The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1921-09-08
JUDGE MEMMINCER'S
CHARGE QUESTIONED
TO JURY ATTACKED
AND DEFENDED.
In Tom Harrison Case.
Some Hold That Remarks Will Con-
stitute Grounds for
Appeal.

Greenville, Sept. 3.-The charge
made to the jury by Judge Memming
er in the Tom Harris case is causing
a great deal of discussion in court
circles here and may constitute
grounds for an appeal, according to
local authorities. The following from
the Greenville Piedmont today indi-
Gates the interest in the case:
Did Circuit Judge R. Withers Menu
minger commit errors prejudicial to
the defendant in the case of the State
against Tom Harrison, convicted Of
manslaughter in killing his wife,
when he made certain utterances in
his second charge to the jury when
they came out after being locked up
all night and reported that they
could not agree?
This question is being discussed
generally by members of the Green
vile bar. Some think that Judge
Memminger's remarks may constitute
ground for reversal by the supreme
court of South Carolina and others
hold the contrary view. It is certain
that the statements will constitute
grounds upon which Harrison's attor-
ney will appeal to the higher court
for new trial.
The errorsawhich it will be claimed
Judge Memminger committed in his
second charge were:
1. In telling the jury that in case
in Barnwell county he held jury to-
gether five days and five nights until
verdict was agreed upon.
2. In saying to the jury: "Now, if
there is somebody on that jury that is
absolutely fixed and made up his
mind and determined that he> will
not decide this case, then I am 60
ing to find it out; it will be known
and there will be some notice taken
Of it,"
1t is contended that by these decla-
rations his honor invaded the prov
ince of the jury and that their effect
was to coerce the jurors into reaching
an agreement.
Cases Are Cited.
rho., --ho ,e.or+ +bo+ T,5oo Nam
minger committed prejudicial error
point to certain decisions of the su-
preme court of South Carolina in
somewhat similar cases.
Those who assert that Judge Men,
minger did not commit prejudicial er-
ror point to certain other decisions,
in somewhat similar cases, more de-
tailed information as to which is also
the points raised in this case are not
on all fours with those in the decided
cases and they hold that Judge Mem
minger has had too much experience
in court procedure to fall into error
of the sort alleged in this case.
In sentencing Harrison yesterday
Judge MemmiIger said that he was
not conscious of any error of law
committed in the trial and that he
had used his best endeavors to see to
it that the defendant had fair trial.
Judge Memminger has been on the
bench about twenty-six years, having
been judicial magistrate for the city
of Charleston for ten years before his
election to the circuit bench in 1905.
He and Judge George E. Prince, of
Anderson, are the senior circuit judg-
es of the state, both having been
elected in February, 1905. He is
generally considered one of the ablest
and most learned members of our jul
dietary.
The supreme court of South Caro-
lima alone can and will decide the
question thus raised.
Judge Memminger:s Charge.
The first part of the second charge
to the jury, to which exception will
probably be taken by the defense,
was thus reported by The Piedmont
on Wednesday:
'It was further pointed out by
judge Memminger that in one case he
had held jury in Barnwell county
over for five days and five nights be-
fore they finally reached verdict.
The jury was told that they had
duty to perform, and that, if it were
possible they should reach verdict.
They had comforta bic quarters, he
said, and while they may like to be
allowed to stop at the best hotels,
and go to the theater every evening,
and might be willing to stay on the
case for a month under these condi-
tions, such was impossible and they
would have to put up with the rea-
sonable degree of comfort which was