State v. Francis

17 Cothran, Stabler, Brease;, Messrs. Justices Graydon Associate; Mr. concur. Justice STATE v. ET AL. FRANCIS E.,

(149 348) S. (On 30, Rehearing, Aug. 1929) Beckett, Oliver, Charles J. J. Geo. W. -E$gar Messrs. Wallace, Colcock and for appellant, Alfred Solicitor Randolph Brantley Harvey, W. Murdaugh, Jenkins, Wm. N. State, and /. Heyward Levin 25, January 1929.

The of opinion the Court delivered Mr. Justice Bufase. Francis, Paul Beaufort grand jury county charged Francis, Francis, Gadsden,

Frank Abraham Ethel Sam Sim- mons, Adams, colored, Robert the murder all F. white, Beaufort, rural Langford, E. policeman 6, At 1927. the trial before his defendants Honor June 1927, Henry Johnson, presiding Judge, June, at J. term of the Beaufort county, Court General Sessions verdict, their convicted the defendant petit jury, Sam Simmons of the defendants manslaughter; Ethel Adams, murder, and Robert with recommendation to Francis, Francis, Paul Frank and the defendants mercy; Gadsden, and Abraham of murder without recommen- dation. Francis,

The defendants Paul and Abra- Gadsden, electrocution, who are sentenced to’ ham death by im- Francis, defendant who was sentenced

and the Ethel appealed life in for prisonment penitentiary, State sentences, up- from the and judgment respectively imposed court, court. is no appeal on them the lower to this There on the Robert Adams. of and part Simmons Sam Frank

The exceptions part appellants Francis, Francis Francis, twenty-six Paul are and Ethel number, so consecutively. and are numbered num-

The Gadsden has set eight appellant up exceptions, his 34. bered from 27 to and including By consecutively thirtieth, thir- twenty-ninth, thirty-first, twenty-eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, four- ty-third exceptions, adopts at- teenth, He and fifteenth exceptions co-appellants. prac- also to- tempts thirty-second exception adopt twenty- Plis all the of the other tically exceptions appellants. the case seventh mainly relate thirty-fourth exceptions himself. against rules of of the not with comply do

Many exceptions Court, in the them are more a number of quite however, Court, nature The arguments than exceptions. crime against because of charged gravity them resulting and the serious appellants, consequences below, consider all the excep- as the their will result of trial But for our rules. fully tions as they complied sake of Gadsden where brevity, exceptions similar same, such are the we shall consider other appellants two Also, in instances where some exceptions together. in a dif- raise the identical more of the exceptions question at the ferent manner, such will disposed exceptions same time. Francis, Francis,

The Paul appellants a severance them- moved as to Ethel three trial. the other defendants on We selves in the do find record similar motion on part Gadsden. motion was these appellant based upon self-defense; that : That Frank Francis grounds would plead Frank, Francis, Paul father of wife Ethel

23 relative, Frank, their de- their the to defend right after, fense would or during, be based that that right; Paul, Frank) the difficulty, without the of knowledge defendants, the Ethel other some of whom were no strangers entire to the and who had appellants, Francis them, themselves into community interest with injected the and, controversy, assistance on the part without any about these other brought appellants, persons deceased; the death of the de- that the of the other defense be, be, same, fendants not would the might probably as Francis; that no three that there could be equality on the part right defendants exercising state challenge jury, public because re- some The motion was feeling against defendants. refusal is fused and such by assigned presiding Judge, as error in first exception.

It has been that a held this Court motion repeatedly for a severance and of one or more trial on part separate case, defendants in are jointly where several persons offense, with a criminal is addressed to the discre charged C., 236, tion of the trial v. Kenny, Court. 77 State S. See E., 859; E., 106; Wade, 387; C., 79 57 v. 95 S. State S. S. Hanahan, E., 61; Brown, C., 490; 95 v. v. 108 State S. State S. C., 58, 96, E., 667; 121 v. Jeffords, State S. S. S. 111 E., C., 443, 415. S. case, the three defendants who supra,

In the Brown ap- motion for. a severance on based their the ground pealed were defenses of the antagonistic that their defenses there, in the case. this Court re- defendants other two Even of the trial interfere with when ruling Judge fused to motion to sever. he refused cited, arewe unable to find any the authorities

Under vested in the Circuit and the Judge, the discretion abuse of overruled. exception first relates to the second failure to' exception grant Frank Francis, appellant

a continuance condition of that physical the ground appel- lant such the time he could not to trial. at safely go trial, on a in the court Frank Francis was cot During room; set in some had a broken and his limb was thigh, kind of a mechanical contrivance. It was stated his coun sel “that his mental condition such that was necessarily him him could have with the mental that faculties his case demands to stand the cross-examination of counsel for the Without comment at the the motion any time State.” made, for continuance was refused the Circuit Judge motion. trial former When a new was asked because of the continuance, of the Court as to a the trial took Judge ruling occasion to make some remarks as to his refusal to grant stated, substance, the requested in that he continuance. He was more embarrassed at the time motion made than was he after he had heard Frank Francis as a wit testify was case; made, in ness he that at the time the motion was was not in Frank Fran the condition of position observe cis, other than to notice that was unable to sit that up; no had been made from a as to' the condi showing physician tion of Frank Francis the time of the the mo at making ; tion that the before the the conclusion only Court was thing counsel; on the of Frank’s Frank tes after part hearing in tify, was satisfied that condition did not physical faculties; any way interfere with his mental and that upon cross-examination Frank himself well as handled as stand, the defendants who took the and better than most of them. addition matters to Circuit In to-the which the Judge attention, Foster, called Dr. offered as a for when witness defendants, one of the in as to testifying physical that, in his mental condition of said opinion, Frank Francis’ mind clear at the time the trial. was

In their cite, counsel for argument, appellants authority to sustain their to the exception Court’s the case of ruling, Lowman, C., 485, 134 v. E., State 133 S. 457. We do not S. find in that case any of this Court on a motion for holding continuance; fact, the record shows affirmatively, “No motion made continuance; for a was counsel for de- each

25 fendant Court that were they ready announcing open trial.”

The cases of a trial Judge the discretion sustaining motions of citation. continuance too numerous to require ar»e time, however, We take the these cases. refer to two of Lee, C., 335, E., 706, In the case of v. S. State S.

two of the de certified that the physicians system nervous disturbed; much condition fendant was that his physical bad and very they did not think he was a fit condition go to trial at the case to the time. The Circuit ordered Judge trial with the anyway, stated that he was not impressed unsubstantial nature of unsatisfactory, vágue, grounds motion, for the the defendant’s own and that ap and manner seemed to-contradict certificates pearance and that the result showed physicians; conclusively the defendant stand the ordeal of the enough strong trial. On disturb be Court refused to appeal, this ruling on the low motion for continuance. 1, Underwood, C.,

In the v. 127 120 case of S. S. State E., 719, a motion for continu one of the on which grounds surround ance hostile atmosphere based was alleged defendant, of the audience as evidenced ing by applause for former motion continuance. when refused a Judge This Court held no error. there was in

We this case to rule of nothing change general see Court, thq law, often that motions for con- so held by this tinuance are to the sound discretion of the trial addressed and the the failure to a Judge, grant exception questioning continuance be overruled. must

Refusal of Court to of venue is grant change error in assigned the third The motion exception.

seems notice, to have been made without formal thereof, or grounds been served. Counsel formally having Court, appellants, stated: “There is open deal great sentiment this public community and this county, and that sentiment is evidenced the fact that the officers

26 it neces- the Court and the officers have thought County this commu-

sary to have the of the send to Governor State nity for the these troops purpose protecting prisoners under guard.” violence and Court House is now physical motion, In stated there Judge passing upon Johnson the statement of was no other than satisfactoiy showing, He further not know that the counsel. stated that he did attributed to the sheriff militia could be presence State officers; himself; that or other it was due perhaps state of had for some weeks investigated carefully find evi- in the and was no county, public feeling gratified ill toward dence state of any high feeling feeling that the County; defendants from the of Beaufort citizens had or indications of trouble'his only investigations rumors counties, who could disclosed came from residents of other case; that he ad- not sit the'trial of jury if a militia made that vised Governor that call for him it; would that he saw cause nothing approve im- feel that the not receive a fair and defendants would no unusual trial in Beaufort that there was County; partial courtroom; in the audience contained as crowd that the colored as white many people. people To sustain the made, exception cited the appellants Jackson, v. C., 273, 416; cases 110 E., State 96 S. S. C., 236, v. Kenny, E., 77 859, 861, State 57 S. S. and State Davis, C., 532, E., v 139. S. S. case,

In Jackson’s this Court reversed the ruling Court, Circuit of venue It whereby change was refused. held that the of motions for granting was refusing change Court; venue is with the discretionary of but such discre- be and not judicial, case, tion must In arbitrary. that as Court’s stated the the defendant opinion, “submitted the and of citizens prominent respectable affidavits that effect it was to the for him county impossible to aget trial in on Jasper county fair and account of impartial preju- him, inflamed the state of mind, the dice against public and The State influence the prosecutor. of popularity * * * the show- offered .Upon contrary. nothing of made, change tO‘ ing clearly defendant was entitled venue.” that case, jury

In the on was Kenny urged appeal being reason by defendant prejudiced against is called attention Our an armed accompanied by guard. wrote who

certain used by Chief language Pope, Justice Court case, “In in the as follows: the.opinion the.modern etc., must arms, be room it is that as little show a rule even are made handcuffs In most as possible. jurisdictions the trial. not allowed to be the defendant during kept arms, in fact men, the uniformed presence display that person to create the anything going impression criminal, its is has weight custody unusually dangerous Still, under the allowed.” and should not be jury, case, facts shown in that appellant the judgment against was affirmed. of venue case,

In the change the Davis the refusal to grant It be this was shown requested was held to error Court. by followed that the homicide defendant was charged against excitement; defendant was that, intense for several days, men; a man that the deceased was hunted bands of armed that his in the county very popular, standing influential; that in order connection was family large defendant, he removed violence to prevent held in the as County prisoner penitentiary; State to- local counsel for efforts were made employ although defendant, in the could attorney County employed. no be of our late We cannot distinguished regard expression case Kenny Chief Pope declaration of Justice Court, are to consider it compelled but as obiter dicta. time, not criticize what At this we do did say, and we feel worthy are gave which views thoughtful con- held, always however, sideration. It that the or an armed militia guard the trial of a presence crim- 28.

inal case is in itself sufficient that accused per- evidence -the receive, son did im- receive, not fair and a could trial. partial On there may be instances which contrary, insure trial to one military would to a fair guard help case, with crime. In charged Court Kenny this upheld the action of the lower Court an armed having guard to of the defendant. The can prevent escape Court con- afforded, ceive instances is where no protection proper that honest and because of fear intelligent jurors might, accused, of mob violence to or to other themselves Court, connected with the persons render verdict of guilty, innocent; even when the accused they thought was on the hand, accused, witnesses, other that the knowing jurors, others would be force, anby armed would properly protected not hesitate to acquit accused.

.The in this case for a of venue does not change showing any way with that made in either the Jackson compare or Davis cases. The before the trial only thing Judge was statement of counsel for the unsupported appellants of the soldiers. The trial could presence see and Judge hear what on in the was courtroom and much of the going talk of the in and about the There is people noth- building. frank ing dispute his statement threats open the accused against had come from citizens persons Hamp- ton deceased, County, where the Mr. Langford, formerly resided, and that there was no undue amount ill ex- of will the accused pressed against citizens of Beaufort County where trial held. resident Judge was Judge Johnson Circuit, of the Fourteenth which embraces County. Beaufort information He more conditions at possessed existing time of this trial than the members of Court could have. It possibly case, will be noted the Davis the de- fendant unable absolutely to secure a local attorney him, represent although prepared pay proper amount for such services. In case bar, at the six defend- ants on trial were together represented four members of Bar; the Beaufort one of County attorneys these repre- defendants, sented the three Abra- one represented Gadsden, ham and two other able Col. W. lawyers, J. son, Thomas, Thomas and his Hon. Calhoun represented Adams, grounds Simmons who are The appellants. made upon which the motion for a of venue was change insufficient, were much further and would be entirely going than this Court there has ever for us to hold that gone abuse on the dis- of trial of the part Judge judicial cretion vested in him under the law.

