The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1910-05-04
BIGHAM AND AVANT
MUST SERVE TERMS
Siayers of Formers Wife
Denied New Trial.
WHERE IS DIR. BIGHAM?
The Defendants Bond are $1,000 and
$4,000 RcSpectiyely-Rc -Rcmittitur
Comes Down in Tcn DAYS.


Columbia, April 29,-For the killing
of Mrs. Ruth Crisp Bigham, at Muir
rell's Inlet, in the early evening OF
September 4, 1909, G. c. Bigham, the
husband Of the victim, and w. b..
Avant, his close friend, must serve
three and half years in the State
penitentiary In a decision. handed
down by the supreme court this after
noon, the two men are refused d new
trial, the verdict of the circuit court
being affirmed. In accordance with the
rule of court, the defendants. now
out on bail, will be brought here when
the remittitur is handed down i'm ten
days 1t is not known here whether
there Will arise any further complca-
tions as to the arrest of tho men.
In Georgetown, where the trial was
held, the case throughout has created
great interest and the le2a stops have
been closely watched. A more nysteri-
GUS killing was never known in the
history of the county, nor perhaps N
the whole State.
Refusing the motion of the solicitor
to dismiss the appeal on ero..nds of
nonperfecting of the same. the SUI
preme court, in an opinion written
by Eugene b. Gary, A. j. goes into
the merits of the case The court.
however, considers fully the question
of technicalities involved in Solicitor
,
Judge Watts, at the time of granting
bail TO the defendants. wrote out an
order inserting these words: Notice
of intention to appeal having been civ
en-. This was the bone of contention
before the supreme court, At,orncy
Radgsdale clam.~g that this consti-
tuted notice
The court says: 1T will thus be seen
that the service Of notice in writing.
on the solicitor, of an intention TO APP
peal was prerequisite of the grant
ing of bail. The order OF his Honor.
Judge Watts, shows that there was
compliance with this requirement."
The court then points out that the
t"N"'io'i 10 "iSIhel IHe SOilCltOr $ al
fidavits attacking the verify of this
recital should be considered. Citin;;
authorities the court concludes:
In case Of an insufficient service of
notice. if the court decides the Oucs-
ton OF jurisdiction crroneously. the
Judgment will be voidablc. but binding
until reversed on appeal. The motion
to dismiss the appeal is therefore re-
fnscd."
Taking mp the question of the tests"
referred to frequently in discussion
OF this case the court SAYS thai the
question Of whether or not testimony
OF this character is admissible de
pends upon the discretion of the pre-
siding Judge and lin the case undcr
consideration ii has not been made
to appear that his discretion was
abused AS to the testimony of j
ID. Hutchinson about the newspaper
accounts of the affair, the court saws
that the ruling of the question along
this line as irrelevant was correct and
adds:
This question was manifestly an
effort to get before the jury the opin-
ion attributed by a newspaper to re-
latives of the deceased with respect
to the guilt of the defendants under
the guise of cross examination. On
the question of whether a line of
cross-eXamination could be conducted
as to the testimony at the coroncr's
inquest, the court says that this, too,
should be left to the discretion of the
presiding judge.
The crime for which DR.. G c. Big