City of Gaffney v. Putnam

• Decision Date: 02 June 1941
• Docket Number: 15271.
• Citation: 15 S.E.2d 130,197 S.C. 237
• Parties: CITY OF GAFFNEY v. PUTNAM.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

15 S.E.2d 130

197 S.C. 237

CITY OF GAFFNEY v. PUTNAM.

No. 15271.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 2, 1941

Grover C. Powell, of Atlanta, Ga., and C. E. Cooley, of Anderson for appellant.

Samuel R. Watt, Sol., of Spartanburg, and H. R. Swink, of Gaffney for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The Circuit Court upon appeal upheld the judgment of conviction of the defendant, Shannon E. Putnam, in the Recorder's Court of the city of Gaffney, wherein he was charged with violating an ordinance of the city, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: "Any person or persons creating any disturbing noises, or making, creating or engaging in any brawl, riot, affray; fighting or indulging in profane, obscene, abusive or vulgar language, *** shall if found guilty, be subject to a fine ***."

There were two trials in the Recorder's Court. In the first trial his conviction was reversed, and a new trial granted upon appeal to the Circuit Court. We are now dealing with the second trial, in which the judgment was sustained. The defendant contends that his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted.

The facts which were held to support the conviction of the defendant follow: Putnam is a member of a group known as Jehovah's Witnesses, and claims to be an ordained minister of the gospel. On Saturday afternoon, June 15, 1940 about 3 o'clock, he was standing upon a corner of a business street in the city of Gaffney, engaged in selling or distributing, or attempting to sell or distribute, the Watchtower Magazine, which is one of the propagandic mediums of Jehovah's Witnesses. In order to call attention to the magazine he would from time to time call out, "Religion is ruining the nations; Christianity will save the people." While he was so engaged one Ernest Fowler, as he was passing, took exception to Putnam's statement about religion. He turned, walked up to Putnam, and accosted him with the remark, "Don't repeat that statement," or with the inquiry as to what he meant by making that statement. The defendant repeated what he had said about religion and christianity, whereupon he was immediately given a severe beating by Fowler. He was knocked down several times, and every time he got up he was knocked down again, until a crowd which had assembled stopped the fight. The evidence shows that Fowler was a much larger man than the defendant, and physically superior in every way.

Fowler testified, upon cross-examination by the defendant, who was not represented in the Recorder's Court by an attorney, " I admit positively I was the aggressor in this assault; but you fought me back all the time. I started it. I hit the first lick ***. You were saying 'religion was ruining the nation;' I don't see what else it could be except abusive, vulgar language."

It is true that in another portion of his testimony the witness Fowler attempted to qualify in some measure his foregoing statement. He said that when he walked up to the defendant, "We had a word or two, and he kind of turned one of his papers loose and done like this (indicating with clinched fists), and when he did I hit him. I don't know whether he was going to hit me or not. I just knocked him down a time or two, and he came back." After describing further blows delivered by him Fowler said, "I quit then and stepped back, and he never made no other attempt."

There were two or three eye witnesses, all of whom were merchants who operated nearby stores. They testified to having heard the defendant say "Religion is ruining the nations; Christianity will save the people;" they saw Fowler walk up to the defendant and address some words to him, which they did not hear, and they witnessed the fight which immediately followed. All of them said that Fowler was the aggressor, and that he administered a severe beating to the defendant.

The Chief of Police, Mr. Julian Wright, was not present at the fight, but just a short time before he had passed Putnam and saw and heard his efforts to sell or distribute the Watchtower Magazine. The officer said that he at that time was not violating the ordinance, but because he had heard that some of the citizens had become offended on account of the statement made by the defendant concerning religion, he had advised him to move on, being afraid that he would get into trouble. But there is no evidence that he communicated his apprehension of danger to Putnam. The officer further stated that he reached the scene immediately after the disturbance, and that he arrested the defendant and had the warrant issued solely on account of the disorderly conduct arising from the fight. We may say in passing that Fowler was also arrested, and paid the fine assessed against him for fighting in violation of the city ordinance.

It is entirely clear, as manifested by the record, that Fowler was the aggressor. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt but that he made the assault solely because of the statement uttered by Putnam. The testimony shows that the defendant's remark which offended Fowler was not addressed to him or to any individual personally, but to the public at large. It does not appear that he had ever seen Fowler before, or that he had any reason to believe that his words would be personally offensive to him by reason of the latter's religious views or convictions. There is no showing that the defendant's deportment was noisy, truculent, overbearing, or offensive. He indulged in no opprobrium or abuse of the public, or of Fowler. So far as the evidence shows, he wished only to interest those who passed by in his propaganda.

In the instant case the defendant was not guilty, in our opinion, of any assault,...