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


t9r them to see and identify Hunter.
So we search the record in vain for
q reasonable doubt as to the guilt Of
Hunter. We find as fact therefore
that Hunter and not Taylor did the
shooting, and was properly convicted
therefor on the testimony adduced ut
the trial in the circuit court, strength
ened by the developments at the
hearing here. u..
AS Hunter did the shooting and
Taylor was not even present it fol-
lows that it is highly improbable that
he, Taylor, would have made the af-
fidavit which Duncan claims he made.
In the light Of this doubly demon
strated improbability we come to a
consideration of the facts surrounding
the preparation and execution of said
affidavit.
Here we have Mr.. Duncan swearing
that Taylor did make it, before Mr..
Clark, a notary public and member
of the Riolrland bar, in his Dun-
can office) in the presence of Mrs.
Stewart, hisstenographer. Mr.. Clark s
testimony, which is rather in the way
Of negative testimony, that he can
not swear whether he took such an
affidavit, coupled, however, with his
recollection of his having sworn at
his own office tall black negro whom
he believed to be Taylor, (but who
proved to be Hunter and not Taylor)
for Duncan; the inneudo being that
Duncan had some other negro to i'm.
personate Taylor before Clark.
Then we have the testimony Of
Mrs. Stewart, Mr.. Duncan's former
stenographer. We find this testimony
to clearly establish the fact that, in
making her affidavit of May 20, 1908,
presented by Mr.. Duncan as co11o-
borative of the authenticity of his
Taylor affidavit, hereinbefore refer
red to, wherein she appears to sub
stantiatc the authenticity of the Tay-
lor affidavit, as against the want Of
distinct recollection of Mr.. Clark,
she appears to have been entirely
mlslcd as to the contents of the affi-
davit, and did not intend and dill
not lcaliZe that she had given any
such positive, detailed statement os
distinct recollection on the subje f.
She now states that that affidavit was
not explained to her by Mr.. Duncan,
and that as a matter Of fact, under
this proceeding, she can not substan-
tiate Mr.. Duncan's claim that Tay-
lor appeared in his Office and made
the affidavit in question.
Other circumstances going to throw
the weight Of the testimony against
the authenticity of the Taylor affi-
daVit are that Taylor can write his
name and does sign his name when
ever called upon to do 50, whereas
the disputed affidavit here only pur-
ports to be signed by him by his
mark; and then the circumstance of
the non-exhibition of the original Of
the alleged affidavit in this court, or,
if ever produced, its myterious disap-
pearance.
AS Mr.. Duncan accounts for the
nonproduction or disappearance Of
the original of the affidavit by di-
rect charge Of theft Of same by Nh
Solicitor Zimmerman, in conspiracy
with Mr.. Solicitor Bcnct and others,
and thereby raises collateral issue
whereby he seeks to justify the truth
and language of his affidavit Of June
2, 1908, we pause here to wei gh the
evidence upon this point, and our
finding Of the fact is that this charge
is absolutely unwawantrd and ml-
sustained by the testimony.
The only fact upon which it ap-
pears that the charge could have had
an origin was that some Of the pa
pers in The appeal in the Hunter ease
were not to be found in the Office of
the clerk Of this court when called
for; but this was entirely and salts
factorily explained by Mr.. Solicitor
Benet showing that they had been
in the official possession of Mr.. So
licitor Zimmerman, who had laid
them aside, considering the case at
an end, and when it was renewed, on
the motion of this court, he turned
them over to his successor, Mr.. Solic-
itor Benet, who brought them into
this court and had then duly lodged
and exhibited. Mr.. Duncan himself,
as a witness herein, confcsses to the
suf1iciency Of this explanation. So