Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton

316 Pages·2012·0.62 MB·English

Ancestors of
Bessie Cone Norton
Paul Tocci
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
First Generation
1. Bessie Cone Norton-[2223],1 daughter of Frederick Harrison Norton-[1] and Bessie Ilean
Wright-[1112], was born on 21 Mar 1914 in Tusculum, Georgia, died on 5 Oct 1971 in Baltimore (City),
Maryland at age 57, and was buried on 8 Oct 1971 in Meadow Ridge Cemetery, Elkridge, MD.
General Notes: Grandmom made up her own words including these below. There is no "official"
spelings since they were all verbal. The spellings below are phoenetic.

koogle: feces. Instead of her kids saying they had to poop, she had them say they had to koogle. Koogle
was the brand name for a flavored peanut butter marketed by Kraft Foods. Kraft introduced Koogle in
1971, and discontinued it later that decade. It was available in several flavors, including chocolate ,
cinnamon, strawberry, vanilla and banana.

fewta fanta fiola: something she would chant when she was happy
calamagra:
bruzzy: soft, fuzzy blanket or sweater used to keep warm
goozlum: any gravy like food
muzry: person or animal that has a sweet, lovable appearance (that cat has a muzry face)

Bessie married Nile August Fish Sr-[2] [MRIN: 3], son of Wilson Fish-[2163] and Melissa Isabel
Longmire-[2288], on 23 Apr 1929 in Effingham County, Georgia.2
Marriage Notes: 1 NOTE 1930 United States Federal Census
Nile Fish 28 1901 Iowa Head White Election District 15,Baltimore, MD Bessie Fish 16 1913
WifeElection District 15, Baltimore, MD
Children from this marriage were:
i. Niton Dwight Fish-[113]
ii. Alice Jean Fish-[224]
iii. Bessie Ilean Fish-[335]
iv. Wilson Frederick "Willie" Fish-[446]
v. Nile August "Ducky" Fish Jr-[557]
vi. Leota "Pearl" Fish-[668]
Second Generation (Parents)
2. Frederick Harrison Norton-[1],3 son of Alexander Calhoun Norton-[5744] and Mary Dick
Harrison-[7529], was born on 28 Aug 1882 in Elloree, South Carolina, died on 23 Jul 1940 in Essex, Maryland
at age 57, and was buried in 1940 in Guyton Cemetery, Georgia.
General Notes: Henrietta Garvin said he died at his son Fred's (and Elizabeth's) house 908 Lutz Ave in
Essex, Maryland

Name: Fred H Norton Jr.
Age in 1910: 2/12
Estimated birth year: abt 1910
Birthplace: Georgia
Relation to Head of House: Son
Father's name: Fred H Norton
Father's Birth Place: South Carolina
Mother's name: Bessie Norton
Mother's Birth Place: Georgia
Home in 1910: Militia District 10, Effingham, Georgia
Marital Status: Single
Race: White
1 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
Gender: Male

Fred H Norton 27
Bessie Norton 23
Fred H Norton Jr. 2/12 (This is rally Wm Fred Norton)
==================================================

1920 Census

Name: Fred H Norton
Home in 1920: Guyton, Effingham, Georgia
Age: 37
Estimated birth year: abt 1883
Birthplace: South Carolina
Relation to Head of House: Self (Head)
[Head]
Spouse's name: Bessie I Norton
Father's Birth Place: South Carolina
Mother's Birth Place: South Carolina
Marital Status: Married
Race: White
Sex: Male
Home owned: Own
Able to read: Yes
Able to Write: Yes

Fred H Norton 37
Bessie I Norton 33
Fred W Norton 9
Frank A Norton 8
Victoria S Norton 7
Bessie C Norton 5
==================================================
1930 Census

Name: Fred H Norton
Home in 1930: Guyton, Effingham, Georgia
View Map
Age: 47
Estimated birth year: abt 1883
Birthplace: South Carolina
Relation to Head of House: Head
Spouse's name: Bessie Norton
Race: White

Name Age
Fred H Norton 47
Bessie Norton 44
Sidney Taylor 35
Victoria Taylor 17
Sidney Taylor 1 5/12
Georgia Taylor 3/12

2 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
Noted events in his life were:
• He resided at Fred and his brother came to Guyton as loggers. in Guyton, Effingham County, Georgia.
Fred and his brother, Edmund, came to Guyton as loggers from Eloree, South Carolina according to
both Georgia Taylor and Henrieta Norton.