A number relate to errors alleged of the large exceptions on the of in instructions as to- the law the trial Judge part of ex- him these given by charge jury. Several seventeenth, fourteenth, thirteenth, namely, ceptions, twentieth, and the of the Francis twenty-first appellants, Gadsden, and thirtieth of twenty-ninth pertain appellant arrest, arrest. to the law of and the to resist unlawful right error of the Francis charges twelfth exception appellants refusal of right for a new trial because give set up Francis to resist arrest.- The twenty-eighth exception, All to. Gadsden, referred twelfth adopts exception to- mentioned may properly nine disposed exceptions of these be fair in the consideration We think it will gether. clear all assistance and of great making exceptions, the Cir- decided, all of the charges- to be to quote points and the touch arrest subject cuit which Judge, himself illegal against attempted of one to defend right instructed the Circuit Judge In the charge, arrest. general as follows: the jury

“Now, case, for the I this case and purpose this I that in case am the sole law. this charge you judge no that the deceased officer was a there is evidence making words, In I you or valid arrest. other that from charge legal case officer had no the evidence legal right, to arrest defendant Frank right, attempt lawful so, reason that That is under gentlemen, Francis. State,

law .of this and I’believe it is the law of every State in the Union, no- cán arrest a citizen for lawfully officer warrant, what is known as a misdemeanor unless without the misdemeanor was- in the committed presence I officer. will read statement of that you very thorough law: ‘An officer has no to arrest a citizen for an right warrant, offense committed out without presence, such citizen has a to resist such arrest with right what- ever and, force is if the officer tries to arrest necessary, force, I him officer is- of an assault.’ charge guilty that, you (a) In that connection I this: That you charge if the without a warrant arrests a an citizen alleged officer for State, one the nrinor the laws called a infraction of misdemeanor, words, without other a warrant —in the if is or intends to make the actually attempting illegal officer arrest, the the the or mere that per- tells unlawful officer fact arrest, son to under whom he addresses consider or yourself kind, that I have a warrant or you, that something for that does the the the give person wot addressed officer words, the In the attack other ad- to right 'person officer. have no to the actively dressed would resist ar- right illegal until the had done some overt to tlie rest act arrest officer him. In that had laid example, Tor hands person. connection, the mere fact that one stands still and just says I not resistance In is a of arrest. won’t that that connec- go-, I also- this: That where (b) tion charge you arrests officer warrant, and the citizen without a citizen that a he informs him, tells him or are you my prisoner, there to arrest is or when he I have warrant has you actually that not got for warrant, or, than goes the actually further if means to arrest, attempts the physical illegal effect if the desists his purpose, the officer from thereafter if officer desists arrest, make the from effort thereafter unlawful no n person longer then resist, why right has there resist, makes nothing no what caused difference If the officer to desist. actually to effect attempting officer

31- efforts to make ceases ill his arrest attempting illegal whatsoever, cause to be then person sought resist, arrested no has longer right unlawfully if one thereafter should officer intentionally slay Or, malice, of murder. guilty would be person if thereafter him he slew in sudden heat of passion, would be guilty manslaughter.” instance,

At the of counsel Paul Francis and Frank Francis, the written of those requests certain Judge charged defendants. as modi- were requests, presented, Some fied. There seems to be no to the objection written requests instructions, as Those charged. were as follows: given, “5. I if that even in fact the owner charge you law, machine it in (an violation of automobile) operated officer not in did yet did fact see such violation and not have a warrant .for arrest so-charged, person he could not such a law- consent of effect against person ful arrest.

“6. An arrest for a misdemeanor committed view officer is warrant, unlawful without person has same to resist an right unlawful arrest as to resist an unlawful assault.

“7. The seventh I charge you with modifications: slight A defense, not take in his may only life own but person virtue of the rule of common he law do so also de- may wife, child, fense of or brother-in-law. parent, The of right mutual defense is not applicable only cases of unlawful assault but also where for such necessity mutual re- help from a condition about brought by an sults un- attempted arrest, but cannot lawful one to aid of go a near relative and until such relative is in unless of danger his life losing serious harm. bodily or sustaining If I this:

“8. will one has charge reasonable to grounds that he and does believe is believe imminent of danger harm at bodily the hands or of an great death officer making there is no arrest and other illegal an safe reasonably way to (cid:127)32 harm, kill if necessary, he may

avoid such death or bodily in actual danger. fact his life was not as a matter of though measure must you doctrine apparent danger, Under time and such at that place as it apparent danger appeared firmness, and courage to a ordinary prudence person to the de- to exist under circumstances as then appeared I I in sub- fendant. think this already have charged you stance. I make arrest

“9. An officer to an you: seeking charge necessary than is reasonably no to use more force right has he goes to and where subject authority, person force the relations between further uses unnecessary individuals, and are the same as those between parties private to be arrested believes person sought harm killed danger bodily being receiving great officer; life defend even to may taking himself firmness, that a man of ordinary prudence provided, be situated would have reached same similarly courage lief or conclusion. unlawful, the I If arrest is defend-

“10. an charge you: it, resist but it ant made the only person right battery such arrest liable for assault and or officerattempting and false arrest. as well to cases of self-defense applies

“11. The doctrine make an arrest who abuses his officer attempting the use of the bounds thereof by and transcends authority as to. the case of a and violence private force unnecessary uses such force and violence.” unlawfully individual who requests The Francis submitted certain appellant Ethel Her fifth most of as which were charge, given presented. modified, such modification is request assigned error in twentieth exception. pertinent requests as as charged were follows: Ethel I that that she is alleges “3. charge you Ethel one of the defendants this case. the wife that she is because she not did not aid and alleges guilty She abet the murder of the deceased. should find that Even you she did murder, aid and abet the I she is that charge you entitled to defend her an assault husband unlawful against or felonious attack, and she the same as stands on footing husband, her he, Frank, and if in the which acts justified he is committed, alleged have would be justi- she likewise fied if her acts were the same similar nature and under surroundings.”

“5. I want to (c) latter it and make change part of state that more principle accurately here: than expressed if I you that charge while Erancis been have might Ethel first her justified defending an husband as- from unlawful sault, yet was rendered helpless injuries if officer that right attack the no exist and longer would she\ officer mind, would lose this m at protection, bear that that she. if time under place was or impression apprehension was still in .could she still assist him danger, life as a matter was no though longer danger. fact life In words, other the law does not measure apparent by fears how they a calm might appear person standing off from assault, but how would it to cm appear ordinary person prudence situated.” firmness, similarly courage

Near the conclusion of the made the solicitor charge, following of the Court: inquiry “Did Court charge (d) while had no warrant attempted officer ar-t man rest a a misdemeanor and without using forcet him, words, would laying just hands justify toman whom remarks those addressed to were slay offi- cer?” In “I said: response, presiding charged Judge that.” It is contended that this twenty-first exception error.

All have italicized the through, we language pre- Judge named hereinbefore siding alleged exceptions and, declared the law having erroneously; for conveni- ence, we have indicated the letters (a), (b), (c), instructions set in the given forth under (d) exceptions consideration.

34 the letter us under italicized indicated by language reasons: (Seven-

“a” is to be error for the alleged following teenth should have That the Court exception) qualified that a by deadly weapon, the charge display stating car, into migh-r a the order the officer to get peremptory violence, making be considered as an act of when well overt the not used arrest; the Court should have an unlawful that words, ‘Tor hands him.” laid his (Thirteenth example, on the the was given charge That instruction exception) facts; that that the use of a the inference to be drawn was act; or the was an overt that of it not pistol displaying of resistance is not permis- was made that an act impression fact, sible until whereas accomplished arrest is illegal man an unlawful arrest. law permits prevent im- “b” is The italicized our subdivision used language in that it a charge error puted (fourteenth exception), that facts, on and that it inferred there was evidence Francis, them, Paul, may or more and Frank one or Ethel killed from his attempt officer after he had ceased no evidence to arrest Frank whereas there was either of three named touched or injured persons arrest after he from the illegal deceased desisted attempt Frank Francis. Judge,

The twentieth alleges presiding that the exception 5 No. of the in connection gave appel- with charge lant, should have “c”), subdivision (our Ethel if con- also, altercation, at the charged beginning associate, accompanied by duct of the deceased and made the situation deadly display weapon, appear that his that he was in Frank Francis life peril, harm, the deceased had although of serious bodily danger him, Francis would laid on Frank have had the hands act in self-defense.. right-to error on No. of the trial imputes part

Exception him in made by statement to the solic- response Judge because “d”), subdivision (our itor’s inquiry making removed the Court Francis his de- statement fense that he was threatened a deadly although weapon, the officer him; may not have laid hands it is urged the Court should have in that connection either charged officer or his associate had threatened Frank a Francis with deadly in weapon, and his life was thought danger, him, officer although the had not laid hands on would have been in justified the officer. slaying far

So we have not to recount facts the attempted the surrounding homicide under in case at the investigation bar, such reserving statement and discussion thereof when we enter upon the consideration of other than those exceptions to which we have referred. For already think we present, it sufficient to that the only state was difficulty when begun deceased, Mr. Langford, to arrest the sought appellant Frank Francis for some violation of our laws as to alleged operation automobiles. There some contention on of the part that the State arrest but attempted legal, seen, as has been already held that the Judge presiding deceased did not have the to make right arrest. For the purposes this Court determining appeal, regards as the proper-thing view announced the trial adopt Judge.

Without it is the question, law of this that an State officer cannot arrest one with a charged misdemeanor, not committed in the officer, presence without warrant for such arrest proper the actual being posses sion the officer at the time of v. making State arrest. E., 322; Shaw, C., 359, 104 89 v. Quinn, S. 111 S. State C., 174, E., 62, R., 3 1500; 97 A. S. Randall, L. v. S. State E., C., 158, 123; 110 v. Bethune, 118 S. State 112 C., S. S. E., 100, 753. 99 S. of the Judge to the charge (a), effect that one unlawfully to be

sought arrested has no right to make attack the officer physical seeking make the because the officer tells arrest simply person sought 36 arrest, or that he has arrested consider himself under warrant for the sustained the cases person, State Bethune, C., 117, S.E., 731,

v. 94 77 v. Seigler, State S. C., 100, E., 753. S. S. case, In the in sub- Circuit Seigler Judge charged, stance, officer, of his office insignia view, with as he the purpose duty sup- discharging be, it to with the use no more than poses necessary, force arrest, arrested to make the to be sought sought party would not be officer This justified down. shooting the Court other instruc- connection with approved charge tions given by Judge. case,

In the Bethune used this lan Judge presiding : “Where from an unlawful person one is guage defending arrest, he had the to use so force as is right just ap much no to his deliverance and parently necessary accomplish more.” The instruction this Court. by given approved

The of must be with considered charge complained the the whole At the instance of charge. appellants, the the instructed that a Judge jury the person officer at arrest, to resist an unlawful and that an right bat an unlawful arrest for assault and tempting was liable tery No. He also that an (defendants’ request. charged 10). officer to make no use an arrest has to more seeking right force than is No. necessary (request 9). the

We not think the can do complain appellants words, use of the laid up- “for hands example, if on him.” the facts. was not on Even charge case, the did touch the facts of we used the language are inclined to the that such would language opinion been to the There favorable was testimony appellants. the the effect that the deceased drew part to appellants when he Francis for the pistol approached purpose him. If the illustration arresting by given Judge, hands to be laying arrested an offi- upon person sought by cer, such as to create the minds of impression upon that a jury to be arrested had the to person sought right resist arrest, sufficient force such then undoubted illegal ly, jury use, must have also or threat understood use, ened officer, cir deadly under such weapon by cumstances, would have also to be given person sought arrested the tO' use such force as was right necessary prevent the officer from to the hurt of the using pistol one sought In event, arrested if coun unlawfully.

sel for the felt that appellants law as by declared Circuit should Judge have been con now qualified, they for, tend it was their to make therefor. duty request proper The record that the shows listened presiding Judge patiently to requests for instructions to the He almost jury. charged all the written requests asked for counsel for the appel lants and indication that he gave every would entertain verbal 'requests instructions.

