The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1909-10-28
MANSLAUGHTER SAYSJURY
THREE YEARS AND A HALF FOR
BIGHAM AND AVANT.
The Mystery of the Crime Remains
Unsoiyed-Defenda Do Not
Go on the Stand.

Go on the STAND.
Georgetown, October 22.-"Three
years and six months imprisonment
in the State Penitentiary'' was the
sentence passed by Judge Watts early
this afternoon upon W. B. Avant and
G. C. Bigham, for the killing of Mrs.
Ruth Crisp Bigham, the jury having
rendered verdict of guilty of
manslaughter after two hours de-
liberation. Thus ends the story of a
deed that has shocked the people Of
the entire State, unless the attorneys
for the convicted men appeal to the
supreme court.
The majority of the people are in
clined to think the sentence extreme
II light. In spite of the verdict
though, the killing Of Mrs. Bigham
has not been explained, mystery still
enshrouds the affair. The fight for
the accused men centered around the
fact that they considered the lob
ject," which proved to be Mrs. Big
ham, a trespasser and that there was
reason for suspicion. This was ably
combatted by the State, although the
prosecution was at disadvantage in
not having reply to Mr.. Ragsdale.
No Testimony for Defense.
Considerable surprise was created
to-day, in the trial Of w. B. Avant
and G. C. Bigham for the killing of
Mrs. Ruth Crisp Bigham, when the
defense permitted the case to go to
the jury without offering any testi-
mony. When court convened this
morning the State produced three
additional witnesses, after which the
State rested. Thereupon, after a
short conference between Attorneys
Ragsdale and Wingate, notice was
given that the defense would offer
no testimony.
The State touched another phase
OF the case this morning when in the
testimony of NJ. ]. Pearce, of Water
loo, Laurens county, it was shown
that Mrs. Bigham while on visit to
her old home in Augusta had received
a letter and telegram from her
husband, the contents of which
caused her to weep. The matter of
unhappy marital relations was mere
ly limited at in this manner.
Mr.. Pearce had seen this letter and
the tears of the deceased woman.
Another Witness.
C. F. Curry and c. A. Leonard
were the other two witnesses on the
stand to-day. Mr.. Curry was at Muir
rel's Inlet the day of the tragedy, had
arrived on the spot with the others
and heard Avant's and Bigham's
story as told to Mr.. Buck, which he
corroborated in full.
Mr.. Leonard was on the boat to
Georgetown, with Mr.. and Mrs.
Avant, after the killing. Avant had
told him cit was a sad occurrence,
but believe any one else would
have done it under the excitement
and fright. DR.. Bigham doesn't
blame me, he told me to shoot"
That word excitement" played a
great part in the arguments by coun-
sci, particularly in that of Mr.. Rags
dale. Attorney j. w. Wingate open
ed for the defense, speaking about 10
minutes, dealing largely with the
duty of jurors.
He was followed by solicitor Coop
er, of Laurens, who spoke for 80 min
utes. Mr.. Cooper dealt somewhat at
length with the law on trespass, Sec
ton of the criminal code, upon
which the defense was based, ex-
planning the circumstances under
which a person has the legal right to
shoot a trespasser upon his premises
and what conditions are necessary to
constitute a trespasser.
Mr.. Ragsdale, for the defense,
closed the arguments, making pow
erful appeal to the jury in behalf of
his clients. He endeavored to show
an absence of any motive for the
killing, a fact which the State has
not attempted to establish. He ridi-
culed much of the States testimony
and sought to discredit some of its
witnesses.
While the appeal was eloquent,
moving the hearts Of many in the
audience, strong and forceful, in
terms elegant and refined, still it was
scarcely more than an attempt to
play on the sympathies of the jury.
He attempted to show that, by the
testimony, it was dark when the
shooting occurred, that Avant and
Bigham seeing this suspicious look
ing person on the premises were only
acting in defense of their homes and
loved ones. Several times during Mr..
Ragsdale's speech both the defend
ants, Avant and Bigham, were moved
to tears and sat sobbing, their faces
buried in their hands.
Judge Watts charge was short but
to the point, touching only those
phases of the law that might apply in
this case. On murder and man
slaughter the jury were thoroughly
instructed, and section 2 was es-
pecially brought to their attention.
Criminal carelessness or negli-
gence, a disregard Of human life,
were also touched upon at the re-
quest of Solicitor Wells.
Judge Watts told the jury that if
the testimony satisfied them that the
person" were acting in a suspicious
manner and fed when hailed, then
the defendants were acting within