The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1911-07-12
HOLD THEM DOWN
POLICEMAN LIABLE FOR SHOOT.
ING OF BYSTANDER.
Supreme Court So Rules in the Case
of Policeman Who in Making an
Arrest, Shot Man.

A policeman, firing at man he Is
trying to arrest, the ball striking a
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 N. 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 defendants 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
gieton broke loose and ran and the
defendant pursued, firing his pistol
towards him several times.
"The deceased, Sam Bracy, was
standing in line Of the firing and
struck by the bullet, which gave him
mortal wound, of which he died
some days later in hospital in Sum-
ter, S. C. The defendant was indict-
ed for the murder Of Bracy and was
convicted Of manslaughter with rec
ON mendation 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 testl-
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.
Barwick 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
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 vic
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 de.
fendant voluntarily goes on the stand
he assumes the position Of any other
witness.
! There were other exceptions as te
witnesses, Zone of the witnesses fo1
the defence writes the Chief JUS
tice, '.admitted that he may have
said in joking way without mean.
| ing it that the country was going to
The devil if they would convict .
white man for killing negro"
"The Court charged the jury: "The
law is applicable the same to every
man. The law knows no pets, the
| law knows no difference between
an Indian, Japanese, a citizeh OF
this State, an African or a Cauca-
sion / would not charge you DIFF
ferent law according to the parties
interested, much less could you try
the facts differently, the parties 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 wight Of the
defendant. The judgment OF the Cir
cult Court was affirmed in this hase.