From the counsel, argument we take appellants’ it that the only objection the instruc set'up against tion, under subdivision is that there- (b), the charge in made was on facts, stated, as before and that there is no as to the question correctness of the laid legal principle down officer, Judge. Certainly, who out starts arrest, an illegal make desists from so to do purpose whatsoever, from any cause it is one apparent arrested, to be sought and those are him in who' assisting resistance, that the efforts, officer has ceased his there is no of the danger arrest illegal being accomplished, arrested, the is duty person and those sought therein, who are him to also desist in further assisting any effort case, to injure the officer. The Bethune hereinbefore cited, is for this authority for it must be evi- proposition, dent when no force at all is required to prevent illegal effect, arrest carried into being the use of force would any be a violation of law. areWe of the that opinion part of the of was charge complained to the facts applicable case, but it did not give any on the impression those facts he conceived of the trial as to what

part Judge to be. as to subdivision “a” has been said

What already (c). exception to the twentieth sufficiently applies further on the request part In the absence of any fair think charge complained we appellants, said as to- subdivision has been statement of the law. What the error answers imputed “b” also (fourteenth exception) in the (d). twenty-first exception mentioned, we before to the authorities-

In addition authorities well-recognized that other are satisfied instructions full and fair in every sustain respect ar- to resist unlawful of arrest the right law as to We quote rest, Judge. presiding were given which think bear out authorities, we which a few is ours. The indicated take. emphasis we position arrest, make to- an or an unlawful attempt “An unlawful other same nonfelon arrest, stands footing common assault and The assault, battery. or as a person ious arrested, or whom such un an unlawfully against iswho so directed, is not b-o-undto- is yield, may attempt lawful is not force, but he authorised to go beyond resist force to the character assault, proportioned line of force Law, A. & wrongdoer 2 in turn becomes E. Enc. or 909. on one’s

“A no reason trespass person liberty mere life, one commits homicide while taking for the arrest, even it is though unlawful, cannot resisting unless he can show ground justify of self-defense necessary protect was apparently killing himself from Enc., harm.’ 25 A. & bodily 279. E. great death or from American and English quotation last Encyclo-' of this Court met the approval the opinion of Eaw pedia Woods, in the case of Mr. State v. Byrd, written Justice E., 542. 104, 51 E., S. 72 S.

“ * * * use no more But such should person force arrest, than is to and is jwstv-, resist necessary unlawful in where only or to vasea using deadly weapon offering fled the mere has reason to than apprehend injury greater arrest, as death or harm.” bodily danger great unlawful 804. Cyc, “It that an not has been reasoned unlawful infrequently to restrain a is such an aggression attempt liberty person’s to the aggressor. furnish excuse slaying complete contention, however, little or no favor The has met with- contrary, generally in On eyes Courts. unless he can show that the is not excused slayer

held in While necessary act was done his homicidal defense. the citizen to resist an be doubt the right there can no his resistance yet his freedom, to-restrain attempt illegally threat- to the injury in disproportion must enormous view, take the better ened. He has no right, according or human mere upon person life his prevent trespess imminent danger liberty, by any when unaccompanied L., 170, 868. 13 R. C. p. harm or great bodily felony.” par. law, the exceptions to overrule necessary, It is under under consideration. Frank, Paul, set

The appellants Ethel Francis in their twenty-second exception Judge up in in erred use of the gen- language following “I eral the aid that when one charge goes charge: you conflict, in of another combat or to the aid person going of the other stands the same or the same position, feet, shoes, aid the same to- whose person has gone.” Gadsden, is a brother-in-law of the

The who appellant also thirty-second appellant exception, of error complains respect. the Judge’s general taken from words are quoted a near relative to to' the right go

charge concerning question seems to be no There difficulty. of another aid 40

as tó the other instructions with the given along language now of. complained connection,

In this call .attention to the third request we the trial of the Francis charge given by Judge, appellants, wás as “I which follows-: charge you Ethel the de- she is the wife of one of alleges in be- fendants this case. that she is not alleges guilty She cause she did not abet the murder of the deceased. aid and murder, should find that she did aid abet you Even I her husband that- she is entitled defend charge you attack, assault or felonious and she unlawful against Frank, husband, he, stands on the her and if same as footing com- which is to have justified alleged in acts mitted, justified she would her acts were likewise be nature and similar same under surroundings.”

The request should charged not have used the perhaps used, word “murder” as it was but the stated in principle with, in request was line and to- the effect same practi cally, as instruction which is now was erroneous. urged The charge given by the as well as the Judge, presiding allowed, request which was is in entire appellants, accord with the Court -as down in the holdings laid this Cook, C., 253, case v. E., 862, 864, State 78 59 15 S. S. 1013, 788, R. A. 125 (N. S.), L. Am. 13 Rep., Cas., Ann. St. 1051. The to the argument now is effect appellants that the in the Cook case holding stated wrong. Brown, there principle announced was v. reaffirmed State C., 490, E., 61, C., Shuler, 108 95 S. v. 116 S. State S. 152, 107 E., 147. S.

It was conceded the counsel for in the appellant 163, case of C., E., 362, v. 113 Hays, that the State S. S. declaration of the law as laid down the Cook was the case law of settled and that it jurisdiction, was recognized Brown, in the case of the v. approval State In supra. case, at the of counsel for the Hays request appellant, Court granted to review the permission law as declared v. therein, State Cook. In the this Court reaffirmed opinion the conclusion case, announced the Cook and approved following Mr. language Woods: “We Justice endeavored to show the law as laid down the Circuit is Judge firmly established. It true the in ex- may rule cases ceptional work but the rule would hardship; opposite allow innocent man who had been to strike in forced self-defense to be killed with because impunity, merely ap- pearances to be him at the moment a happened against par- tisan of his reached the scene conflict. The antagonist of duty seems to enforce urgent rather than relax the rule which admits of no excuse for human life taking except necessity.” and overruled.

Exceptions are The for the attorneys fif- their appellants argue teenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth to- exceptions We shall gether. of these the dispose and thirty-first and thirty-third of the exceptions Gadsden appellant which are identical with the fifteenth other the exception appellants, at the same'time. These relate to exceptions the charge the presiding Judge law upon concurring partici- by overt acts in pating the commission a homicide. Coun- sel for the conceded that if there appellants very properly was any action, evidence of any concert of the instructions would given not be main contentions objectionable. two as to the law announced the Circuit in by excep- Judge tions under First, consideration are: that the legal princi- declared to the ples and, were jury second, applicable; that the language violation Judge of the con- stitutional provision, which prohibits Judges charging on the-facts. In a that thei way, us two appears theories of the inconsistent, are appellants for if there was no evi- dence which case, made the as law declared applicable then it is difficult for it to be held that instructions Judge any unduly touched the facts way as they were adduced in the It is that testimony. maintained also- instructions, some referred tO'in the now exceptions 42- the law us,

before when declared the law of conspiracy, did not involved, was not and when subject State on trial had contend defendants two or more of the to murder the deceased. conspired to have The instructions of trial Judge, alleged erroneous, been as follows: were “That all Fifteenth per- and eighteenth exceptions: some by sons who are present concurring participating murder, or felonious homi- overt act commission of a therein, malice, are cide participating accompanied felonious homicide murder, act causes such or such which malice, act of each the law regarded counseling all abetting', so present participating, aiding, concurring.” connection, “In that and nineteenth exceptions:

Sixteenth actual verbal it need not shown that there was agreement other, man but before a aid the one stand that he theory oh can be convicted as principal that he was abettor, be satisfied must jury aider or some and abetting by actually aiding’ and that was present, In that connec- in the of the homicide. overt act commission illustration, I tion, way further and of you by charge word, look by I might and without you speaking example, backing that we were the other action indicate one to by in concert. other, were acting and that we the one or there is if in this case connection, I that In charge you that either or any this against evidence that would any justify I do’ fact for and you, question of them is wholly a. I want just yoü intend intimate whatsoever. any opinion to understand the law.” inof the fifteenth and eighteenth

The charge complained the authorities of by well exceptions supported State 1 C. L.), since the v. McCord Anthony, (12 State case S. case, Mr. this: several 285. In that Nott said “Where Justice murder, in are is not material which engaged committing it. blow; the mortal for where one is with charged having gave

43 blow, a mortal given and others as aid- been having present, and ing and it in assisting, comes out evidence that who is charged with only the mortal wound was having given present aiding the stroke was abetting, given another, the indictment is in well for it is law supported; the stroke of all.” E.,

In the case of v. C., 443, 121 114 Jeffords, State S. S. 415, 416, Fraser, Court, Mr. for the speaking quoted Justice some approval from the case of v. Jen language State kins, 14 215, Rich. 132, C. 94 (48 Am. Dec. L.), S.

follows: “All who are in a murder are present concurring therein, death, principals and the the act caused which it, is, law, the act of each and of all. There distinc is no tion law, regard in the their degrees guilt, or the measure of their or the nature of their punishment, offense, founded the nearness or of their remoteness personal An agency indictment it as respectively. charging act of a particular individual of the will well be party sustained by evidence that them the fatal other of any gave stroke, them, or that it was one of given by though some does not which.” appear by language presiding Judge complained in the sixteenth nineteenth appellants exceptions Hunter,

taken verbatim practically from the case of v. State C., 119, E., 637, met the S. case it S. app of this Court. roval

We do not find charge Judge presiding expression, which as a on the law may regarded charge full correct conspiracy] as to' law charge of aiders and abettors. The instructions to have been alleged did inapplicable not meet the of the but theory appellants, were they to contentions the responsive the of State.

The to are held to’ be merit. exceptions referred without The fourth and fifth error on the exceptions allege part the trial to a verdict not Judge direct failing guilty as to the and the appellants, especially directing jury them,

that in no the either of event could appellants, established, if murder, convicted of as the offense highest offense any at all was was that of manslaughter. proved, tenth, ninth, sixth, seventh, remaining exceptions, eighth, eleventh, twelfth, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-third, relate to twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, thirty-fourth, and refusal All to trial in the case. these grant exceptions new will be of together. disposed contain

Quite strong argu- number of these exceptions to any ments in favor of the as innocence appellants them, with crime and these arguments urge charged against should considerable force that event appellants than that of man- not have been convicted of a crime higher the ex- difficult select from It to- slaughter. exceedingly is can, how- the real As best we error. ceptions assignments ever, as much with the view brevity and with possible, as we under- all the contentions of the appellants, covering their take conceive to be a fair statement of posi- what we officer, tions, Mr. deceased which are as follows: That the circumstances, no- under Langford, had right attempt, Francis, the con- the arrest and that appellant McDaniel, along duct of the deceased Mr. who was Frank, him, amounted-to assault an aggravated him him use to save considerable force giving right threatened; that injury arrest and attempted wife, Ethel, Frank, Frank’s Paul father of as brother-in-law, Gadsden, to assist as his right their arrest and saving relative the unlawful preventing time; neither of him from at the hurts that physical apparent the time of more than at necessary did was appellants their out lawful difficulty carry purposes; evidence circumstantial agáinst largely appellants more their that the showed not inconsistent with guilt; proof two, one, than than not more were certainly persons deceased, the fatal guilty inflicting injury unjust to convict .four or of inflicting more persons such fatal that the failed to injury; evidence entirely support rendered, verdict and the guilt beyond appellants a reasonable doubt was not established.

In the consideration of the must we in exceptions, keep declared, mind the legal and it will be principles already to refer proper hereafter to some other not here- principles tofore too, mentioned. It will be necessary, to recount some of the facts shown in the The for motions testimony. directed verdict were made at the close of the for the testimony State.

A motion of this character comes at the close of all properly case, in testimony a and it therefore, will proper, consider in all the the errors testimony passing upon charged.

Two it established that legal so well principles, are cite in their unnecessary authority support, these: in The trial of a (1) ruling Judge refusing a motion grant for a directed not be inter- verdict should with, fered there was on the issues any evidence case which of at issue required question submission to the a trial to- jury; (2) failure of a Judge grant new trial lack to- a verdict of the testimony support jury should not be reversed if evidence at there was any all which the verdict could be based. adduced,

From the to be undis evidence appears that, which on the on Mr. day puted morning killed, the Frank and Ethel Langford appellants Ga., Savannah, resided in the accom who city defendant, Robert who' is Adams convicted panied by (a others, Glover, came from appealing), Stepney Savan nah col to attend baseball and other festivities game ored Mitchell’s be held at near Beau place shop people automobile, fort and some County. traveled parties b3 road, all on where Beaufort probability County, other of the manner travelers in which Frank complained car. no There was Carolina or driving South car, license Georgia tag Frank’s but did have displayed Savannah, and he license claimed that his tag city 46- vicinity stolen. In the been lost or

Georgia tag recently attend, visited at the the to they party which were gathering, A little and Paul Francis. the homes of Abraham Gadsden Adams, Glover, others, later and all the appellants, afternoon, in the went to baseball the the game. Late! deceased, Beaufort Mr. a rural of policeman Langford, of McDaniel, Mr. that County, game and A. warden W. officer, went as a county, with common-law powers peace reason, the the For some of colored gathering people. not doubtless because the was testimony competent, properly Mr, received, it had not clear what information is Langford conduct, if came, any, on or from it whom improper his automobile the. of Frank in of part driving -Francis the that M’r. County; Langford Beaufort but it is evident to the him to go received some caused information which of of search for the driver the baseball and place game McDaniel certain Langford automobile. At time 200 or some reached Mitchell’s there were gathered shop, field, and a more baseball colored were people; many sold. hall refreshments were being number were where Frank of and McDaniel automobile Langford found inquired negro it some searched of Francis-.-Langford women, the owner as to who were about the who place, time, Frank Withirij ap of car. short very car under the observation that the acknowledged peared him, officers was owned seems that some of by had in negro women whom had talked Langford formed as to the car. made inquiry being

While there little as to- may some question Langford in his a warrant of arrest to our minds having possession, warrant, not showed that did have such testimony kind, have a warrant of did it could not/ named Frank Francis to be arrested. as the person time at

From the of the Frank Francis appearance were, and McDaniel automobile, already where Langford there is conflict as to the occurrences. testimony great Not is much for only the prose- witnesses testimony defendants, cution for contradicted witnesses flatly by but some of the witnesses testimony disputed State’s other State, witnesses and the testimony many witnesses state- for the defendants is variance with at greatly ments of other witnesses for them. required,

It is now be- passing upon exceptions considered, to de- ing out favorable to the testimony point however, them, fense In fairness to we appellants.

shall some of the endeavored briefly, review things they their show favor- own witnesses testimony able to them. as to

The best statement from the viewpoint appellants’ Frank comes, of the from difficulty beginning perhaps, substance, Francis. about In he as That testified follows: to o’clock in the he left the baseball diamond afternoon hall, Langford to the and saw two white men (evidently, go and McDaniel, he but he no at- whom did not paid know), them; him, to tention he had a baseball bat with although he had to do with baseball team. Fie bat nothing put the hall. He saw one men white pick cushion up from the back seat of his car. He inquired what was the trouble, and was asked to whom the car and he belonged, that it responded testimony, was his. His was reported, then as follows: “I them asked what was the trouble. After I trouble, asked them what was asked who this car they to. I said, car? said belonged They say, your this yes. They I we want you. said what Chief. He said com- were you from ing this I Savannah said recklessly morning driving.

