The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-04-01
An IMPORTANT DECISION.
A CIRCUIT judge: CAN .P;;NiSiI
FOR AN INTERFERENCE,

A CIRCUIT judge: CAN .p;;NiSiI
FOR AN INTERFERENCE.
Supreme Court Of South Carolina
Holds 1t Is in Jurisdiction TO Handle
Cases Temperlng Witt, juror.
The supreme co,r rt rend-re an
important 'l"ci>ihn Tuesday holding
the right Of a circuit judge to pun
ish tr cortemDt anv one wh) at
tempts to Improperly influence, by
personal means. the conduct of a petit
juror. The case was that Of l.. J..
Moore and T. j. Blalock, Of Laurens
county. who were accused OF attempt
ing to influence Jurors in the case of
G. Wash Hunter, on trial for murder.
1t will be recalled that after savs raj
Hunter and his victim have large
family connections, this case was re-
moved to Greenwood and the trial
there recently resulted IN conviction,
It seems tnat In the spring of 1907
j. X. Templeton was drawn as petit
Juror in Laurens county for the ap-
preaching term Of court at which It
was expected that the Hunter case
would be tried. Templeton made an
affidavit which was presented to the
trial judge. Judge Watts, at that
term OF court, that caused the Judge
to issue rule to show cause why Lu-
die j. Moore and Thomas J. Bialock
should not be attached for contempt
OF court for interfering or attempting
to interfere with a Juror in the lis
charge Of his duty. The order was
made rrturnable before tn. Judge
pre- siding al the next term Of court
for Lanrans county ard was argued
before Judge Earn%t 'Iary. who all
Judged Moore ain. j., t.nck guilty nf
contempt and imposed a fine of fifty
dollars on each and in default of pay
ment imprisonment In Jail until they
had purged themselves Of contempt.
An appeal was taken to the supreme
court.
The supreme court. in the opinion
by Justice Jones, declares that this is
proceeding in criminal contempt and
the court cannot review the questionsl
Of fact; that II must only inquire as
to the Jurisdiction Of the court and
as to whether there was error Of
law. The Jurisdiction of the court,
however, was not disputed, and the
court than directs It's ettenti,.n to the
question, show contempt: for IL there
was no such evidence. there was er-
ror OF law.
The affidavit OF J. X. Templeton is
'reproducsd In the opinion OF the
court. : He swears that he was jrawn
M Juror for tile May term. 1907, and
that he was approached by' Tom
Blalcck and asked to favor Blalock's
friend. q. Wash Hunter. on hi, tr,a,
for murder; that he replied that he
did not know whether hs w,uld BE-
on the jury but that he would listen
to the evidence and go thereby. Later
kudi- Nc ore approached him AMI as,
Fked him TO do all he could Tor Hunt
or ana he made the same reply as to
Blalock.
The supreme court holds, from this
ahidavit. that there was evidence of
nm attempt to influence juror. CAL,
culated to obstruet Justice. Such
conduct. says the court. is punisha.
bic as contempt. 1T Is not Essential
that this conduct be made In ethe pres
ence Of the court II was rontended
for the appellants that this Is an In
dictable oftense and that appellants
are not amsnable for contempt but
should have been given a trial by jury.
The court holds that the statute in
question forbids an attempt to COR
rupt juror by presents or bribery
and does not strictly apply to an
attempt to exercise personal influence.
The offense punishable under the stat
ute is not the precise offense IN this
case. Therefore the Judgment " the
lower court Is affirmed.
H. Got What H. Needed.
S"Nine years ago II looked ne II