State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 06 July 1889
• Citation: 9 S.E. 853,31 S.C. 238
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

9 S.E. 853

31 S.C. 238

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 6, 1889

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Darlington county PRESSLEY, Judge.

Lewis Williams was convicted of murder and appeals.

E. O Woods, for appellant.

J. M Johnson, Sol. Gen., for respondent.

SIMPSON C.J.

For a full understanding of this case the opinion is preceded by a statement of the case, the indictment, the impaneling of the jury, the charge of his honor, Judge B. C. PRESSLEY, and the exceptions of appellant, as follows:

"STATEMENT OF CASE.

"The defendant Lewis Williams, and his co-defendants Joseph W. James, William Scott, and Robert Arthur, were jointly indicted for the murder of Joseph James, Sr., upon three counts, as the indictment will disclose. At the preceding term of the court for Darlington county, to-wit, at the June term, 1888, Judge FRASER presiding, the defendants Lewis Williams, Joseph W. James, and William Scott were arraigned, and each of them pleaded 'not guilty.' On the motion of the defense, Judge ALDRICH, at the October term, granted a severance, and subsequently, on the motion of the solicitor, continued the cases until the next term of the court. The case came on for trial at the March term of the court of sessions, when the defendants James and Williams were separately tried, and were both convicted, the defendant Scott, and alleged accomplice, in both cases testifying on behalf of the state, and in his testimony admitted his own guilt, and testified further to a conspiracy between himself and his co-defendants for the murder of the deceased. No disposition having been made of the case against Scott, upon a trial of the defendant Lewis Williams three of the jurors who composed the jury in the trial of Joseph W. James served upon the jury in the trial of Williams. The defendant having challenged for cause all the jurors who served in the trial of James, and being overruled, challenged them peremptorily, his peremptory challenges being exhausted when the said three jurors were called and sworn. The method of impaneling the jury is inserted in the case. The following constitute the indictment in the case, the testimony at the trial of Williams, the judge's charges, notice of appeal, and exceptions duly served upon the presiding judge, his honor B. C. PRESSLEY, and J. M. Johnson, solicitor; the time for serving the case having been extended by agreement with the solicitor: 'The State of South Carolina, County of Darlington.--At a court of general sessions begun and holden in and for the county of Darlington in the state of South Carolina, at Darlington, in the county and state aforesaid, on Monday, the ___ day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, the jurors of and for the said county of Darlington aforesaid, in the state of South Carolina aforesaid, that is to say, upon their oaths present that William Scott, Lewis Williams, Robert Arthur, and Joseph W. James, on the eighth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, with force and arms, at Darlington, in the county of Darlington, state aforesaid, in and upon one Joseph James, Sr., feloniously, willfully, and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault, and him, the said Joseph James, Sr., with a gun did shoot and wound, giving to him, the said Joseph James, Sr., then and there, by means of the said shooting in and upon the body of him, the said Joseph James, Sr., one mortal wound, of which said mortal wound the said Joseph James, Sr., then and there instantly died. And so the jurors aforesaid do say that the said Joseph W. James, the said Joseph James, Sr., in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that the said Lewis Williams, on the eighth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, with force and arms at Darlington, in the county of Darlington, state aforesaid, in and upon one Joseph James, Sr., feloniously, willfully, and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault, and him, the said Joseph James, Sr., with a gun did shoot and wound, giving to him, the said Joseph James, Sr., then and there, by means of said shooting in and upon the body of him, the said Joseph James, Sr., one mortal wound, of which said mortal would the said Joseph James, Sr., then and there instantly died; and so the jurors aforesaid do say the said Lewis Williams, the said Joseph James, Sr., in manner and form aforesaid feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder; and the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that Joseph W. James, William Scott, and Robert Arthur, late of the county aforesaid, before the said felony and murder was committed in form aforesaid, to-wit, on the second day of May in the year aforesaid, at Darlington, in the county aforesaid, did feloniously and maliciously incite, move, procure, aid, counsel, hire, and command the said Lewis Williams the said felony and murder, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid.'

"When the jury was being impaneled the juror T. P. King was called to the book, whereupon the defendant's counsel challenged the juror, upon the ground that this juror had served upon the panel which tried the case against Joseph W. James, and that the defendant Lewis Williams was charged in the indictment as a co-conspirator with James. The presiding judge ordered the juror to be sworn upon his voir dire. This was done, and the juror, having answered satisfactorily the questions propounded to him, was declared by the presiding judge to be a competent juror, and ordered to be presented to the defendant. (The defendant excepts.) When the juror S.E. Moore was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. He was sworn upon his voir dire, and, having answered satisfactorily to the court the questions propounded to him, he was declared by the presiding judge to be a competent juror, and ordered to be presented to the defendant. (Defendant excepts.) When the juror S.E. Moore was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. He was ordered by the presiding judge to be sworn upon his voir dire. This was done, and, the juror having answered satisfactorily to the court the questions propounded to him, he was declared by the presiding judge to be a competent juror, and ordered to be presented to the defendant. (Defendant excepts.) When the juror J. M. King was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. The juror was ordered to be sworn upon his voir dire. This being done, and the juror failing to answer satisfactorily to the presiding judge the questions propounded to him, he was declared to be not a competent juror, and ordered not to be presented to the defendant. When the juror A. M. Lee was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. The juror was ordered to be sworn upon his voir dire. This being done, and the juror having answered satisfactorily to the court the questions propounded to him, he was declared by the court to be a competent juror, and ordered to be presented to the defendant. The solicitor challenged this juror. When the juror P. A. Parnell was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. The juror was sworn upon his voir dire, and, having answered satisfactorily the questions propounded to him, was declared by the presiding judge to be a competent juror, and ordered to be presented. (Defendant excepts.) When the juror W. C. Ervin was called defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. The juror was sworn upon his voir dire, and, having satisfactorily answered the questions propounded, was ordered to be presented. (Defendant excepts.) When the juror ___ Polson was called the defendant's counsel challenged the juror for the same cause. The juror was sworn upon his voir dire, and, failing to satisfactorily answer the questions propounded, he was declared by the presiding judge to be not a competent juror. When the juror J. A. Huggins was called the presiding judge said: 'I heard his testimony in the other case, and I do not regard him as a person without prejudice. I was not at all satisfied with his talking with the witnesses at the hotel door.' The juror was ordered not to be presented to the defendant. (The defendant excepts.) When the jurors John T. Rogers, W. S. McIntosh, and ___ Barrington were each called the defendant's counsel challenged each for the same cause. Each juror was sworn upon his voir dire, and each juror, having answered satisfactorily the questions propounded, was declared by the presiding judge to be a competent juror, and presented to the defendant. (Defendant excepts.) The defendant's peremptory challenges having been exhausted before the last-named three jurors were called, they were sworn upon the jury."

"JUDGE'S CHARGE.

"Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen: There have been so many details in this case that I do not consider necessary to call your attention to, and which may have tended to divert your attention from the true issues of the case, that I will endeavor precisely to call your attention to the true issues which you are to try. Well, first, you are not to try whether Lewis Williams shot that gun, or who shot it. That is not a material issue in the case in so far as his legal guilt is

...