The Union daily times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1918-current, 1922-10-24
ARNETTE CASE
BEFORE COURT

DAA oxAA NUM-
The appeals of Frank M. Jeffords
and Ira Harrison, convicted Of mur-
der in Richland county last May in
connection with the killing of John c.
Annette, filling station proprietor
argued before the supreme court yes
terday afternoon. The court took the
cases under advisement and will rem
Ger decisions later.
L. G. Southard, attorney for JEFF
fords, made no oral argument, sub
| mitting his appeal and argument in
printed briefs. B. B. Evans, attorney
for Harrison, made lengthy argu-
ment for his client. j. S., Werner
made the argument for the state
against the appeal in the Harrison
case. Solicitor Spigncr represented
the state in both cases. but only ar
fcued the Jeffords case. -
Solicitor Spigner took up the excep-
tions made by Jeffords' attorneys and
cited authorities in effort to show that
Judge Townsend was within his dis
cretion when he denied severance
of the cases as moved for by attor-
reys az the time Of the trial. The su-
preme court has held in past cases
that the trial Judge can exercise his
own judgment in granting sever
ances, Mr. Spigner declared. No le-
gal right was denied Jcffords when a
severance was not granted, the So
licitor added.
Another point emphasized by Mr..
Southard in his printed brief was that
the confessions Of Harrison and
Treece were against Jeffords and
should not have been admitted as evil
dence or the cases should have been
tried separately. Mr.. Spigner told
the court that Judge Townsend in
structed the jury 10 or e times that
the confessions of Treece and Har-
rison could only be used against them
selves. With regard to the admissi-
bility Of the evidence offered by Sher-
iff Heise, S. S. Shorter. J. P. Broom
and r. i. Broom, the solicitor point
ed out that the defendants themselves
went on the stand and admitted every
thing the officers had said.
Mr.. Southard objected to the charge
of Judge Townsend as to conspiracy,
but the solicitor told the court that
the charge was fully warranted by
the facts brought out at the trial.
In reply to Mr.. Spignei Mr.. South
Eauassai&l lthes sststsnte tepts naeds BY Iiar-
rison and Treece had been repeated
81 times and that the jury. no matter
how many times it had been instruct
ed to disregard the confessions of
Harrison and Treece with regard to
Jeffords, was bound to take these
statements into consideration. He ar
gued that the law was in favor of
severance of cases where the de-
fenses were antagonistic or "hostile I"
Mr.. Southard submitted 13 excep-
tions, the first three imputing error
by the trial judge in not granting a
severance of the cases, the next nine
to his refusal to. sustain the appel
lant's objection to the admissibility
Of evidence offered by the state and
the last charges error by the Judge in
charging the jury on conspiracy. No
conspiracy was alleged in the indict-
ment and the Judge erred in charging
as to the law of conspiracy, Mr.
Southard maintained.
Barnard B. Evans, attorney for Ira
Harrison, cited four exceptions in his
argument. Two were based upon the
refusal Of the court to grant a sever
ance Of the cases and two upon the
charge to the jury. Mr.. Evans said
the judge erred in charging the jury
on implied malice and on conspiracy
when no conspiracy was alleged in the
indictment.
Mr.. Evans, upon being questioned
by Justice Cothran, admitted that
Harrison did not move for a sever
ance Of the cases, but argued that the
Judge had already refused such mo-
ton for Jeffords and nothing would
have been gained by repetition of q
| motion in the Harrison case.
At this point Mr.. Evans explained
to the court that he had not repre-.
sented the defendant at the original
trial, but had been employed by the
mother Of Harrison "since the first
lawyer deserted the case" He told
the court that the only evidence the
state had sufficient to convict the
three men was that of Harrison, and
decalred that Harrison had told the
truth "and should not the truth be
rewarded" he asked.
He maintained that the cases should
have been tried separately, that the
defenses were not only antagonistic
but "hostile." He charged that nc
conspiracy was alleged in the indict-
ment and told the court Judge Town.
send erred in charging the jury on the
law of conspiracy. He said the pro.
noun "him" was used all the way
through the Indictment and never was
"them' used, he alleged.
Mr.. Evans brought in the famous
Hall-MiIls case In illustrating how
opa roav MAJ Ia oosixof svn<ha~