The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1911-07-11
HOLD THEM DOWN
POLICEMAN LIABLE FOR SHOOT
ING OF BYSTANDER.
Supreme, Court So Rules in the Case
of q Policeman Who in Making an
Arrest, Shot Man.


A policeman. firing alta man he Is
trying to arrest, the ball striking q
bystander, subjects the policeman to
the law, according to decision hand
ed down by the Supreme Court Tues
day. In the case Of the State against
Robert M. Barwick, writes Chief JUS
tice Ira; B. Jones:
"The defendant in October, 1908,
was policeman for the town Of Pine
wood, in Clarendon County, and on
arrival Of the Saturday night train
from Sumter, was opening a way
through the crowd for me lady pas
sengers when Thos. Singleton, accord
ing to the defendan version, declar-
ed he would stand back for no damn
man, whereupon defendant seized
Singleton to arrest him for cursing
and refusing to open the way. SIN
gleton broke loose and ran and. the
defendant pursued, firing mis- pi istol
towards him several times.
"The deceased, Sam Bracy, was
standing in line Of the firing and
struck by the bullet, which gave him
a mortal wound, of which he died
some days later in hospital in Sum-
ter, S. G.. The defendant was indict-
ed for the murder Of Bracy and was
convicted of manslaughter with rec
omendation Of mercy
"The testimony Of the State was to
the effect that the deceased was hit
by bullet from the pistol of the
defendant, but the defendant testi-
fed to the effect that Singleton, while
running away, or someone in the d.
rection he was running, shot at the
defendant; that defendant did not
shoot until after this firing, and the
suggestion was that deceased may
have been shot by Singleton.
BIarwick was questioned at his trial
about statements under oath before
the Mayors Court.
"A statement that Barwick made
there would have had the effect O,
showing that If Singleton shot in
a certain situation he could not have
hit the deceased.
The appeal to the Supreme Court
was upon the question of defendant
giving testimony against him In vio'
lation of the Constitution.
Going into the law on this point of
giving evidence tending to incrimi-
nate himself, the Supreme Courts
decision points out that when a de-
fendant voluntarily goes on the stand
he assumes the position OF any other
witness.
There were other exceptions as to
witnesses, Zone of the witnesses for
the Defence" writes the Chief JUS
tice, "admitted that he may have
said in a joking way without mean
ing it that the country was going to
4he devil if they would convict d
white man for killing negro"
"The Court charged the jury: 1.-THE
law is applicable the same to every
man. The law knows no pets. the
law knows no difference between
an Indian, Japanese, a citizen OF
this State, an African or a Cauca-
sion I would not charge you diff
ferent law according to the parties
Interested, much less could you try
thu footc di7arentIv the Darties being
of a different race, either Japanese,
Chinese, African or Caucasion. There
is no color line in the law, and there
shall be none under your oath in
the jury box"
The Supreme Court says that this
charge was sound and proper in the
circumstances and could not possible
have prejudiced any fright of the
defendant. The judgment of the Cir
cult Court was affirmed in this hase.