The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1914-01-02
ASONS OF GOV. BLEASE
PAROLE G. w. LONG

signed by Gov Blease for ranting
parole to Geo. W. Long;
Long, George W, (white). Convict
ed at the January, 1912, term (of court
for Greenwood county of manslaugh-
Ter, and sentenced to three fyears and
six months imprisonment upon the
public works of Greenwood 4 county or
in the State penitentiary.
Petitions in this case we're presented
by the, Honorable C. C. Featherstone
I do not care to criEicise the de-
scision of the courts, ,yior any action
or the charge of a circuit judge, but,
in my opinion, the defendant in this
.Ycase should have been granted new
t~ial because of the fact that one Of
- Jurors who served in the case
made affidavit in the court chat he
was forced to agree to the verdict Of
manslaughter", and gave the follow
ing circumstances: That when the
jury first retired, the ballot was taken
and they stood five for acQuittal; four
for manslaughter and three for muir
der with recommendation to mer-
,cy, and t2at after considerable deliber-
alton, they took another ballot, and
another ballot, and finally it was pro-
posed and agreed that whenever two
thirds majority voted one way that
the balance of the jury would be
bound thereby. and that in this way,
advantage was taken of him and he
was thus forced to agree to this YER
dict. 1 know the courts hold that they
cannot take cognizance Of what takes
place in the jury room, but that
think is very erroneous and bad
policy. I know of my own knowledge,
having been informed by as good men
as there are in the State, of case
where a man was threatened to be
thrown out of a window if ne would
not agree to a verdict of acquittal.
He agreed, and guilty man was al
! lowed to go free. If similar circAm-
stances took place, and an innocent
man was convicted, most assuredly
when the jurors who made the threat
themselves admitted the circum-
stances, the man should be granted
new trial, and l do not think any
iron-clad rule should hold in such
matters, but that substantial justice
( should be done after all the circum-
z stances are brought before the court.
The judge might have refused to have
listened to any of this stuff On the
broad principle that he would not take
cognizance of what transpired in the
jury room, but after he allowed it to
be brought out in the court, in
open affidavits and statements, ten
l think he should have gone further
and granted this man new trial, and
1 most heartily concur with Associate
J Justice Watts in his dissenting opinion.
However, 1 did not feel then that it
would be right on my part, as COVER
nor, to annul the acts of the court,
and upon this technicality release this
defendant from all punishment for
have never believed in the practice of
law through technicalities in order to
p defeat substantial justice.
. Petitions were presented, and on
trip to Newberry, during the session
of the court there, Mr.. Featherstone
and Solicitor Cooper appeared before
me and were heard in reference to
this matter. Mr.. Featherstone's argu-
ment was very convincing indeed and
Mr. Cooper addressed to Mr.. Feather
stone the following letter.
September 30th, 1913.
Hon. c. C. Featherstone, Greenwood,
S. C.
Dear Sir: Replying to your COM
munication in the case of the State
VS.. Long:
1 90 not care to appear before the
board OF pardons in this matter, and
1 shall have nothing to say whatever
against the pardon. 1 have always
considered this very close case. and
I would not ihave been surprised if
the jury had taken the view of the de-
fendant and acquitted him. am also
satisfied that if the testimony of the
physicians and nurses at the hospi-
I tai in Augusta had been before the
! jury that it would have strengthened
the defense"
These amdavits here spoken of by
by Mr.. Cooper were presented by Mr.
Featherstone to me at the time of the
hearing at which Mr. Cooper and Mr.
Featherstone were present 1t should