The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1922-02-02
COURT REFUSES
BICHAM APPEAL
ATTORNEYS, DISAPPOINTED,
HAVE NOT DETERMINED
UPON FUTURE STEPS.

Thursday afternoon the Supreme
court refused a new trial for Edmund
D. Bigham, all the members of the
court concurring in the decision.
This means that the sentence CT the
lower court will stand. Bigham, how
ever, will be brought to Florence dur
ing the IMarch term of the criminal
court which begins on March 20 to bs
re-sentenced. Any action that may be
taken by his attorneys to carry the
case further will be taken 1T that
time.
In discussing the decision Mr.. A.
l. King, attorney for Bigham, stated
Thursday:
"The decision comes as great
surprise to the appellant's attorneys
for the reason that they submitted
the case in all good faith believing
that practically every question pre-
sented was meretoriouS. The decision
is especially Disappointing" he con-
tinued, "for the reason .that a vast
majority of the bar who had express
ed themselves, were Of the opinion
that the case would be reversed"
No word of criticism was voiced by
Mr.. King in discussing the decision
of the Supreme court. 1t was plain,
however, that his disappointment
was bitter. The attorney feels that
he has exhausted every element of
the case that has developed up to
this time in his appeal to the Su-
preme court, and that he has made
a good, clean fight for Bigham. He
does not hesitate to say, however,
that he still has grave doubts of Big
hams guilt.
Mr.. King stated that he had not
decided what steps to take to carry
the case further, if any. "This will
not be decided" ne said, "until l
have a consultation with Judge Men
del M. Smith, who is associated with
me in the case. Whatever is done,
however, will be done when Bigham
is brought here in March to be re-
sentenced to death and a date set for
his electrocution."
Mr.. King suggested that there were
several avenues for the re-opening Of
the case in the event that he and his
associate decided to avail themselves
OF any of them. There was the pos
sibility of carrying the case to the
Supreme court on the ground that
there were no women on the jury, as
is being done in several ca.ses pend
ing now, this constitution providing
that juries shall be drawn from the
whole population, or that an appeal
for a new trial could be made on the
round of after discovered evidence.
Mr.. King stated frankly that he did
not care to resort to mere technicali-
ties, and whatever step he took would
have a solid foundation in law. He
expects to have consultation with
Judge Smith in near future.
The announcement of the decision
of the Supreme court created great
deal of interest there Thursday. The
case is one of the most notorious that
has ever been tried in the Florence
courts and its progress has been fol-
lowed by thousands throughout the
State.
In its review of the Supreme court
decision the Estate said Thursday:
"The Supreme court Thursday hand
ell down an opinion dismissing the
appeal of Edmund D. Bigham and af-
firming the lower court verdict. The
court dismissed all the objections
raised by defense counsel as to an un-
fair trial and unjust charging by
Judge Memminger.
"Chief Justice Gary wrote the opin-
ion and Associate Justice Cothran
concurred. Justice Fraser wrote a
separate concurring opinion.
"Bigham was convicted of killing
his brother, L. Smiley Bigham, the
tragedy occurring near Pamplico on
January Is, 1921. He was charged
with the murder of Smiley Bigham,
his mother, Mrs. L. S. Bigharh; his
sister, Mrs. Margery Black, and Mrs.
Blacks two adopted children, Leo and
John McCracken. He has never been
tried for the killing of any members
of the family except L. Smiley Big
ham.
First Degree Verdict.
"Bigham was convicted of murder
in the first degree and sentenced to
die April 8, 1921. He appealed to the
Supreme court and Thursday this
court dismissed his appeal. Bigham
L. Io,xL ln,,eo Of fhh