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

| continuing through Tie Sdlu l''lH "L
July and the next day and argument
being heard Oh behalf Of tie rc>p""-
dent (Mr. Attorney General LEon)
declaring his mwillingneSS to press
the matter by argument; it being up
on the facts for the court: and there
fore not arguing the same, the court
reserved its decision and now after
due deliberation proceeds to announce
the same.
The questions arising for decision
are: Whether upon the record thus
presented said John I. Duncan should
be disbarred and stricken from the
roll Of attorneys Of this State and
should he be punished for contempt
of this court in respect to the mat
ter of his affidavit of June ? afore-
said.
Upon the question of the alleged
affidavits Of Taylor and Myers be-
ing false and fictitious, and being
thus knowingly presented to this
court by Mr.. Duncan as a basis Of his
motion for leave to apply for a new
trial for Hunter in the circuit court,
we have (neither purportmg to be
signed by the affiant, but by his
mark) the affirmance Of Duncan that
the affidavits were fairly made by the
alleged affiants,. and the point blank
denial Of the afiants Of ever having
lmade or sanctioned them.
To properly solve this question
therefore we are called upon to weigh
it in the light of the intrinsic prob
abilities Of the situation, that is. is
it probably true that Taylor or N.Y.
ers would either have made the affi-
davits purporting to have been made
by him for Duncan?
As to Myers, there is no light
thrown directly by these probabili-
ties. He merely states that Taylor
was at the house where the shooting
took place; but as to Taylor, the Dun
lean affidavit if genuine, would have
him confessin2 to a crime for which
another had been tried and convicted,
and to a perjury at that trial; for he
had there sworn that he was not at
1.-The house and knew nothing Of the
shooting.
We start then with that as al i'll
trinsic improbability. The next point
is, is it, true that he and not Hunter
did the shooting? And if true, and
the fact that an innocent nlan had
been convicted for his crime, would
be cause impelling him to confess,
then that might be taken as an in
trinsic probability that he would
make the affidavit Duncan claims he
made.
This point drives us to inquire
whether or not it is true that Taylor
and not Hunter did the shooting.
After a careful consideration of all
the evidence, we can not but answer
this question in the negative and un-
derwrite the verdict of the jury
which convicted Hunter.
There is of course some conflict in
the testimony upon which Hunter was
convicted in the circuit court, as we'll
as that taken in this court on that
question; as there will ever be in the
investigation of issues of fact; but
throughout there is direct testimony
Of unimpeached eye witnesses that
Hunters wife handed him the gun,
after parley with the posse which
had come to his house to arrest him,
and that he did the shooting. Then
VIE have the testimony Of Sheriff
Coleman Of Richland county (not
brought forwsrd at the trial on cir
cuit) Of the confession Of Hunter to
him very shortly after his arrest.
From this testimony it appears that
Sheriff Coleman had known Hunter
from boyhood and thought we'll of
him and was well-disposed towards
him, and was surprised at his beeom-
ing implicated, in 50 serious charge.
asked him in friendly way why he
had done it, whereupon Hunter ac-
knowledged having fired upon the
posse, his excuse being that it was
done under the advice of Mr.. Duncan,
his attorney. 49,
There is no positive evidence that
Taylor was not at the house, 4eorro-
borative Of his own testimony to that