According to Georgia, Fred's family came and settled in Tuculum, GA. Fred was a blacksmith and
lived very well while his children were young. Then their house burned down and cars came in and his
work went downhll. He built a log cabin where Georgia and Syndey Jr grew up. Fred began to make
whisky and that was his downfall.
Frederick married Bessie Ilean Wright-[1112]3 [MRIN: 1] on 10 Dec 1908 in Effingham County, Georgia.
Children from this marriage were:
1 i. Bessie Cone Norton-[2223]
ii. Susan Victoria "Vic" "Vickie" Norton-[3334]
iii. William Frederick "Fred" Norton-[4445]
iv. Frank Alexander Norton-[6667]
Frederick next married Otaitsa McCoy-[928] [MRIN: 2], daughter of Lawrence McCoy-[8437] and Adeline
O-[8447], in Effingham County, GA.
3. Bessie Ilean Wright-[1112],3 daughter of William Winfield Wright-[1446] and Susan Victoria Cone-
[1335], was born on 28 May 1886 in Guyton, Effingham County, Georgia,3 died on 7 Sep 1952 in Essex,
Maryland at age 66, and was buried in Guyton Cemetery, Georgia.
General Notes: Henrietta Garvin says that she died in Aunt Vic's cellar (Susan Victoria Norton) in Essex,
Maryland.
Bessie married Frederick Harrison Norton-[1]3 [MRIN: 1] on 10 Dec 1908 in Effingham County, Georgia.
Third Generation (Grandparents)
4. Alexander Calhoun Norton-[5744],4, 5 son of Dr Alexander Robert Norton-[5625] and Julia
Elizabeth Green-[5736], was born on 25 Aug 1843 in Elloree, South Carolina, died on 17 Sep 1911 in
Tusculum, GA at age 68, and was buried in Guyton Cemetery, Georgia.
General Notes: Biography: The Norton's of South Carolina originally lived near Gillisonville then moved
to Robertville in Jasper County. The story is told that during the Civil War Alexander Calhoun was a
spy for the confederacy. On one of his missions to Virginia, dressed in a Union uniform, he came to a
farm and began asking directions about the Union Army. Mary was living on that farm with her
grandparents. (She was raised by Annie Edmunds) Mary and Alexander exchanged gifts and he promised
to return after the war.

Alexander was once captured by the Union Army and sentenced to die but his guard fell asleep and
Alexander killed him, took his gun, slit the tent open and escaped.

Mary and Alexander lived on a farm near Eloree, South Carolina until about 1884. There is a story about
their son Richard was the cause of their leaving their farm.

The 1880 Census has them living in Poplar- Orangeburg SC

Death dates taken from Tombstone, Guyton Ga.

Henrietta Garvin says he lived in Eloree and in Holly Hills, South Carolina.

=========================================================
According to Peggy Bashlor Baker, Ray Norton told her this story of how the family moved to Georgia.
"Richard liked to gamble and often did with the hands that lived and worked on the farm where they had
3 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
a lumber and turpentine business. On this particular night he went down to the shack where the hands
slept and got into a card game. It wasn't long before one of the men accused him of cheating, (which
could have been true). There ensued a terrible fight. One man ran for Richard's father, and he came back
with a gun. By the time they got there Richard was being beaten within an inch of his life. Alexander
shot and killed one of the men. The other one escaped and disappeared. Alexander and his son, Richard,
were put in jail for murder and kept there 18 months before the trial came up. When it did they were
convicted but managed to get a new trial. In the mean time they advertised in the newspapers all over the
United States for the other man to return and give his testimony to clear them. The man did return from
somewhere in Texas and his testimony freed both Richard and Alexander. However, because the time
away from the farm and the expenses were so great, they lost their land and home and had to move to a
smaller farm (about 15 acres) in Tusculum, Ga. "