I not said, was He reckless. did not to driving you like run two into ditch on the gentlemen About that highway. remark, them

time one of made the shut your darned up I mouth. not did much attention. At the same time one pay of them around. When they said stepped that and stepped that, I like this around man was to snatched his talking out too and knocked me in I pistol the head. he thought

48- him. After we I me tried catch

was and shoot try Mc- man me (indicating catched hold this shot together, I did sense. my I fell. The knocked out and. lick Daniel) shooting.” until I not come to heard several pistols myself not move could felt a shot and He stated further he he leaned shot; up that after some struggling after he was Mr. hall; Langford that he did not know of the side or not able stand up he was rural that policeman; was shot; that he did he after lean his automobile- was against until the time he shot was not see Fthel he knew over; no that that he had pistol; whole was thing kicked; shot, hit, or Mr. about Langford getting nothing did eye; hit him over right Langford Williams or his father other see appellants, Joe on. accused, shooting going when the who (an escaped) Paul Francis was testimony appellant diamond, he first saw the baseball effect: As he came from near his McDaniel and son Langford Messrs. reck- concerning He they automobile. heard dispute and took others were Pie where the less started driving. up caliber, automobile and .32 from an placed one of gun, to steal “as he somebody going pocket thought it,” his son. and had it when Langford ápproached clinched, Frank and was Mr. and Langford were Langford car, close to the Frank as with a he pistol. got hitting Just Frank, his Paul ran McDaniel and shot pulled gun whereupon McDaniel; the and shot at McDaniel returned around the car while, Paul; and then fire he McDaniel little at pursued son; to had left and his Langford returned the where he place hit either his son that he was sure that neither of. his shots that he did shoot the direction or Mr. and not Langford, shots, that four one only of these two. He could identify himself, Frank, one that McDaniel fired at McDaniel fired at McDaniel, he testified he had fired although and that at two fired; Frank did that son there other shots his many were the Abraham Gadsden near not that he saw any have pistol; difficulty, that shooting, but he did not see do any Gadsden that Glover had pistol; Stepney gun hands, Simmons, shoot; but he he did not see him saw Sam but not him see did see do and that did not anything, Robert Adams the When he to during returned difficulty. McDaniel,- from his place difficulty both pursuit Frank and were Langford down on ground, but not did know shot Mr. who Langford. as follows: appellant Francis testified briefly, Ethel Adams,

That and she went to hall a car Robert husband, Frank, was she her that accompanied by and proceeded to cream for sale. Frank was prepare ice help the hall when arrived, she but he soon went out to the base- sister-in-law, Gadsden, ball her and game. She Katherine wife Gadsden, window; to the then went appellant outside. Ethel went Mr. and Mr. McDaniel were Langford out at car at that time. and Frank came back Gadsden hall Mr. and Katherine told together, Lang- Ethel McDaniel, officers, know, ford and Mr. whom did not Ethel were out there. Katherine told the officers Ethel was, asked her whose car that that she had them told that it to Frank. told Frank belonged Thereupon, Ethel there. go out Frank and the but She heard officers talking, did not know out they what were went on saying. She at, Mr. McDaniel car Mr. back porch. was near, arm the was and Frank Langford was resting matter, car. what “For inquired and Frank says, She him told ahead. “Mr. took speeding.” go Langford She I don’t no out of pistol said want ‘nigger, arguing clinched, clinched. Paul Francis you,’ they they Just from the car shot then came front twice.” Ethel woman, Rosa, turned to one back to hall. go- Some Frank, called her to then on who was get ground. broken,

told her that his asked her some leg get time, one him the in car. About that Abraham Gads- put door, den in the -was standing stood and Williams up Joe 50- and him, back

near and shot Gadsden Langford then the front. Frank was Williams shot him from Joe off down Robert, Frank, in the car. and drove Ethel sitting into the same a Paul road little Francis got piece, struck Frank car. that Mr. Langford Witness was positive or shot, Paul whether say before but she could not as Paul came not Paul saw a running with Langford pistol, shooting, denied from the side before he fired. up Ethel Frank a or Mr. or pistol cutting, biting Langford, giving way difficulty any in the affray, during engaging whatsoever. not Robert Adams or She did see Sam Simmons fired; it, take shots As she of the two saw one part. say, Paul Paul Francis heard hit and wounded Frank. She as were “he done a they good fight, had driving away, not see he die and for his son.” did would to hell go She Mr. McDaniel fire his pistol. Gadsden substance of the testimony appellant car the hall from follows: He drove up lit- and McDaniel. In

baseball Langford diamond met while, for he a warrant tle heard them say they what, and one of Frank Frank Francis. inquired for, but men him Frank said what told into car. get he shoot. When did not into-the car. He heard get pistol him, around, shoot looked he Langford saw grab in the Langford and Paul Francis came around and shot back, in the back. cut Glover ran Stepney up Langford ran hand. Williams and he also had a black pistol' Joe there, not did. around but did know wliat Sam Sim- Joe kicked mons a knife. Robert Adams hit- Langford in the diffi- Gadsden said Francis was not Langford. Ethel her. at hall he saw the window of the when culty, being and said did He denied the- any part having fight, He that he have a did not own one. also testified pistol or hit Frank Francis did not see Mr. Langford pull pistol He denied as to- with one. his wife talking hearing Ethel fired, first officers out at the car. The shot accord- being him, to ing was and the shot by Frank next was from the of Paul arrested Francis.This was pistol appellant on the day Savannah, his homicide on to following way but he insisted that not he make trying escape. was He admitted that he had told McTeer in the Beaufort Mr.

jail that he was not when the Mr. present shooting Lang- ford took falsified, he because place, having explained, he was afraid. Simmons,

Sam one of the of man- defendants convicted : slaughter, who is He not testified came about appealing, up to the scene after the difficulty, evidently fighting started, had A saw him woman advised people running.

that it would be better not but he go “yonder,” he said had do it, with nothing he was can “they not fighting, do to me look.” saw Mr. nothing go He Langford on the head lying ground porch toward one time, arm doubled About that came up. white man up (Mr. in his car and out. He did not know jumped Langford, but was told who He he was. endeavored to Mr. make Lang- ford leave, comfortable. “I When advised to he said: not because the is liable to and I will going, come Sheriff as he know stay not who it.” He might might done stayed until the came white folks was arrested. Pie denied it, part knew little having any difficulty and about but he did Paul see Francis the road with a running down pistol in his hand. he taken a Said little but whisky day, not drunk. Adams,

Robert to life imprisonment, sentenced who did made That substantially statement: appeal, following he came to the baseball Savannah to take game part therein; that was third base when the playing shooting commenced; he heard several shots and saw a white man run- Francis; who was Paul pursued by he went ning, toward and, hall, shots; while heard several going, then he man out on the saw white stretched ground and Frank automobile, in a Buick Francis was on the lying back seat. the latter

He saw Williams shoot Mr. while Langford Joe him, him called was on asked ground. Ethel hospital. to drive Frank’s car to to take him to a Savannah wife), heard Abraham call Missie (his Fie Gadsden “Let’s do the car home.” He did not see into and get Ethel go part and she no He denied any knife. anything, having a whatever in or that he had baseball bat. difficulty, Leáv- automobile, scene of Paul the trouble ing heard son; Francis his he would “that was with that say, going son, hell die and with his he had made good go fight.” witness,

The chief on difficulty, as to beginning McDaniel, Mr. A. state was the game W. part dif- warden who deceased to the place accompanied and had a therein. Mr. McDaniel testified about ficulty part he, Mr. as follows: on their Langford way n Cumbaheeriver to Beaufort, arrived at Mitchell’s about shop 5 :30 'm. There a baseball and a p. game progress, men were around and women number colored large his and went up out of car got house or hall. Mr. Langford car, latter had no state Buick and the a large touring it, city but it carried license of kind on Savannah owner, but she did of woman who was the Fie inquired tag. know, not also that she not Another woman stated did know. As a result of the ques- the owner. but said she would get go Frank came told tions, Langford Frank Francis soon up. a state license having himself arrest for consider under car, him under arrest also on his and Langford placed tag Frank asked what a car without a license. again for driving Frank, “Mr. Lang- for. McDaniel told he was under arrest for were under arrest you you get has what ford told Mr. Langford About that time Frank grabbed the car.” collar, about up Langford pulled left hand and hit Frank over the right eye. from his pistol pocket made no at- had not touched Langford him him, to tell that he was under ar- except arrest tempt to rest, until Frank ran hold of McDaniel Langford. grabbed around road, the car next to the and at that time Paul Francis came from around a little store and shot Eord building Lang in the back twice. Mc- fell knees and then Langford to his Daniel with his at Frank. The shot witness derringer pistol Frank, not sure that he hit but that he was admitted close him; direction, to hit enough that he shot in Frank’s and shot with the him. purpose While hitting Langford, there, McDaniel and Frank were Robert Adams and standing some other out person of a sedan and got went to base- ball ground. McDaniel went around the car for the purpose if he out, could seeing help when he Langford was pur- sued at least three these he people, among recognized Adams, Robert Paul Gadsden, and Abraham each of whom shot at him. Seeing he could do nothing in, he place account of the he was left the danger go shoot, not know assistance. He not see and did did Langford what became of which was when missing Langford’s pistol, He on was over. saw four five difficulty people pile Paul Francis in the back twice. Langford shot Langford.

Around bullets were fired. Witness did not know twenty on had a warrant. He saw Langford Lang- Sam Simmons assistance, some and after ford. When he returned with for there to look out for the officers telephoning Ridgeland assailants, he returned to dif- place Langford’s still but he died in a breathing, and found Langford ficulty while. very short who was sworn as a witness for the defend- Drawdy, E.

