The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-09-25

ment had been read by Solicitor Cobb
and was for the purpose Of making
clear to the jury the nature Of the
charge, inasmuch as the cumbersome
have been perfectly clear to the lay
men on the panel.
There was the most intense interest
in the move Of the State. The short
time consumed in the empanelling of
the jury brought every one in the
court room face to face with the fact
that the case was about to be tried.
The defendant, James S. Farnum,
was in the court room, seated near
his attorney, just back Of Messrs.
Nelson, Cochran and Hammond, who
are conducting for him the active de-
fence. Mr., Farnum appeared to be
In the best of spirits during the prog
ress Of the preliminary work Of the
trial. and this afternoon exhibited
much interest when the jurors were
being selected. and later when the
first two witnesses for the State were
put on the stand. ~
Attorney B. l.. Abney, for the State,
stirred up the defence when he read
notice which, he said, had been
sent to the defendant to produce GER
tain papers. The papers included a
draft for $1,575 to Henry Samuels
through q local Charleston bank; a
draft, dated Sept. 15,19O6, on the
Consumers Beer Bottling Establish
ment. to Henry Samuels, for $1,125;
draft to B. M. Wilson for $500,
dated December IA, 1906; one to H.
Samuels, dated October 8, 1906. for
$500; another to Samuels, for 1888,
dated November IA. 1906. Mr.. Alb
ney also stated that two men, X. H.
Wilkins and A. S. Kulinski, had been
ordered to appear and bring certain
documents. He called upon the de-
fence to state whether the order had
been compiled with, or what response
they had to make.
This statement brought Mr.. Coch-
ran, of counsel for the defence, to his
feet. He stated that Mr.. Abney had
read notice In which certain papers
were to be produced. and that the
defence was to make response there
to- .iQur- constitutional right ln this Z.
case has been violated exclaimed
Mr.. Cochran Counsel has foaaowed
the wrong practice, and he has vitiat-
ed his whole case by this action" Mr..
Cochran claimed that the defendant
would be damaged by the statements
made by Mr. Abney in that the jury
was present, and the conclusion
might be drawn that the defence, if
IL did not produce the documents,
could nod produce them, and that in
this way the defence would be in
jured, which was not in accordance
with the established rules of prac-
tlce.
Judge Memminger indicated that a
new trial might be granted in q case
where comments were made in a
manner that might prejudice the de-
PENDANTS right with the jury, buc
Mr.. Abney disclatmed any intention
OF commenting upon the notice and
stated that he could show authornx
for the action talCsn in reading tAe
Notice, and calling upon the defense
to produce what the notice caAed
fur. or say they would not, so tha1
secondary evidence might be brought
IN. Col. Nelson stated that ATTORNEYS
for the defence had every reason ts
! suppose that this would be done, ani
| he insisted that If the matter were ts
be taken up that the jury should b,
| excluded.
Gen. Lyon then entered the frnw
He stated that he had understood MI
Hagood to ask what the paper wai
that Mr.. Abney was reading, and thar
counsel had ben led into the trap
while the defence knew fun wen
what the document was and that nc
constitutional right had been infrfns-
ed.
In the meantime the two witnesses
for the State, Messrs. Kuliuski and
wilkins, were standing within the
railing about to be questioned by the
attorney for the State. But the mat.
ter was halted when Judge Memmin-
ger announced that the question
would be reserved, the defence hav-
ing interpOsed objection to the wit
nsses being examined in open court
as to whether or not they had
brought the papers. Judge Memmin
ger told them that they would be in