The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1920-04-12
Sentenced By Judge Sease Saturday
after the Jury Had Been Out 4 hours
and s. Minutes. Counsel For
Defense Will Take Appeal To
Supreme Court. Gossett
Taken To Columbia

result in a mistrial. The long de-
liberations, however, it was learned
was due to the fact that several
members of the jury insisted from
the first ballot that the extreme
penalty electrocution, be meted out
After the nearly five hours of dis
cussion and balloting a compromise
recommending mercy was agreed on.
II was impossible to learn exactly
how the jury stood on the first bal
OF. AS soon as the verdict was an
nounced citizens living a far distance
from the county seat cranked up
their cars and shortly there was the
usual Saturday crowds on the streets.
Attorneys in the case who lived
out of town and Judge Sease left i'm
mediately. Solicitor Blackwell came
Greenwood, George Bell Thinner
man went by train to Columbia and
General Bonham, Proctor A. Bon
ham, James H. Price and the judge
went by automobile to Greenville.
The case against Kenneth Gossett
(nobody seeming to take seriously
the charge against John Gossett, in
nocent in appearance and more inno-
cent in demeanor, who the afternoon
before had been discharged by spec
ial order of the court, and without
the notice of the closest observers,
taken from the court room and to
liberty was argued brilliantly by
both sides. Addresses to the jury be-
gan Friday afternoon with speeches
by J. Howard Moore and James H.
Price for the state and defense, re-
pectively, and yesterday morning
Solicitor Homer S. Blpackwell,
graciously giving last place to his as
istant George Bell Zimmerman,
poke first for the defense, followed
y General Bonham, then Proctor A.
Bonham and lastly Mr.. Zimmerman.
Those who heard the arguments
were agreed that neither side suffer
ed in the least from lack of support
before the jury. Hon. J. Howard
Moore, regarded as one of the lead
ing attorneys at the Abbeville bar,
analyzed the the testimony to the
one and pleaded for verdict that
would agree with and uphold the
common sense of the jury. He laid
special stress on the fact that the
wo young ladies were on their way
to the house of worship when they
were picked up by Kenneth Gossett.
He also ridiculed the testimony of
lTullis and Hutchison, witnesses, who
wore they saw, as they judge it, the
merry party returning to town.
There were several differences in
estimony, particularly in the cross
Examination of the sister of the
prosecutrix. The testimony of the
7rosecutrix as to the medical treat
nent of her at home before the visit
the physician on the morning OF
1arch Is, about 20 hours after the
LEGGED crime, was contradicted by
he prosecutrix' sister. The prosecu.
rix, in her direct testimony yester,
ay, said that she had received
1edical home treatment on the night
March IA. The sister said that this
reatment was not administered unit
ftcr the physicians visited her or
he morning of March Is. DR.. Gam.
rell admitted that the treatment
ould have produced a physical con.
dition which would appear from
riminal assault.
In directing the verdict in tho
ase Of John Gossett, Judge Seasc
ook the position that the testimony