J. ant Paul extent the testi- great corroborated Mr. of the difficulty. McDaniel as to mony beginning but little. On. his Creek The witness saw Whale way Beaufort, moments, ex- he for few as he just stopped it, ball a ball. He did not players pick to watch the pressed up in the but affray, know was able parties engaged of them. Frank Francis as one He saw no white to identify but he a white man man with a heard command Frank pistol, Francis to in a car. At the time white man was stand- get on the and Frank on the ing Francis was ground standing porch of the hall. Witness cranked car and was preparing leave, but he saw Frank Francis the white man grab shoulder, the shirt or and then white man hit Frank saw the on, with pistol. As the witness he saw colored passed know, whom people, he did not and heard shoot- guns, ing. Glover,

Stepney one of the main for witnesses the prose- cution, supported very statement of Frank strongly in instances but many as to of the affray, starting he He denied supported the contentions the State. in He related that difficulty. any way participated there was some white complaint morning people the manner in which Frank Francis road as to along After Mr. as to his automobile. driving Langford inquired car, Frank Francis came of the Buick up ownership with a He baseball bat in his hand and stood on the porch. then down and leaned on his car. Mr. was look- Langford got car, him he was look- ing what inquired was, for. as to whose car and Frank ing Langford inquired him that his. Mr. told it was walked around Langford front and told Frank “to himself under arrest. put Frank say, what, what for. After Frank then say jumped up told Frank for reckless and to driving speeding get here, his hand and shoved Frank like that. He caught him of head like that struck side had his like that and pistol him Then Frank went into and closed and him to in. told get and him went down on the started ground on and they him shot somebody came they up (presum- When fighting. Frank) I I think it other tell. was this white could not ably in and shot, started his father they running fellow. After he him Witness further then ran shot (Langford).” and up asked where was Frank’s and somebody related that pistol, back into hall and came out Francis ran with that Ethel Frank, that Frank handed it to and then shot and pistol

55' Langford twice. That down on Langford Robert Adams was and ran was him a bat. Gadsden out hitting with Abraham his and with a hand shot at shop black long pistol McDaniel. knife. was there and had a After Sam Simmons was down all on him Langford on were ground, “they him, I could tell were were beating they what they doing, mixed him on him. Paul head up Francis struck the pistol butt after he on did not was He know ground.” what became Mr. but in- Langford’s denied the pistol, sinuations of counsel that he taken it. Pie had appellants’ saw Francis him bite Ethel (Langford). baseball,

Richard who was Washington, swore that playing sawhe Frank Francis and a little later Abraham Gadsden hall, going to the and about 10 minutes later to the they got he hall He heard then shooting. went to the .hall and saw down on his Langford knees, hands and he saw Paul McDaniel, Francis Mr. shooting at who was Robert running.

Adams there with a bat was and hitting Langford. Sam cut Simmons with a knife. When Langford he saw Abraham Gadsden, that was appellant automobile. He going did not see either Francis or with a Ethel Francis pistol, see, so far could as had no Ethel in the affair. part Paul, Frank, appellants Ethel Robert Adams, a few hours after were killing, by arrested Sheriff Langford Jasper County, were on their they toway Savannah, jail in the lodged at Ridgeland. Frank Francis wounded condition to explained Langford Sheriff testified, him, that he so the had been in Sheriff telling Thomas, a white A. G. man who automobile wreck. jail,

confined as a prisoner Jasper County testified as Paul a conversation overheard Ethel Thomas, said, “Well, Paul According and Robert Adams. that; and it is over with and that’s

we done the killing it, the one that did (Frank) on the cot we will boy him.” said that let blame rest Ethel she did all she could him “I I with a knife.” do, him and cut Robert bit Adams said, did the it did “We best we could and a we is pity man.” get other deceased, Foster, was the

Dr. examined the H. who Clay Mr. by received main the wounds witness for the state as to a within few the deceased Dr. Foster reached Langford. offered, as also mentioned minutes after he died. He was hereinbefore, This Court has for the defense. as a witness Foster, Dr. testimony by been much given impressed the witness is not a only high that man appears more than ordi- surgeon intelligence physician every that he indication nary desiring but ability, gave brief, In Dr. fair in made. to be the statements absolutely Foster that the was that his bloody, testified deceased very shell, like there was a knife stab skull an egg was crushed side, collar on the knife right deep wound below the bone bone, two bullet wounds wound to the breast down hands, back, bullet wounds six distinct bites from two elbow, left the shoulder human teeth on the arm from to the kicks, hits or and powder either scalp abrasions of the neck; that the shirt on the back pistol burns from the skull on thé was burned. of the deceased wound instrument, said, and could have made blunt some Foster, Dr. In the a baseball bat. opinion been done wounds, the knife two wounds of the bullet at least one them, skull, were sufficient all or either lick on the of Mr. Langford. death cause (cid:127) C. R. testified Messrs. H. Wallace and S'traussbaugh E. the scene of the after the difficulty fighting reaching Mr. over, all still they Langford but living, found a little while and before Dr. Foster that he died within came. These saw none defendants around place gentlemen homicide was committed with the where the exception said that Wallace Simmons was about Simmons. Mr. Sam half Mr. testified he heard Straussbaugh drunk. Sim- Mitchell, there,' colored mons to Isaac man who was say tell him.” you “be careful what

57 It is our to which opinion testimony we called attention is the conclusions sufficient to wholly justify we have reached in now under determining exceptions consideration, and is not into the testi- necessary to go mony any other witnesses the case. The record is voluminous, and in consisting typewritten pages, many instances the is difficultto read. The Court typewriting read, read, but, has and reread all the as testimony, suggested hereinbefore, we have deemed it the under the thing proper law, to read it fávorable we can to the as theories of the State, for the reason that it is not within the of the province issue, Court to the facts in or pass upon to give any opinion as to the of the witnesses. matters credibility These were for the entirely jury. This Court is concerned only with as- if there was error on the of the Circuit certaining part Judge, law, in under the to direct a verdict as refusing requested defendants, he committed by error in their refusing a new motion for trial.

That have their may positions placed fairly the appellants here, for in the attention purpose calling record to, not hereinbefore adverted which to other legal principles case, are we are of considerable we importance think twenty-sixth full the twenty-seventh out setting excep- These- are as follows : tions on the appeal. The verdict was without evidence to sus-

“Twenty-sixth. one of the and should particular tain it as to any appellants the reason fatal only possibly be set two bullets aside both, deceased and entered the according undisputed from the same blank range, fired from evidence, point were calibre, same and of the direction, spot, the same almost fired is that the by evidence pistol the undisputed whereas calibre, those fired Abra- of small Francis was Paul calibre, and Williams were of larger ham Gadsden Joe the bullets to produce State power within it was thus establish the innocence killed the deceased which were of different calibre whose pistols one or more and this was not done so that the verdict of necessity based conjecture best evidence could have although been produced. Wherefore, in the interests of fairness and justice a new trial is demanded failure State’s make definite and certain the party the fatal shots.” firing

“Twenty-seventh (Exception The human Gadsden). eye being incapable following of a bullet flight pistol shots, evidence as to who the fatal fired both of which were fired by shirt, same as shown person, by doctor, testified to by the circumstantial and being purely inconsistent with the of defendant, more than one guilt three been having convicted of the fatal firing shot to wit: Francis, Paul Gadsden, Francis and Abraham while three been having convicted shot, fatal firing the to wit: Williams, emptied his one pistol at round blank point Joe at the range deceased while he lay upon ground, circumstantial evidence not fails only to establish the guilt of this defendant but fails to exclude the reasonable hypothe- sis that the fatal bullets were fired one by defend- two ants, Williams, who is a fugitive justice or Paul Joe Francis, or Frank and therefore the verdict against this defendant is without evidence to it support and the Court erred to direct a refusing verdict of acquittal as to this defendant on motion.” before,

As these are suggested rather exceptions argu- however, manner, mentative. They present, in a clear very some of the main of the contentions appellants, were they earnestly by able counsel at argued of the hearing cause. which cannot of the wounds say Court received This death, nor caused his can it which say deceased by to death. contributed wounds Under the of the Foster, four of the at least Dr. wounds were testimony If either was sufficient death. to produce sufficient to produce in all likelihood also had death, wound some then that effect And, too, deceased. of the some the death in hastening as death physician wounds wounds not described may to about of way have contributed in some the bringing were, All our death Mr. these under law Langford. matters for the determination of Without further clearly jury. necessary comment on our we deem to part, only quote from some authorities of certain well-an- high standing nounced of which and which legal we principles, approve, bar, we the facts of case at being regard applicable cited, authorities, and which in addition to those already sustain the action of the presiding Judge submitting the jury case to on both the issues of murder and man- and which also his refusal a new slaughter, support grant We italicize certain language trial. to which we direct es- attention. pecial another deemed

“One mho injury inflicts con- injury the lam to. be homicide guilty if such tributes the death mediately immediately fact other. The other causes contribute the death responsibility. does not relieve the actor So physical done, man time the act condition of the slain at the when will excuse or minimize its the casual consequences, between is connection it and the fact of death made to ap- hand, On the other if an pear. injury is condition merely death, produce which does not contribute to the law does actor criminally not hold the one responsible. Accordingly, if wound while acting is asMther self-defense, inflicted the deceased had declined all combat and was after further wound and each the s^l,fflcient defendant, fleeing from death, bemay adjudged murder guilty he have produced of death, it contributed to wound the the last in inflicting if the deceased would it have not been died though inflicted while the in nec- acting wound given by defendant however, If, the latter wound did not essary self-defense. decedent, then is not guilty to the death contribute an injury, The fact that of homicide. followed of any degree of death, and nearer point the time subsequent by sources, from other received is not injuries than thereto 60

be taken as the criterion determining responsibility. If times, two persons wounds on another at inflict different n death, aggravated produces second who first it will but be held the later responsible; injury pro- inflicted if death, it duces is the occasion although first of second, death, does contribute to not the law responsibil- fixes subsequent him dealt ity who blow. at the moment on If be death it can injuries said that both were contributing of thereto, actors. rests both responsibility of law does measure the effects the several injuries.in of more order determine which is the serious and which con- tributed in greater measure about the bring death. one of Although may assailants be said to have con- tributed other, to death less than the degree he is not a. for that reason deemed to be less less guilty punishable. or So one two who persons cause the death another by is shooting homicide guilty the wound himby inflicted death, contributed to or hastened the it alone although might not have been 53, R. C. par. L. 748. p. fatal.” ¿live “But though human body must in order that it bemay subject homicide, yet quan- tity of vitality which it retains at moment the fatal blow is and the life time would other- given, length continued, wise are immaterial considerations. If at all is in the human body, even the least spark, life left it is as much extinguishment homicide as the killing A. & the most vital Ency. of E. Law (2d Ed.), being. 92. p. homicide-, now

“In rule regard to well-established law, statute, of the common affirmed frequently one more where are or persons actually constructively another, present when a homicide is committed and either by of own criminal intent their having criminal sharing crime, aid, intent of him who commits the in any manner abet, or him in his all such encourage accomplishing purpose, in the crime and participants principals are equally guilty with contemplation legal the actual thereof. In perpetrator which one all, it immaterial act one is the is wholly act of of 21 &A. blow.” actually strikes participants fatal Ed.), 110. Ency. (2d p. E. Law unless

“One is not for a homicide responsible legally act, which duty unlawful or unlawful omission to discharge victim, deceased, owed to contributed to the death who additional conversely, one may guilty inflicts which already mortally wounds hasten one death of 1078: wounded” C. J.,

All error for the failure of legal exceptions impute to a directed verdict whole Judge grant presiding alone, case, to refusal to or as murder and the charge trial, new are overruled. grant have

We read of Mr. Cothran in this opinion Justice times, a number of and in carefully case connection there- with we have over again gone thoroughly transcript reasons, For record. some we like readily apparent, would with as to the him result he dif- agree proposes. so, however, we in doing is due to fact that ficulty discussion of the case he adopted has all practically defendants, the theories and has accepted being favorable them. true the And almost testimony every our cited learned brother to authority by sustain the legal him advanced is taken from cases decided principles own, line, other than our which are Courts altogether it, decided cases of as we see this Court. it not 'agáin

We think out of once call at- place cases, the fact in criminal tention even death, men have been sentenced to those where this State, this Court, absolutely the Constitution under of law. Excepting only of errors the correction limited to the sole the facts for purpose examine into we must when in the error of law Court has been if there ascertaining with the to do facts whatever below, Court has nothing the case. cause, The in this responsibility most serious so far as this concerned, Court is only.as rests to the errors legal charged by to have in appellants occurred the lower Court. Arduous repeated of examinations the record failed to disclose error as complained by appellants.

The ascertainment of the made truth of grave charges against rested in the Court General appellants Ses- witnesses, sions with County, the petit jury, .Beaufort and the presiding The de- Judge. grant the great power fendants a trial new on the ground the verdict rendered them facts, against unjust as to the or not by supported evidence, vested alone in it the trial Judge; this Court. The duty out truth finding evidence imposed who upon jurors, had taken a solemn oath to perform duty fear or regardless of favor.- in duty effecting just determination prime as to defendants, or innocence of the guilt and the grade of that the minds and consciences of the wit- any, guilt, lay nesses; for, all, after trial are Judges great ability, who wide entirely jurors high intelligence impartial, affairs, truth, be seeking only may human experience into witnesses error who endeavor conceal that misled truth. been, be,

If or is to of justice there has miscarriage borne, must bar, it, the blame see the case at as we not by witnesses, black, but those white and any Judge juror, statements the interest of against who made sworn the ap- occurrences in the as to the unfortunate pellants difficulty, often, of the law lost his life.' an officer Judges in which too, like case, in a situation unto the grave one jurors, comfort from find little some may thoughts language just Hon. Judge, George of that Williams righteous who, the motion for a new refusing trial to a man Gage, murder, said: “Whether this verdict is convicted de- right testimony witness on the McFadden. I don’t pends does; If truth, he told the jury him but the know is right; if he told truth, what is not the have to will answer it before his Maker when he comes to die. or not Whether he told the truth is a matter they for the have jury, accepted The testimony. whole case rests Mc- C., 353, Eadden’s testimony.” Bethune, v. 104 State 89 S. E., 153. S.