=============================================================
Summary:
In the April Term of 1888, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard the appeal of State v. Norton.
At McNeill's in Orangeburg County, South Carolina on June 23, 1887, Alexander Richard Norton shot J
Lafayette Hamlin in the right side of the neck with a pistol and Alexander Calhoun Norton stabbed
Hamlin in the right side of the neck with a knife. Hamlin died instantly.
Mr Wilson witnessed the entire event and gave testimony for the prosecution.
In the original trial AC and AR Norton were sentenced to death.

The original trial was September 1887 before judge J. Aldrich in Orangeburg, South Carolina.

The Supreme Court ruled on four points.
1. The charges should have been limited to one and not to both AC and AR having committed the
murder. The Supreme court ruled that there is precedence that under certain conditions, it is permissible
to have multiple charges. No error on the part of the original judge since it is one offense and two
distinct counts.
2. The charge was obnoxious to art. IV. , section 26 of the Constitution. The supreme court ruled
against this claim.
3. The supreme court ruled in favor of the appeal that the judge in the original case should not have told
the jury that the defendents had a right to "stop a witness and correct him upon a false statement."
4. The supreme court ruled in favor of the appeal that the judge should not have told the jury that "I do
not see any room for a verdict of manslaughter."

The supreme court ruled that the case be remanded for a new trial.
=================================
From "Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Supreme Court of South Carolina"
Volume XXVIII.
Containing Cases of November Term, 1887, and April Term 1888.
by Robert W Shand, State Reporter
Columbia, S. C.
James Woodrow & Co. Publishers 1888

----------------------------------------------------------
Syllabus. [28 S. C. REP. ] April Term, 1888.
----------------------------------------------------------

STATE v. NORTON

1. Deceased was shot while in an altercation with A, and thereupon B came up and stabbed deceased. In
an indictment against A and B for the murder of deceased, there is no objection to a joinder of counts--
one charge that A committed the murder with a pistol and that B was present and assisting, and the
other that B committed the murder with a knife, and that A was present and assisting.
2. The trial judge having intimated to the jury his opinion that a witness for the prosecution was more
reliable than others for the defence, and that the plea of self defence was improbable, a new trial was
4 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
granted.
3. It was error, under the facts of this case, to charge the jury that there was no room here for a verdict of
manslaughter.
4. In stating to the jury that the witnesses are examined in the presence of the prisoner in order that he
may stop and correct them upon a false statement, the trial judge committed an error which may have
prejudiced the prisoner's case before the jury.

Before ALDRICH, J., Orangeburg, September, 1887.

Alexander C. Norton (father) and A. Richard Norton (son) were indicted for the murder of one Hamlin.
During an altercation of words between Hamlin and A. R. Norton in a room, Norton fired at Hamlin, the
ball taking effect in Hamlin's neck. A. C. Norton then came in while some scuffling was going on, and at
once commenced to cut Hamlin with a knife.
So much of the judge's charge as bears upon the matters considered by the court, is stated in the
opinion, except his remarks upon the question of conspiracy, which were as follows:
If you conclude, gentlemen, that the prisoners at the bar were acting in concert, that is, that they had
conspired together to make an attack upon the deceased, either with a deadly weapon or otherwise, if
you know that such a conspiracy existed, you need not inquire at all which wound was the mortal
wound. If there was a conspiracy between the father and the son to inflict great bodily harm upon the
deceased, then there is no necessity for you to consider which wound killed him, because both are
principals in that case. A conspiracy may be formed at the very time that the rencounter takes place.
But if there is a conspiracy existing previous to the fight, or to the rencounter in which death follows,
then both are principals, and no matter who inflicts the mortal wound both are guilty, if the attack was
made with malice aforethought. You need not, therefore, inquire into the subject of which wound killed
him, provided you are satisfied that the deceased came to his death from wounds inflicted by weapons in
the hands of one or both of the conspirators.
Defendants appealed upon the following exceptions, inter alia:
I. Because the court erred in refusing the motion of the defendants asking that the solicitor be required
to elect upon which of the two counts set forth in the indictment he would proceed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Opinion of the Court. [28 S. C. REP. ] April Term, 1888.
----------------------------------------------------------
II. Because the charge of his honor, the presiding judge, was in violation of art. IV., sec. 24, of the
Constitution, in that it charged upon the facts.
V. Because his honor erred in charging the jury that the prisoner had a right to "stop a witness and
correct him upon a false statement,"
XV. Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: "I do not see any room here for a verdict
of manslaughter."

