The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1912-01-09

, the shooting Of Lutner +. MulllnaX al
Troy some tino. ago. The sensation
in the motion for a new trial lay in
the fact that one of the jurors, NJ. F.
Sanders, of Greenwood, made an af-
fdavit as 10 the matter in which the
verdict was arrived at and why. That
he was supported in this affidavit by
two other jurors was not known when
F. Barron Grier started to read the
affidavit and as soon as he reached the
point in the affidavit that Mr.. Sanders
had been a Juror in the case and held
convictions that the verdict was not
what he believed it should be Judge
Sease with flushed face, asked Mr..
Grier to stop reading.
He said that he had pol!ed the jury
when the verdict was r"ad and that
every man had answered it was his
verdict and that court could not allow
anything to come before it relating to
what had transpired in the jury room.
Mr.. Grier asked for permission to
explain the nature of his position and
why it was necessary to make this
preliminary statement. Upon this be-
ing done and after further argument
along this same line by G. G. Feather
stone for the defense, Judge Sease
permitted the reading of the affidavit,
Other Affidavits.
The other jurors making an affidavit
similar to Mr.. Sanders were 6. NJ
Anderson, of Ninety-Six, and A. J.
Langley, Of Greenwood. This affidavit
in substance stated that after several
ballots the jury finally decided among
themselves that they would continue
to ballot until two-thirds of them
should agree on a. verdict and that
when this was done the verdict of the
two-thirds should be the verdict of all.
Under this arrangement finally two
thirds voted for lmanslaughter and so
this became the verdict Of the whole
jury. Just previous to the last vote
the jury stood seven for acquittal and
four for manslaughter, but the next
vote was eight for manslaughter and
four for acquittal. The attorneys for
the defense argued long and earnestly
that it was not a constitutional YER
dict, after having made an able argu-
ment as to why the judge should con-
slider the affidavit. After their argu-
ment Solicitor Cooper opposed the
granting of new trial on the ground
that it was against public policy to
contravene the verdict On the ground
proposed. The foreman of the jury,
J. N. Townsend, was sworn and made
q statement to the court. He told of
the ballots and how the rule was
adopted. He said he, had ali stand Up
and agree afterwards that it was the
unanimous verdict.
The defense contended that this
agreement bound only to the agree
ment that two-thirds should rule and
that the two-thirds rule is not rec
ognized in the State though strenu-
Gus efforts have been made to have it
adopted. Solicitor Cooper in conclu-
sion said that he must continue to
oppose granting a new trial.
New Trial Refused.
Judge Sease concurred in this, and
in refusing the motion said with
warmth that he hoped he would never
have to pass upon such a question
again while he was On The bench. He
went on to say, that though jurors
might feel conscience stricke.., that
public policy demanded the Jury
room be held secret and sacred ar
that after the statement Of the FORE
man of the jury he felt that the YER
dict should stand. The jurors could
not studltify themselves. Having Mr..
Long placed in the dock and after lis
tennlng to plea for leniency from F.
Barron Grier of the defense. supplt
mented by c. c. Featherstone, Judge
Sease pronounced sentence upon him,
this sentence being three years and
SIX months on the public works of The
county or the same time in the State
penltentiary. An appeal will be taken