The opinion Cothran, of dissenting Mr. Justice most earnest arguments of counsel for in this appellants case, have impressed us much as for clemency, es- appeals pecially as to the defendants who have been to die. sentenced State, Under the law however, of our of granting mercy homicide with case rests of jury twelve men who are verdict; to render the rendered, after that verdict has been clemency to one to whom jury refused to has extend is a matter for the mercy serious consideration of the Chief Executive The State. of South Carolina people have not this Court charged with the of either dispensing mercy or clemency.

It is this Court that the judgment judgment the Court Beaufort of General to all County as Sessions be and the same is affirmed. appellants, hereby, concur.

Messrs. Carter Stabeer Justices Mr. Chief did not Watts participate. Justice : The Mr. Cothran (dissenting) defendants Justice Francis, Francis, Francis, Paul Frank and Abraham Ethel Gadsden, others, Adams, with two Sam Robert Simmons colored, all were indicted in the Court General Sessions for Beaufort County, charged the murder of a white police man, a rural officer Langford, E. Beaufort E.

Court, 6, 1927, on at a country in said precinct county. June begun

The trial was 30th. after the days al- June homicide, Beaufort, Honor, at before his leged Judge John- son, lasted three days. jury,

The verdict was: Francis: of murder withotti Guilty

Paul recommendation mercy. Francis : The same.

Frank The Abraham Gadsden: same. Frank : of murder Francis) Guilty Francis (wife

E'thel with recommendation to mercy. : The

Robert Adams same. Guilty manslaughter. Sam Simmons: im- were overruled and sentences Motions new trials law. posed according and Robert Adams defendants Sam Simmons Court; and sentences of the judgment appealed four, Francis, Francis, Paul other Ethel Gadsden,

and Abraham have. facts, con- a following to establish the The evidence tended necessary which appears densed statement in appeal: issues involved legal apprehension as Mitchell’s known at a locality The homicide occurred Beaufort; there were six from the Store, City about miles 6, 1927, 200 or colored on some gathered there June was in progress upon a of baseball game grounds people; store, from the and sev- on side of the highway the opposite the storeroom been converted yards away; eral hundred a hall where refreshments were served into being temporarily women; the storeroom had a at porch the colored b}r front, near the of which was edge quite highway. that, Francis, Frank

It the defendants Ethel appears Francis, Savannah; Francis, Paul and Robert lived in Adams Gadsden, Frank, Abraham father of brother-in-law Simmons, lived far Frank, County, in and Sam Beaufort from the store. homicide,

On the the Francis defendants morning Francis, Adams, automobiles, other than Paul and different left with for the it others reached gathering, Savannah noon, cars near the their store parking some time after feet about seven being Frank Francis highway; car. the store. from the porch While the ball game was left progress, Francis the field and returned hall. In to the meantime the de- ceased McDaniel, Langford warden, one arrived game scene and parked their car hall. near the They began to search the car of Frank car whose inquiring it was. Frank hall, Francis came out of porch, inquired what was the trouble. him, asked “Is Langford this your car?” Francis said that it was. said: Langford “We want You you. are under arrest. Get in car.” “What, Francis for, asked: want Chief, you me I ain’t done nothing.” Whereupon again Langford commanded him to car, in the get and again Francis asked him what was for. Upon told that he being was wanted for driving Francis recklessly, peaceful manner was tc explaining officer that had not done to cause his anything arrest. At broke the conference and this McDaniel into point, said, for, “He had told what he wanted already you you it, God damn car.” drew Whereupon Langford get and struck over the him. pistol left'eye, stunning Upon the of the officer’s struck with display pistol, being it, he moment, officer. At McDaniel grappled blank, fired at close at range, Francis with a 44-caliber point bone derringer, breaking at the thigh hip, whereupon Francis Langford and fell to the and four five ground, and him. negroes upon attacked piled he

The showed that body the upon Langford autopsy breast, back, in stabbed twice the had been shot in the twice arm, in the been shot once in the hand and once had struck which his with a blunt instrument crushed temple above shell,” from skull “like an bruises blows his egg upon bitten in his arm had been several and person, places. is confused and as to testimony contradictory whether wounds, arm, other than his hand and were those

inflicted while he on the ground the initial stage arose, melee. that It he walked to the of the appears edge down. sat porch, he Frank that, while effect to the testimony

There was awith ran up pistol Paul Francis Francis were struggling, in the back. shot him twice Ethel struggle, also that There was testimony Francis, and Frank that Francis, wife, his pistol handed twice, him he, shot face face with Langford, standing in the front 'of disclosed no wounds although autopsy his body. that, he was

There was also to the effect while testimony at the porch, Abraham Gadsden sitting edge Joe back, Williams each fired a full into round his that off the “slumped” onto porch ground.

There is to show when or whom the nothing crushing blow was delivered. From upon temple testimony that doctor either the wounds in the back or the blow fatal, on the head were probable most appears they were inflicted while was seated on the of the edge porch; for with such fatal wounds he could hardly have moved from the original point of the to the struggle porch. Francis,

Paul Frank, father admitted that when he saw his son clubbed over the head with a pistol by Langford, and McDaniel, shot by he fired twice at Langford; one bullet en- tered his hand and-arm and the other the leg Frank, son from about inch of exit of point the bullet fired by McDaniel. had arisen and

After seated himself Langford upon Frank still edge porch, upon ground shattered called for help thigh, into his getting car and carried to a doctor. being after, mélée, dying a few minutes lived only

Langford where he had.fallen the porch. the ground con- mélée to observe important extremely, It : The initial stages struggle and separate distinct two sisted followed con- Langford between at that point, attack and.the participants other duct sat upon after he Langford had upon edge porch. Whatever Francis, excuse Frank or Paul or Ethel have had for in may the counter attack defense Frank Francis, who one by clubbed and shot being the other officers, of the melée had stage passed condition; when sat in a Langford upon wounded porch he was not then attack or an unlaw- making attempting arrest, ful his and at that assailants had no point possible Frank, excuse for their attack. It not contended that either Paul, who was father, wife, ground, or his Ethel, had in part that second stage.

After from the Langford “slumped” porch to under the ground, attack with pistols possibly Gadsden not Williams on (a fugitive, and of the trial) wielder bat, a baseball supposedly not one of the 200 re- negroes mained Simmons, except defendant Sam who is not ap- and another pealing, implicated. Frank Francis was automobile, Adams, placed negro, driving, picked after from off the hall Paul, moving they up Savannah, were on the party way to when they were arrested were at"Ridgeland. They indicted and brought to on trial the 30th June, at Beaufort. day the trial: The courthouse scene of court- grounds militia;

room under control of the were State no person searched; Court to enter the without was permitted being from jail to the un- were courtroom brought prisoners behind, front, der and on both marching military guard under such sides; escorted guard were they throughout room, the court trial; were under dur- military guard recesses were escorted night the noon ing military to the and back which jail, through grounds kept trial, the whole guard during night and military day. under the shot had received which broke Frank Francis his thigh bedridden, flat his back, 6th. .He-had been on June in a mechanical bulky contrivance. and side He was leg brought on a cot and to and jail the court- confined men truck, truck and carried by up room on a lifted from the courtroom, jail and back to stairs and into the same manner. mid- concluded about days,

The trial for three being lasted of the third day. night to take conspiracy were not with defendants charged

the life occurrence to have been deceased. The appears which come without one those sudden outbursts tragic action. and without warning possibility preconcerted of Frank The defense behalf Francis interposed victim of an unlawful search and that he was innocent McDaniel, arrest, unlawful conduct of who began from his that Frank with a shot derringer; catastrophe never, time, at had a and could not have any weapon had one; used if he had had if he one deceased even upon shot, cut, had or clubbed he would have been do- Langford, fears of a reasonable man in so under the ing defending men, and life the assault of two white both person with deadly armed weapons.

The defense of Paul Francis was that if he did actually McDaniel, he shoot at did so defense of Langford his son after seen his son struck with a revolver and having shot down with a and had seen him pistol, fall to the ground in the embrace of Officer The defense Langford. of Ethel Francis was an innocent she victim of time and matter, had to do-with had place, nothing used no weapon had, kind, but, even if she she would have been acting her life in the defense of husband’s and person.

The defense of Abraham Gadsden was that he had used no all, but, had, if he at even would have been in de- weapon, life person brother-in-law, fense Frank n (cid:127) Francis. were discon- entirely Robert Adams and Simmons Sam interest nected ties or by family group were mere with them. volunteers They to do nothing kind with the Francis family. of any without connection trial, When the case was called for the defendants Frank, Francis, Francis, Paul the wife Ethel the other de- moved for a severance as between them and féndants, Gadsden, Simmons, Robert Abraham Sam self-defense, Adams, that their defense was grounds defendants, and the other by different interposed evidence, that was inevitable that certain admissible against them, the inadmissible would other defendants against .but offered, and that the admonition notwithstanding them, effect the that it could not be used the Court against was unavoidable to them. seriously prejudice

The a continuance defendant Frank Francis moved for case, him, the that his against physical upon ground condition his and seriously ability, mentally phys- impaired his defense. ically, present properly

All of the defendants made a motion for a venue change of local and upon ground prejudice excitement against them under the circumstances.

The motions were all refused presiding Judge. At the close of the evidence defendants moved for . favor, directed in their verdicts that the ground upon evidence them failed to connect in a manner with the guilty offense This was also refused. charged. trial,

The con- points high deplorable tragedy are these: cededly, deceased, should who The a rural policeman

(a) to search the better, trouble by attempting known began search Frank without automobile the defendant warrant, and without warrant, him without a and to arrest law, violation to his eye^witness alleged been having a misdemeanor. Frank Francis that the defendant Upon insistence

(b) automobile, for the obviously purpose carrying enter Frank, reluctance and protest him to a ¡Magistrate, and warden, McDaniel, a his companion,. game deceased car; him into angrily ordered the deceased drew pistol blow, and struck the defendant Frank over the head a severe .44 placed the defendant’s derringer against MciDaniel fired, thigh, bone. shattering the deceased, The defendant Frank then (c) with the grappled mélée both be- they went to at this ground; point came general; is confused and testimony conflicting. mélée Frank, In the Paul

(d) the father of see- men, his son attacked ing two each with a one of pistol, which had been used to strike Frank and the other to shoot him, twice; ran up fired one ball entered the groin son, of his and the the hand other and arm of the deceased. The (e) defendant with a broken ground and a shot leg to be the car groin, calling into helped and carried to a doctor. walked a few

(f) deceased and sat down steps of the store porch in which lodge refreshments sold; were being showed that he had been shot autopsy back, twice in the stabbed twice breast, in the and had been struck instrument, over the head with some blunt supposedly bat, a baseball skull shell”; crushed “like egg which wounds must have been inflicted after he sat down of -the porch, as could upon edge hardly moved after were inflicted. the}'- The evidence tends to show

(g) that while thus seated on defendants, Gadsden, one porch, Abraham Williams, emptied another, now a fugitive, their guns Joe into his some one struck him body, with a baseball bat. 6th, oh homicide occurred and on The (h) June June later, In the trial 30th, began. meantime the days Francis, Frank were defendants, to the other than removed Frank was in jail, as he could safety; lodged penitentiary condition; in his wounded some kind of transported not be contrivance, of a nature not mechanical explained, a trial When the was to broken Frank leg. begin, applied and carried to the truck He into a Courthouse. lifted was placed courtroom, cot where lay upon his back for three days trial which his life was at stake.

(i) Doubtless due to the of a apprehension lynching, military guard surrounded the jail accom day night, panied the defendants from the jail the courtroom and back, and were on in the guard courtroom the trial. during points the case which will be discussed are:

1. The exercise of a sound discretion have de- would manded and justified a severance the defendants as be- of. tween Francis, Francis, Frank Paul Francis, Ethel the one part, defendants Abraham Gadsden, Sam Simmons, and Adams, Robert on the other.