Messrs. M. J. Browning, Izlar & Glaze, and L. F. Youmans, for appellants.

Mr. Jervey, solicitor, contra.

June 14, 1888. The opinion of the court was delivered by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SIMPSON. The
defendants, appellants, were convicted of murder in the Court of General Sessions for
Orangeburg County, September term, 1887, upon the following indictment, to wit:

"The Suite of South Carolina, Orangeburg County, in the General Sessions/ AT a Court of General
Sessions, begun and holden in and for the County of Orangeburg, in the State of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg, in the county and State aforesaid, on the third Monday of September, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, the jurors of and for the county aforesaid, in the
State aforesaid, upon their oath, present that Alexander C. Norton and A. Richard Norton, late of the
County of Orangeburg, on the twenty-third day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and eighty-seven, with force and arms, at McNeill's, in the County of Orangeburg, and State
aforesaid, in and upon one J. Lafayette
5 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
Hamlin, in the peace of God, and of the said State, then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of
their malice aforethought, did make an assault; and that the said A. Richard Norton, a
a certain pistol of the value of one dollar, then and there charged with gunpowder, and one leaden bullet,
which said pistol, he, the said A. Richard Norton, in his right hand, then and there had
held, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did discharge and shoot off, to,
at, against, and upon the said J. Lafayette Hamlin; and that the said A. Richard Norton, with the leaden
bullet aforesaid, out of the pistol aforesaid, then and there by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the
said A. Richard Norton discharged and shot off, as aforesaid, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of
his malice aforethought, did strike, penetrate, and wound, him, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, in and upon
the right side of the neck of him, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, giving unto him, the said J. Lafayette
Hamlin, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid discharged and shot out of the
pistol aforesaid by the said A. Richard Norton in and upon the right side of the neck of him, the said J.
Lafayette Hamlin, one mortal wound of the depth of five inches, and of the breadth of one-fourth of an
inch, of which mortal wound he, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, then and there instantly died; and that the
said Alexander C. Norton then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, was
present, aiding, abetting, counselling, advising and assisting him, the said A. Richard Norton, the felony
and murder aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit. And so the jurors aforesaid, upon
their oath aforesaid, do say that the said Alexander C. Norton and the aforesaid A. Richard Norton, him,
the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, then and there, in the manner and by the means aforesaid, feloniously,
wilfully, and of their 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 same State aforesaid.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Alexander C.
Norton and A. Richard Norton, on the twenty-third day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and eighty-seven, with force and arms, at McNeill's, in the County of Orangeburg, and
State aforesaid, in und upon one J. Lafayette Hamlin, in The peace of God and of the said State, then and
there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said
Alexander C. Norton, with a certain knife, of the value of one dollar, which he, the said Alexander C.
Norton, in his right hand, then and there had and held, him. the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, in and upon the
right side of the neck of him, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his
malice aforethought, did strike, penetrate, and wound, giving unto the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, then and
there with the knife aforesaid, by the stroke aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, in and upon the right side of
the neck of him, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, one mortal wound, of the length of five inches, and of the
depth of three inches, of which said mortal wound the said J. Lafayette Hamlin then and there instantly
died; and that the said A. Richard Norton then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice
aforethought, was present, aiding abetting, counselling, advising, and assisting the said Alexander C.
Norton, the felony and murder aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit. And so the
jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid, say: That the said Alexander C. Norton and the said A.
Richard Norton, him, the said J. Lafayette Hamlin, then and there, in the manner and by the meant
aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of their 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 aforesaid."
They were sentenced to death, and from this judgment they have appealed upon numerous exceptions.
These exceptions, however have been condensed in the argument of appellants' counsel, mainly, into
four allegations of error. And we have considered the case principally with reference to these allegations.
The first is that his honor erred in refusing appellants' motion below "to require the State to elect upon
which of the two counts in the indictment it would proceed to trial." We think this exception is
untenable. Where the indictment contains two or more counts, charging distinct offences, committed at
different times, or by different parties, it would be objectionable, and the trial judge, in the exercise of
proper discretion in such case, should require the prosecuting officer to elect one of the charges and
confine himself to it, for the reason, as was said by Inglis, J., in the case of The State v. Nelson, 14 Rich.,
172 : "That by the multiplication of distinct charges the prisoner may be confounded in his defence, or
prejudiced in his challenges, or the attention of the jury may be distracted." See, also. Arch. Cr. Pr. & Pl.,
*95. Or, as was said by this court, Mr. Justice McIver speaking for the court, in the case of The State v.
Scott, 15 S. C., 436: "If, however, distinct felonies are charged in separate counts not growing out of the
same transaction, then the proper practice is to require the prosecuting officer to select one of the
felonies and confine himself to it, even though no motion to that effect should be made by the accused."
But where the offences charged all grow out of the same transaction, and against the same parties, or
6 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
where the same offence is charged in different ways, in as many different counts, as may be thought
necessary, there is no valid objection to such joinder.
See the case of State v. Scott, supra, and the cases there cited. See, also. Archbold's Criminal Practice &
Pleadings, page *96, where he says : "There is no objection to stating the same offence in different ways,
in as many different counts of the indictment, as you may think necessary." Mr. Wharton says: "It is
sufficient here to repeat that counts varying the statement of the mode of death are constantly sustained.
And that in an indictment charging in one count A as principal, and B as accessory before the fact, and in
another count B as principal and A as accessory before the fact, charges but one offence, such counts are
not repugnant." Archbold on Homicide (2nd ed.), section 857.
In the case before the court, we see but one offence charged, to wit, the murder of the deceased,
presented, it is true, in two distinct counts, and charged as having been committed in different ways, but
still embracing the same transaction, and against the same parties. We think the indictment is sustained
by the authorities cited, as well as by the reasons upon which they are based.
The next point raised by the appellants' counsel is, that the charge was obnoxious to art. IV., section
26, of the Constitution in various particulars, and especially in what his honor said in reference to the
testimony of the witness, Wilson; and also that he charged, that he saw "no room for a verdict of
manslaughter." We have held in several cases that a violation of the constitutional provision referred to
above consists in the trial judge allowing his opinion as to a disputed fact, or the force and effect of
testimony, reaching the jury, directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently. Acker v. Anderson, 20
S. C., 499 ; Lynn v. Thornton, 17 Id., 129; State v. White, 15 Id., 392; Howard v. Wofford, 16 Id., 148.
Whether this constitutional inhibition is a wise one or not, is not for us to say, nor have we ever stopped
to consider that question. It is in the organic law of the State, and when invoked, we have no alternative
but to consider it, and to enforce it, when the facts so demand. We have no idea that any Circuit Judge
now on the bench has ever intentionally disregarded this inhibition, or wilfully set it aside. But we are
not surprised that some times, in an impromptu charge, and in the warmth of an oral discussion of the
various questions involved, with a statement of the testimony introduced, applicable to those questions,
that the limit should be transcended in some particulars. On the contrary, the surprise is that it is not
more frequently, and yet unconsciously, done.
We think in this case that the jury could hardly have failed to reach the conclusion that his honor
believed that Wilson's testimony was truthful, that it was the most reliable, and should control. See
Thomp. Charg. Jur., page 111, et seq. He said: "Mr. Wilson was the only witness to the whole
transaction. He describes it very graphically, and it is for you to say whether his description is a truthful
one, or not. His testimony has not been impeached directly. No witness has been put up there to attack
his character, or to impeach his veracity. He has given you a plain, distinct, calm narrative of what he
