State v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 17 April 1878
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. BLACKWELL.

10 S.C. 35

STATE

v.BLACKWELL.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Apr. 17, 1878.

It is a fatal objection to a rule to show cause why a party should not be attached for contempt for an offense not committed in the presence of the Court, that it was issued without affidavit.

Where certain acts are made an offense by statute, with a prescribed penalty, a party charged with the offense cannot be punished by rule to show cause, as for a contempt, but only by indictment.

BEFORE TOWNSEND, J., AT DARLINGTON, OCTOBER, 1875.

This case came before the Court upon the report of the presiding Judge, which is as follows:

“At the October Term, 1875, of the Court of General Sessions for Darlington County, Samuel J. Blackwell was indicted for retailing spirituous liquors without a license. During the progress of his trial, and while testifying on his own behalf, in response to a question propounded by the Solicitor on the cross-examination, he said that the evening before, after the case was commenced, he went to Pierce's bar-room, and while there gave two of the colored jurors trying his case drinks of whisky, and pointed to the two jurors, adding that they were strangers to him. He was asked other questions relative to taking another juror to the bar-room, and instructing the clerk of Pierce to treat the members of the jury at his expense whenever they called for whisky. These he answered negatively.

One of the witnesses for the State, in the same case, testified that he had been approached by Safety Layton, Esq., one of the attorneys of record for the defendant, Blackwell, and was requested to modify his testimony and to say that he had bought whisky for medical purposes only.

After the case was submitted to the jury and they had retired, the information was communicated to me that Safety Layton, Esq., had said that he had been employed by S. J. Blackwell to manipulate the jury, and that he had accomplished his purpose, and there was no danger of the conviction of Blackwell.

The admission by the defendant that he had given whisky to the jurors when he knew that they had been charged with his case, and the fact that his attorney had been engaged, according to his admission, in tampering with the witnesses for the State and manipulating the jury, induced me to issue the following rule:

‘It is ordered that Samuel J. Blackwell do show cause, on Monday, the 11th day of October instant, before me, in open Court, at 10 o'clock A. M., why he should not be attached as for a contempt of this Court in attempting to bias the opinion and influence the decision of R. F. Truett and two other jurors, who were charged with the hearing and decision of the case of the State vs. S. J. Blackwell, for retailing intoxicating liquors without a license, by offering and giving to them intoxicating liquors, in the town of Darlington, during the trial of said case.

It is ordered that a copy of this order be forthwith served upon Samuel J. Blackwell.

OCTOBER 9, 1875.'

At the time appointed for the hearing of the rule, the respondent appeared by counsel. Mr. Spain interposed objections to the legality and regularity of the proceedings. It was insisted that the Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that interrogatories should have been served upon the defendant. Other objections were also made. These were all overruled, and the Solicitor was instructed to examine a witness touching the charge contained in the rule. Mr. Spain objected to the introduction of oral testimony. This objection was overruled.

Miller Harrall was sworn and testified that on the evening the case against S. J. Blackwell was commenced, and after the adjournment of the Court, he went with Blackwell to Pierce's barroom; that while there several persons came in; that they drank, and others with them; that a colored man stepped up and asked for a drink, and said he was on the jury; that Blackwell said ‘very well,’ and called for another half pint of whisky; that Blackwell did the treating, and that the party who walked up and asked for a drink said he was on the jury.

After the introduction of this evidence, the respondent, Blackwell, submitted a return denying that he had given liquor to a juryman knowing or suspecting him to be a juryman, and submitted certain affidavits which sustained his denial.

After hearing argument from Mr. Spain, the attorney of S. J. Blackwell, and the Solicitor, I made the following order:

‘Upon hearing the return made in the above stated case, the testimony for and against said respondent, and the argument of counse...