The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1910-05-04
bIGHAAAMi NJ AND AVANT
MUST SERVE TERMS
SlayerS of Formers Wife
Denied New Trial.
WHERE IS DR.. BIGHAM?
The Defendants Bond are $1,000 and
$4,000 Respectively Rcmittitur
Comes Down I'm Ten Days.

Comes Down i'm Ten 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 a half years in the State
penitentiary. In a decision. handed
down by the supreme court this after
noon. the two men are refused a 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 in ten
days. 1t is not known here whether
there will arise any further complica-
tions as 10 the arrest of tho men.
In Georgetown, where the trial was
held the case throughout has created
great interest and the Legal stops have
been closely watched. A more mysteri-
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 grounds 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
| Wells contention as TO the appeal.
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. Atrorncy
Radgsdale claim.Hg that this consti-
tutcd notice
The court says: 1T will thus be seen
that the service of notice in writing.
on the solicitor. of an intention TO ap-
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
question is whether the solicitors af-
iidaVits attacking the verify of this
recital should be considered. Citin;,
authorities the court concludes:
I'm case of an insufficient service OF
notice if the court decides the qucs-
ton of jurisdiction crroneously. the
judgement viii be voidablc. but binding
until reversed ON appeal. The motion
( 10 dismiss the appeal is therefore re-
fused"
/ Taking mp the question of the tests"
referred to frequently i'm a 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 under
consideration ii has not been made
10 appear that his discretion was
abused AS to the testimony OF j
| ID. Hutchinson about the newspaDer
accounts of the affair, the court SAYS
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 ross-eXamination On
the question of whether line of
cross examination could be conducted
as to the testimony at the coroner'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