says occurred on the morning when this fatal rencounter took place. You are to take that testimony, and
judge whether it convinces you that these prisoners, or either of them, committed the crime with which
they are charged, to wit, murder." Again after stating the law of self-defence, presenting the idea that,
for this defence to avail, the prisoners should have acted under a reasonable belief of danger of great
bodily harm, he said, "But in solving that question you will ask yourselves, how could it be that either of
the prisoners could have had such a belief? The dead man was unarmed. He was sitting on a trunk
taking off his wet clothes, and putting on dry clothes; when ho was approached he rose in his place. He
had on nothing at all but his shirt and drawers, and one leg of his breeches was on, and one leg was off.
Was the deceased then in such a condition, or did he have such a condition, or did he have such a
weapon, as to raise a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the father and son, that the son was in
danger of great bodily harm, or of losing his life?"
The constitutional limit as to the judge is: "He shall not charge in respect to matters of fact, but may
state the testimony and declare the law." This is brief, concise, and expressive, and leaves the facts
proved, including the credibility of witnesses and the force and effect of the testimony, entirely to the
jury. We think his honor in the above portions of his charge transcended this rule. State v. White, 15
S. C., 392.
We think also it was error for his honor, at the conclusion of his charge, after having gone over the
whole case, defining the different degrees of homicide, to say as he did, " I do not see any room here for a
verdict of manslaughter." We wish it distinctly understood, however, that in thus holding we do not
intimate an opinion as to the character of the case before the court, as to the degree of guilt, or whether
his honor's remark was well founded or not, as applicable to either one or both of the defendants. We
desire to be understood, that we rule it was an error in the fact that such a charge was made, thereby
7 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
excluding the question of manslaughter from the consideration of the jury in this case.
It may be, that in some rare criminal cases, where there is a conspicuous absence of all testimony
applicable to one or more of the degrees into which crime is divided by the law, that the judge would be
warranted in stating such absence, and in holding that as to that special degree, or crime, there was no
evidence. Such was the case of The State v. Nance (25 S. C., 168), where the court said: "We cannot
hold that the judge erred in charging that there was no testimony as to self-defence, or such as could raise
a question of manslaughter." So, too, as was incidentally said in the case of The State v. Summers (19 S.
C., 94): "If there is no testimony, the judge undoubtedly has the right to say so." But it should be a very
clear case, a very conspicuous absence of all testimony to warrant such remark, especially in a case
where its effect is to preclude the jury from considering the question of manslaughter, upon which the
prisoner may in fact be relying, and of confirming them to the deeper crime of murder.
As we have already stated, we do not mean to say that in our opinion manslaughter was made out in
this case as to either of the defendants, and therefore we have not followed the counsel in their argument
on the subject of manslaughter, and the alleged testimony n the case bearing upon that question; but we
only mean to say that the responsibility was upon the jury to determine the degree of guilt which
attached to these parties, and to enable them to solve this vital question the whole case should have gone
to them untrammelled by the opinion of the judge.
We do not think that the charge is obnoxious to the exception on the subject of the conspiracy referred
to. When what his honor said is read as a whole on that questions, he seems to have sufficiently left it to
the jury as a question of fact.
We think it was error for his honor to have stated, that witnesses are examined in the presence of the
prisoner in order that the prisoner may stop and correct them upon a false statement. We do not know
how this remark was understood by the jury; but if it was understood as expressed, and the prisoners
failed to rise and correct the witnesses, it was well calculated to prejudice the prisoners' case, in the
event of any false statement.
There are several other exceptions base principally upon detached and incidental expressions of his
honor, taken from different portions of the charge, which, in view of the fact that the case must be
remanded for a new trial on the grounds stated above, we hardly think it necessary to consider formally.
They are, therefore, passed by.
It is the judgment of this court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the case be
remanded for a new trial.
=======================================================================
=======================