2. The exercise of a sound discretion would have de- manded and justified a continuance of the case as against the defendant Frank Francis, on account of his condi- physical tion. the truth most Conceding testimony strongly

3.. Francis, against defendant as evidence it was legally insufficient to sustain verdict of of murder. guilty 4. truth most Conceding testimony strongly Francis, the defendant against Paul as evidence it was legally insufficient to sustain a verdict of of murder. guilty

5. the truth of most Conceding testimony strongly against Ethel as evidence was defendant. insufficient legally to sustain a verdict of of murder. guilty 6. The case the defendant Abraham Gadsden. against 7. The of the charge presiding Judge.

I. The exercise a sound discretion would have de- manded and justified a severance the defendants, as be- Prancis, Prancis, tween Prank Prancis, Paul on Bthel Gadsden, one and the Abraham part, Sctm defendants Simmons, Adams, and 'Robert on other.

It been has held numberless cases that a motion for severance to the sound “is addressed discretion of the trial

72 except and that will not be disturbed

Judge,” up- his decision By a clear of an abuse of that discretion. showing terms of the decision is not very the announced principle, it; conclusive, final bemay review of a pretermitting will Court should reviewed and be reversed the appellate conclude that there been an abuse of that discretion. has Benet,

As former Circuit Associate Judge acting Justice C., 488, E., 25 Clinkscales, in the case of Norris v. S. S. 797, 801, lie, not because observes: “And will appeal discretion,’ so-called ‘abuse of any phrase unhappily —a framed, a because bad motive or implying wrong purpose— but been because his to have made on ruling may appear and for reasons untenable. This is grounds clearly principle C., 315, recognized Trumbo v. where Mr. Finley, S. McGowan that the exercise of a discre- says Judge’s Justice rule, tion, a ‘as will not be disturbed it deprives unless of substantial which he can show he is party entitled right, ” to under law.’ . Which means that this Court should review circumstances motion, and if it come to the clear grounds should should, that the motion conclusion the interest of justice fairness, have been granted, refusal will constitute an discretion,” framed,” “abuse of with- “phrase unhappily a bad motive wrong pur- out the slightest imputation and with no other the Circuit pose Judge, on the part error of law. which follows other criticism than that that, been the rule would have softer form of expressing otherwise, on ap- it will presumed unless it appear should exercised. was soundly that the peal discretion correct rule on “This without dissent as the Court adopts in the or more are charged that where two subject, offence, have not right indictment with a capital they same trial a mat tried but such separate law to be separately, with all due regard discretion to be exercised ter of sound to the known according humanity to prisoners, tenderness Rich., Wise, 7 412. v. State of our criminal jurisprudence,” 73 This the power shows that the exercise of clearly absolute; trial Court is not it does not justify appellate Court in without upon the decision of trial relying Judge an the case and inquiry grounds into the circumstances of motion, his discretion had fore- the exercise of closed all into its inquiry justness.

, Ga., State, As the 34 Court 'in v. said Caldwell Georgia 10: unbridled, “We do not it uncontrollable dis- say is an cretion; but where severance is as a right, unsup- demanded shown, refused, ported cause we are wholly indisposed to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.” 80,

In the Ga., 93, later 37 92 Am. State, case of Horne v. Dec., 49, the Court “But rule held: as a we Georgia general hold that in all where cases are indicted for of parties fense which does not act of two or more require joint offense, constitute the the defendants upon application to be tried right separately; the rule is otherwise those cases which the concurrence of require two more their commission; in cases of this class matter is subject discretion of the Court before whom trial legal takes place.” far;

(cid:127)This Court has not so but gone has held that both cases, classes of the matter is one for exercise of sound discretion of the trial That Judge. issue is necessarily open ' a consideration of the circumstances and grounds.. 24, 25, C. F. A.), In Isbell v. U. (2d), S. (C.

Court, rule that while motions announcing general rest in the sound of the trial said: severance discretion Judge, would indicate that which in the record “Nothing appears motion, in denying discretion the trial Court abused which a situation case present or that the in this facts not or did could that either might apparent defendant tried jointly trial by being and impartial secure fair with his co-defendant 548, 547, 23 F. C. A.), (2d), v. U. Raarup (C.

inSo S. refused, in that motion was properly Court held that the “the record not show or was does would be that Raarup' prejudiced a denial of his for a motion severance.”

Discretion Court trial is relative to granting separate Ill., E., People Sweetin, 245, v. 325 N. arbitrary. 156 354, 357.

“While of a granting trial separate jointly defendants indicted Court, rests in discretion of trial Court exer must cise a sound discretion such a overruling motion.” People Ill., 38, v. 316 146 Rupert, E.,N. 456.

“Where from nature case of the it that a appears joint trial will probably prejudicial to of one rights or more of parties, trial should be separate granted when Brauneis, Conn., 222, properly requested.” v. 84 State A., 70, 79 72.

“The it that a is whether controlling question appears joint trial will result in substantial injustice.” State probably Castelli, Conn., 58, 476, v. 92 A., 101 478.

“While, whether a shall be separate trial allowed parties where, indicted, Court, jointly within the of the discretion case, of the the nature that a trial will joint appears probably be more of rights one or prejudicial trial should be parties, separate when granted properly Conn., Brauneis, 222, A., v. requested.” 79 70. State There several are circumstances dem- this case which onstrate the inevitable to the prejudice defendants of moving a joint trial: man, law,

1. A an officer white of the had been killed at under circumstances of negro gathering great brutality. 2. was The trial had swift being upon heels event, when sentiment so that, aroused public Circuit of the it was mili- opinion Judge, necessary that the Governor to protect be called out defendants tary resentment; it was evitable that upon from outburst would who were trial this resentment be visited all against mélée officer in which the connected with the manner any killed, excuse which regardless justification offer. they might mélée

3. It does not to have been realized that the appear consisted of two the initial en- and distinct stages; separate officers, counter between Frank and the as- conflict sassination after he abandoned the had Langford with Frank Francis and had sat edge porch wounded and These and’dis- bloody. stages were as separate tinct as been Langford waylaid and assassinated on his excusable Francis defendants home. the way However mélée,. it was the may stage have been in the initial effect of them from the the insulate impossible to practically assassination recital cold-blooded harrowing subsequent There at all was no they with which were not connected. effect. this inevitable by warning presiding Judge against fact The failure of to presiding Judge appreciate mélée, that there were distinct and separate stages two defendants of them linking to the prejudice moving with the of the second up developed clearly events stage, if in the extract from the “That following charge: Judge’s the officer force to effect an after has with attempted illegal if his thereafter arrest desists from the officer de- purpose, arrest, from his to make the unlawful sists then purpose why Francis, to Frank person (manifestly referring per- resist, to be no has arrested), son to sought right longer no difference what resist, and makes there is to nothing officer actually If the. attempting caused the officer to desist. make the arrest ceases to illegal

to effect attempting whatsoever, then the person sought his efforts from cause resist, to the right no has longer to be arrested unlawfully intentionally the officer slay one thereafter should murder.” malice, would be guilty that person in the that of evidence case There was not a particle arrested,” be sought “the to lying person in his and a wound thigh with shattered groin, ground car, made the into put slightest and calling help harm unlaw- effort to the officer after he desisted stated, ful attempt; this should suggestion, hypothetically made evidence along been unless there had been some line; its inevitable was connect Frank effect Francis hold him re- with the events of the second and to stage sponsible therefor. Williams, Gadsden,

While the charge was applicable Simmons, who, show, the evidence.tends to participated mélée, the second it had no stage application defendants; in the Francis it confused the issues minds jury, them to conclude that acts of these authorizing over, who shot and cut after the strangers, struggle would be to the imputable they that people, .three held responsible could be for the strangers acts who in after the plunged over. struggle self-defense; 4. The defense of Frank Francis was wife, Frank, of his father and they acted defense of officers, who was clubbed and shot being admittedly excess of were acting They their entitléd authority. defenses, to be tried these oc- uninfluenced what curred in the second mélée. stage were also They rely entitled to the defense that the homicide was upon com- mitted those shot the who deceased the back while he sat To this their porch. extent defense to the defense of antagonistic Gadsden Williams (if he had been It apprehended). universally is held that where defendants, the defenses of are jointly charged antagonistic, a severance should ordered. be State,

In v. 5 39, Roach Cold. (Tenn.), Court held: “Where two are persons indicted jointly, upon being severance, ask for a if it arraigned that de- appears their fences are severance antagonistic, a should be granted.” two persons

When are indicted their are defenses and the confessions of each antagonistic incriminate the other to and are be used in designed evidence severance should So., Desroche, Ann., v. 47 651, be State granted. 17 209. La. 77 murder, indicted jointly “Where two were persons one of them had there that was evidence show tending both, that it was held made a confession which implicated evidence was trials to be such separate ought granted, Mass., 99 James, offered.” 438. be Com. v.

. one prejudice defences calculated “Antagonistic move the discretion several defendants accused will jointly v. trial (U. of the Court to that one S. separate grant Ball, Merchant, Wheat., 480, Ed., 700; 12 6 U. v. L. S. 41 Ct., 1192, Ed., 163 16 v. S., 672, 300).” U. U. S. S. L. F., 689, 691. Noble (D. C.), 294 evidence,

“Where defendants’ interests are antagonistic, one, to be introduced is incompetent against prejudicial error, another, re denial of severance against requiring State, versal, record lack v. injury.” unless shows Suarez Fla., 42, So., 519. 5. The their trial the Francis defendants of joint deprived full right of While this of itself would not entitle challenges. severance, them to a con- adds some to the other weight siderations of a severance. expediency suggesting

6. The knew state when trial the declara- began Francis, tions made to the detective would Rogers, Ethel Gadsden, Paul introduced evidence. affected They been at Frank. admitted should not They all, defendant, not as were but of one the declarations they and, her while made of Paul admitting guilt, presence Gadsden, were Francis and made under circumstances they either; call for as the which did not detective response testified, all, were I under the “They impression presume, did not a right as one others long talking .have Gadsden shook and that his head. say anything,” dis- jury instructed very Judge properly presiding Ethel, they so far as attributed to the statements regard done; it had been the damage but affected Frank the impression to eradicate an impossibility was practically jurors. of the the minds made upon been 78 93,

In Ga., 80, Dec., 49, v. 92 State, Horne it Am. is said: all “We from our know difficult it how experience is to have a fair trial when several on trial are parties * * * they are introduced as each witnesses for other. Besides the confusion of several issues at being passed upon same time by same the lives jury, affecting several persons, witnesses, and'some of those on stand persons as is not full likely enable to do jury impartial *** justice to each- It defendant. originates too issues to be decided at once. The complicating many of the law not men humanity deprive did intend three their lives a trial thus conducted. The confusedly Court should granted trials, their motion to on sever their then Court, the attention of the counsel and could have jury been trial; fixed upon party justice would much more in likely attained than manner the course on the pursued trial.”

In U. 430, 438, Hale v. C. 25 F. A.), S. (C. (2d), therefore, Court said: “It necessary, to determine whether confession Ramsey introduced was necessarily error, plaintiff whether, prejudicial in view of the fact that anticipated, its introduction was the motion for severance should have been granted. connection of Hale crime rested upon almost entirely testimony Burkhart, criminal, himself a confessed man and a of bad character. It is debatable general whether the conviction of Hale would have resulted from his in the testimony absence Ramsey contained confes corroboration strong sion, but was incom Ramsey the confession concededly The Court to bind Hale. so stated when was ad petent mitted, and but it is inconceivable that again charge; its made the minds could jurors the impression have been removed formal the Coúrt.” by these remarks of Wis., 501, W., 596, 598, State,

In Flamme v. 177 N. said: “The Court the confession receiving Court Mabel Banker held it was evidence property competent

79 against Flamme and so instructed the Yet in the jury. very evidence, nature of the if it was considered of the guilt proof of Mabel Banker her, offence then charged against it inevitably followed that the offence proved charged Flamme. against We can conceive of no mental process by which the jurors could it, do otherwise than so regard thus prove the necessarily offence-of Flamme. clearly This presents a case where defendant, the confession'of a ad- her, missible co-defendant, but not against must against inevitably to the operate prejudice the latter defendant’s Under rights. these conditions a denial to grant separate trials is an abuse of clearly discretion.”

In Sweetin, 245, v. People Ill., E., 357, 354, N. the Court said: “While it is a matter of generally discretion with the Court as to whether a trial shall be separate granted, such discretion is not but arbitrary, should be so exercised as to prevent injustice, wherever possible. While the Court instructed the jury that Hight’s confessions were not admis error, sible as against plaintiff such instruction could by no eradicate possibility testimony the minds of the While jury. the instruction theoretically withdrew the evi dence from the consideration of the jury, practically human mind is so constructed that inevitably prejudicial effect remained therein. obviate To the evils [Citing case.?.] from the arising the.jury misled possibility beirtg co-defendant, that, confessions of a the rule is where general one of several defendants indicted made admis jointly has others, sions or confessions a severance should implicating ordered, unless the for the declares that attorney State such admissions or confessions will not be offered in evidence that, trial. on the cases have stated Some if the justice, intends to plainest principles prosecutor confession, the prisoner use such shall be tried separately.

