The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1915-05-13
SAYS COUNTY MUST PAY.
AtIirmS Circuit Court in Cantey vs..
Clarendon County.

nous opinion. written by Associate
Justice D. E. Hydrick, the State su-
preme court affirmed the judgment
of the circuit court in awarding 81
600 exemplary damages to Madison
Cantey against Clarendon county for
the lynching of his son, Marion Can
tey. there on February -, 1913.
Marion was arrested on warrant
sworn out before Magistrate l.. 5.
Barwick, charged with assault and
battery with intent to kill. He was
given preliminary hearing at Pax
Vile the same day of the alleged
crime-February %, 19l3-and was
sent to the circuit court for trial.
That night the prisoner was sent. in
the care of constable, from Paxville
to Manning. When they arrived at
Tindals Mill, about ten miles from
Manning, mob of eight or nine
men took Marion Cantey from the
constable and shot him to death.
Under the authority of section 6
of article 6 of the constitution OF
1895 the lynched mans father, Madi-
son Cantey. sued Clarendon county
for $4,000 exemplary damages and
won the suit in the circuit court of
the same county before Judge Rice.
Attorneys for Clarendon county then
applied to the supreme court for a
new trial on alleged errors in the pre-
siding judges charge.
The opinion says in part:
by section of article of the
constitution and the statutes enacted
Hereunder, the lawmakers under
took to make a law which would at
least aid in preventing the crime Of
lynching in this State. The conStl-
tuition provides that, in case prison.
er lawfully in the custody of an Of
ficer is taken from his custody,
through his negligence, permission
or connivance, "by mob or other un-
lawful assemblage of persons" and
at their hands suffers bodily violence
or death, the officer shall be guilty of
a misdeameanor, and provides for his
prosecution and suitable penalties on
conviction. The same section pro-
vides that, in all cases Of lynching
when death ensues, the county where
such lynching takes place shall be
liable to the legal representatives Of
the person lynched in exemplary
damages of not less than $4,000.
Appellants sole contention is that
the trial judge erred in instructing
the jury what constitutes a mob or
other unlawful assemblages of per-
sons and in not leaving it to them
to find, without such instruction,
whether the persons who lynched
Cantey constituted "a mob or other
unlawful assemblage of persons with
in the meaning of the constitution
and statutes.
1T was clearly the duty of the
court to instruct the jury and explain
to them the meaning of the words
used in the constitution and statutes.
1t is a we'll settled rule of construc-
ton that technical words or phrases
used in a statute-especially one
dealing with legal proceedings-shall
have their technical meaning, unless
a contrary intention appears. The
phrase unlawful assemblage' has
technical meaning, and by using it as
the alternative of the word mob is
clear that the lawmakers intended
that mob should mean the same as
unlawful assemblage' Therefore,
the court correctly defined the word
mob as an unlawful assemblage of
persons and correctly defined the lat
ter phrase according to the standard
text books and our own decisions.
"Jndpment affirmed {"