Reference to the above story and Supreme Court appeal was found in a book below. Note that two
separate cases are described.

Carnival of Blood
Dueling, Lynching, and Murder in South Carolina, 1880-1920.
By John Hammond Moore
ISBN10 1-57003-620-9
ISBN13 978-1-57003-620-0
p. 141

A Sheriff Speaks His Mind

In January 1889, A. M. Salley, sheriff of Orangeburg County, wrote to his son, Alexander Samuel Salley
(1871-1961), a Citadel student, concerning the current court session, letters now in the A. S. Salley
Papers at the South Caroliniana Library. Columbia, S.C.

18 January -- They are trying the Nortons today. I do not look for a conviction this time, think it will be
a mistrial. F. D. Mitchell & Shug Hall are on the jury, and I do not believe they would convict if they
saw a murder committed, if five dollars was offered to them the other way.

26 January -- Well, Court is over, and all the white men are out--I have never head of a clearer case in my
8 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012
Ancestors of Bessie Cone Norton
life than the Branchvillc case, but it is the hight [sic] of folly to try to convict a white man for killing a
poor negro. A certain class think it is something to be proud of. It was perfectly disgusting to me to see
men running after those selfe [sic] declared murderers. They had a perfect ovation, and all went
immediately to DeMars and treated the crowd. I do not know where we are drifting to. If this goes on
no man's life is safe.

The Nortons, father and son, sentenced to be hanged for killing a white man named Hamlin in 1887, had
won a new trial on appeal. Their lawyers claimed the elder Norton shot to protect his son, and the jury--
after being out about an hour--returned a "not guilty" verdict.

The Branchville case involved the death of Caesar Stevens (black) at the hands of three white men. To
Sheriff Sallcys chagrin, jurors needed only five minutes to reach a similar conclusion.
========================================================

[NOTE: Since the 1880 census below places the family in South Carolina, at least part of the story
above is incorrect. There could not have been any slaves in 1880, could have been a servant or they
could have moved towns with South Carolina.]

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/Census/household_record.asp?HOUSEHOLD_CODE=
1880US_13898731&HOUSEHOLD_SUB=1&frompage=99

1880 United States Census

Household:

Name Relation Marital Status Gender Race Age Birthplace Occupation Father's Birthplace Mother's
Birthplace
Alexander C. NORTON Self M Male W 37 S. C. Farmer S. C. S. C.
Mary D. NORTON Wife M Female W 35 S. C. Keeping House S. C. S. C.
Annie V. NORTON Dau S Female W 14 S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.
Alex R. NORTON Son S Male W 12 S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.
Julia T. NORTON Dau S Female W 8 S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.
May Virginia NORTON Dau S Female W 6 S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.
Robert E. NORTON Son S Male W 3 S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.
Sarah E. NORTON Dau S Female W 1M S. C. At Home S. C. S. C.

Surname Given Name Race Gender Age Estimated Birth Year Relationship Marital Status Birthplace
Father's birthplace Mother's birthplace
Norton Alexander C. White Male 37 abt 1843 Self (Head)Self (Head) Married South Carolina South
Carolina South Carolina
Norton Mary D. White Female 35 abt 1845 Wife Married South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina
Norton Annie V. White Female 14 abt 1866 Daughter Single South Carolina South Carolina South
Carolina
Norton Alex R. White Male 12 abt 1868 Son Single South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina
Norton Julia T. White Female 8 abt 1872 Daughter Single South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina
Norton May Virginia White Female 6 abt 1874 Daughter Single South Carolina South Carolina South
Carolina
Norton Robert E. White Male 3 abt 1877 Son Single South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina
Norton Sarah E. White Female 1m abt 1880 Daughter Single South Carolina South Carolina South
Carolina

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Information:
Census Place Poplar, Orangeburg, South Carolina
Family History Library Film 1255237
NA Film Number T9-1237
9 Produced by Legacy on 19 May 2012