[Citing many cases.]” In cases in practically

7. all which the Court has severance, to order a declined offenses arose out charged 8Ó

of the same bar presents criminal act. case at different act of situation. The evidence does not tend show the Francis defendants would have to fatally Lang- resulted ford, the or that had connection whatever with they homicidal act of Gadsden Williams Langford and after sat The the edge joinder the the upon porch. all defendants threw into all that the “hotchpot”- happened two the mélée. The stages of Francis defendants separate were tried what first for the being happened stage, second; the other defendants for what in the happened natural, under was but distinct offenses. It separate and that to conclude Judge’s jury for charge, was in the he stage, responsible to blame initial was for all thereafter occurred. that de- would

II. discretion have The exercise a sound case as against a continuance justified manded Prank Prancis. defendant head by that beaten over the he was fact undisputed a knocked to ground helpless officer Langford Mc- condition; bullet from that his was shattered aby thigh on his he was held close to body; Daniel’s .44 derringer to his car carried into put ground begging was his The evidence does show that request doctor. not He was he received. or what medical attention granted carried, kind jail, to á but to a where some not hospital', fracture; his was applied a rude mechanical contrivance truck, 24 lifted into a carted jail later at days was cot, Courthouse, in the where lay placed life. for three days battling courtroom every If time he needed ounce there ever was a when then, in it possessed, he ever energy and mental physical an unfriendly atmosphere. of a intelligence not

It does professional require testified, man as Dr. Foster that a to appreciate, physician flat on back for more than three with shattered thigh, weeks, shock and great pain, suffering accompanied the mental founded, which have been well anxiety, appears to trial, as to his would be in no condition to pass through ordeal of a days’ three battle for his life.

While for continuance are addressed normally motions to the sound discretion of the when presiding Judge, ap- pears that no other conclusion is under justified reasonably the circumstances than defendant should trial, been it must be concluded pressed that the discretion of the trial was not Judge soundly exercised.

In the case W., 858, of Sacra v. Com. (Ky.), S. is: syllabus “Accused, others, were indicted for rape 23d, on May after the crime day to have charged committed, been that day were taken to another place for On 31st the safe-keeping. ¡May cases were called for trial, and moved accused for a of venue for change prejudice inhabitants, denied, which was but a continuance was until A granted obtained, July. been jury having the Court for where ac- adjourned Day, jail when Independence mob. cused was was entered a Accused by incarcerated darkness, fled in the but in the was shot jail yard while in the face a shot and inflicting injuries with gun, slight bullet police later was shot a a by squad pistol, the trunk near the Accused was passing through hip. 6th, when into Court on a stretcher on he asked

brought for because of which inability a continuance his to proceed, Held, was denied. denial such that the application erroneous, entitled accused to new a trial.” 858, 578, W.,

The in its (123 Ky., Court opinion S. “A said: man on life not be com- 860) trial his should when ability there doubt about his pelled try properly conduct defense.”

III. the truth most Conceding testimony strongly Prancis,. against Prank as evidence it was defendant to. sustain a verdict murder. legally guilty insufficient The rule in cases the life of a defendant involving should cases applied not be harsher than that involving money 82- In been decided

or those cáses it has frequently property. that, from the evi- that the scintilla where unjust, rule is that than dence no other inference can drawn reasonable will the Court defendant or the should prevail, plaintiff verdict, either a motion for nonsuit for directed grant as a conclusion of law. defendant testimony its strongest light against

Frank that he was told that Francis was to effect when car, arrest, he was under and directed get into collar, the coat grabbed attempted Langford resisting arrest, head by and that after he had been struck over the McDaniel, with hi's his wife shot pistol Langford him handed and that face to face standing pistol, with. him This he shot twice. last was Langford testimony Glover, which is incredible from solely negro Stepney there were no front the fact that bullet wounds this testimony. not confirm McDaniel does Langford’s body. hold of Francis caught He testified that as soon as struck collar, reached for Langford’s Langford pistol shot then Paul Francis left eye; Frank with it over his twice, shot that he (McDaniel) in the back Langford then began Paul Francis Frank with his .44 derringer; him him, interested “subsequent proceedings at shooting no more.”' by the trouble

It is started indisputable that Langford warrant, Mc- and that Frank without to arrest attempting his unlawful with him in Daniel was co-operating actively could coat collar of Langford the Certainly attempt. catching Frank in force on the part'of be considered excessive That is all that Frank combined unlawful act. such resisting with to Langford is to have done to except struggle shown of testimony further the incredible battery. Beyond prevent Glover, and by testimony by the of McDaniel contradicted evidence to not a of tending the there is autopsy, particle defend himself from show that Frank did otherwise than to of Langford combination the unwarranted admittedly by McDaniel. After handled been Langford roughly Frank, other arose negroes sympathizing upon sat where bullets in back porch, his received and the blow from some unknown assailants. temple In the Frank on meantime to was' ground begging lifted into his It car carried to doctor. is inconceiv- able that these under Frank could be held circumstances of guilty murder sentenced to die. McDaniel, to Frank

According had done testimony him, to nothing or to but Langford, to grab Langford collar, a mild resistance efforts of combined Lang- ford and McDaniel with him. It arrest pistols unlawfully then Langford drew ready gun proposed subdue the who man If acting within his clearly rights.

Frank had shot and killed Langford under these circum- stances, no should have jury him even of man- convicted slaughter. To unlawful complete subjugation, McDaniel brought action, .44 into as he Paul trusty declares because had fired two bullets into Langford. Frank, shoot who Why was not Paul, to shoot trying Langford, instead who was ?

IV. the truth Conceding testimony most strongly against Prancis, Paul as evidenceit was legally defendant to sustain a verdict guilty murder. insufficient McDaniel, According when Frank, struck Langford Paul ran around the corner of the house and twice at fired If Langford. Langford was an unlawful committing act up on Frank and was him with attacking deadly Mc weapon, Daniel Paul standing co-operating, as.the father of Frank had the same to defend Frank right had and could not be convicted of murder his bullets had proved fatal, there of which is no evidence. On the'contrary, wounds, fatal either the stab wounds were author Williams, unknown, of Gadsden which the bullets while he sat the porch skull Langford’s the crushing the conflict. abandoned having most strongly the testimony

V. truth Conceding it Brands, legal- evidence was against Bthel defendant murder. guilty verdict to sustain a ly insufficient Francis handed One testified that Ethel witness (Glover) Assuming that he shot twice. Langford Frank his pistol, in statement, stated connec- for the reasons truth of this conviction, and of Paul’s participation, with Frank’s tion Frank had defense which would be protected Ethel to make. the right Gadsden. The Abraham against

VI. case as defendant that after show Langford There was evidence tending Gadsden and abandoned the conflict and sat upon porch, after into his back. This was Williams their emptied pistols the initial could not was stage, plead Gadsden brother-in-law, Frank. defense At same acting time there evidence that the Gadsden participation by the mélée limited to the first and that what he did was stage Frank Francis. The errors out in pointed defense of with the Francis defendants would inure to the connection benefit of Gadsden.

VII. The charge Judge. presiding 13, of, complained as set forth charge exceptions 14, 17, 20, 21, defendants, of the Francis was clearly prej- udicial to their interest. The charge for instance.

Take the thirteenth exception, make the illegal intends to was: “If the officer is or actually arrest, officer tells fact that the or unlawful mere I under or that arrest consider yourself one addresses to kind, that does of that something a warrant for you to at- the officer-the right addressed give person would officeT, addressed in other words person tack the until the arrest resist the actively illegal have no right for ex- to arrest person; done some overt act officer had him.” The error being: (a) laid his hands ample this case was charge circumstances of That under the that the use facts; the-inference to be drawn (b)

85 of a pistol act”; of an (c) it was not “overt display active resistance is an until the arrest is permissible illegal fact, accomplished fact after it is an although accomplished he may of re- lawfully under the attempt escape guise sistance, whereas law man to unlaw- the an permits prevent ful arrest.

The was the charge inapplicable to facts as state showed; it was for that reason v. erroneous. Holmes Wein Co., heimer, 66 C., 18, E., 44 82; Hyland S. v. Tel. S. C., 315, 49 E., 879.

S. S. The defendant Frank Francis was not under indictment officer; him, resisting of charged killing which there is not a particle of evidence. the ver- Accepting of McDaniel, sion the affair done, all given by that Frank had up to time drew him Langford was to gun, grab collar, the coat which certainly was warranted resistance to an arrest unlawfully, concededly, and so ruled by attempted, drawn, When presiding Judge. gun even before club, it was used as a of question resisting arrest passed out of the case and of right self-defense arose. judgment should Court be that the judgment reversed, Court be Circuit and that the case be re-

manded to that Court for new- trials to all of the appel- lants, with direction that a severance as between the Francis defendants and the other defendants ordered.

I conclusion, this to say paraphrasing thought of Dunfermline to extent: The defend- Shaw some Lord race; are all the reins of ants of an inferior government administration are all the instrumentalities of the of justice race; in the hands there is superior of the dominant laid that race the burden of unusual care administer- “the marshaled search principles ing jurisprudence, human is with human judgment mingled for justice.” Every error, issues, and in of all greatest the arbitrament death, life judgment (so issue of of irrevocable doom concerned) far as not be judicial passed should procedure with an absolute and confidence in justness. its abiding except Rehearing eor

Order Petition Gadsden, Per Curiam: The within Abraham appellant time, filed a for a of this cause. rehearing required petition For No filed in behalf of other petition was appellants. purpose right any appellants, protecting Court, filed, for petition this order directed that the by duly the as a Gadsden should also be considered appellant petition in behalf of the the stayed sending other down appellants, of the all the remittitur as to appellants.

In the were to for two matters called petition rehearing, the in the opinion attention of the Court. The is that first written for the Associate of Court majority by Justice Blease, the made statement was the witness McDaniel that deceased, testified that the Gadsden the Mr. appellant shot of The the called to attention Court is the fact Langford. erroneous, this careful that statement was and a examination of record The the so discloses. error. The regrets Court case, stated, in record the before was badly gotten up, this, the contributed to into which the perhaps, error Court however, see, fell. doWe how the error referred to can have effect upon the decision of the Court. any of as to the testimony statement without incorrect Even the evidence, already sufficient referred McDaniel, Mr. there was to, Gadsden the to against appellant the case require fact, In the does not by Judge jury. submitted the trial that it is contended 'in that rehearing the appear petition effect the cause. real this error had any in the relates petition The referred to other matter the trial of by Judge testimony to the admission Gill, and W. witnesses W. W. part Rogers J. made by Ethel alleged appellant as to statements Gadsden; the witnesses in the presence appellant them, Francis told that Ethel Gill Rogers testifying Gadsden, Mr. that Gadsden shot Langford presence Mr. life was taken. which difficulty Langford’s during

87 This but appellants, testimony objected for the trial Counsel Judge objection. appellant overruled the Gadsden Court in the case thinks that the decision E., 885, C., is au- Hester, 145, State v. S. S. in- iyas thority testimony sustain their position two with that view for competent. AVeare unable to agree First, reasons: that Gadsden Rogers witness testified head, shook his in contradiction of the statement apparently addition, In Judge Ethel Francis. Circuit repeatedly defendants, except warned the no statement jury defendant, stand, on the witness other implicating any binding in on such other defendant. In view any way circumstances, all the cannot we hold that ruling here, Court the Hester unable case we are applicable to find reversible as contended for. error for the of the counsel appellant, Because of the earnestness AVallace, into we Jr., gone thoroughly Alfred Esq., case, considera- given every possible record have before, of this is confined duty As Court tion. indicated law, sufficient error of any absolutely ascertaining below, in the record. are AVe disturb judgment appears to find error of that kind. unable for petition and adjudged ordered It is therefore be, hereby, same is and the all the as to appellants a rehearing Court the remittitur dismissed, staying order of and the revoked. be, hereby, same herein BlEasE, concur. Carter Stabler Messrs. Justices I I ill : at the dissent. AVatts Mr. Chief Justice and did not Court participate was heard time this cause for a rehearing, I considered petition hearing. and, in my the case however, appeal, record of should be granted rehearing. the appellants all opinion, in the I concur conclusion of Cothran: Mr. Justice Chief Justice.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Francis

Court Name: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date Published: Jan 25, 1929

Citation: 149 S.E. 348

Docket Number: 12567

Court Abbreviation: S.C.