affidavits were read and
arguments made by both sides and a
number Of afidavits were simply
handed up to the court, nearly the
entire record being printed. At SIX
o'clock the case was concluded and
the court took it under advlsement.
Mr.. Johnstone in concluding his ar
eument for the petitioner stated that
the appeal from the order of Judge
Hydrick would then be abandoned.
Mr.. Nelson stated he had understood
the court had dismissed that appeal,
but Mr.. Johnstone replied that he did
not understand it, only. some express
sion to that effect having been made
bv members of the court. There was
no declaration from the bench as to
whether or not the appeal was dis
missed and the record does not show
that it was dismissed, so that the
court has under consideration both
the appeal from Judge Hydrick's
order and the application for bail IN
the original jurisdiction of the court.
Jones was in court today in the custo-
dv Of an officer and was accompanied
by his II year old son.