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

|
July and the noxt day and argument
being heard Oh behalf Of the rcspon-
dent (Mr. Attorney General Lyon
declaring his unwillingncss 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
duo deliberation proceeds to announce
the same.
The questions arising for decision
are: Whether upon the record thus
presented said John Il. 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 9 aforc-
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 basis of his
motion for leave to apply for Il new
trial for Hunter in the circuit court,
we have (neither purporting to be
signed by tho aifiant, but by his
mark) the atIirmance Of Duncan that
the aflidavits were fairly made by the
alleged atlantis. and the point blank
denial of the a1iantS Of ever having
made 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.
crs 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
can affidavit il genuine. would have
Inn confcsSing to 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 Il;
the house and knew nothing of the
shooting.
We start then with that as an in
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 man 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 inouire
whether or not it is true that Taylor
and not Hunter did the shooting.
After careful consideration Of all
the evidence. we can not but answer
TINS question in the negative and un-
derwrlte the verdict Of the iurv
which convicted Hunter.
There is Of course some conflict in
the testimony upon which Hunter was
convicted IN the circuit court. us we'll
as that taken in this court ON that
questions; as there will ever be in the
investigation of issues of fact; but
throughout there is direct testimony
or nnlmpeachcd eye witnesses that
hunters wife handed him the gun,
after a parley with the posse which
had come to his house to arrest him.
and that he did the shooting. Then
we dlave the testimony of Sheriff
Coleman of Richland county mot
brought forward at the trial on cir
cnlD OF the confession Of Hunter to
hm very shortly after his arrest
From this testimony it appears that
Sheriff Coleman had known Hunter
from boyhood and thought we'll Of
hlm and was well-disposed towards
hlm' and was surprised at his becom-
ing implicated, in 50 serious a charge.
asked him in a friendly way why he
had done it, whereupon Hunter ac-
kn"wledged having fired upon the
posse, his excuse being that it was
done under the advice of Mr.. Duncan,
his attorney. ,>.
There is no positive evidence that
laylor was not at the house, corro-
horat'vc Of his own testimony to that
effect and no motive can be traced to
nm for having done the shooting. On