That November afternoon in 1881 was quiet in Fort Mill. A few were in town to do business, but most were lolling around on the street enjoying the weather. James Bailes and W. A. Mills were standing on the steps of Mills’ store next to the post office and noticed James Sutton and his brother-in-law, William Hayworth, walking across the bridge over the railroad tracks. Neither man paid any attention, as it was a common way for people to get into the small business district. Coming from Doctor Massey’s drugstore and also heading toward the post office was Nathan Gibson. R. C. Pearson was sitting in front of Massey’s, and somewhere nearby were physicians T. E. Massey, Truesdale, and Joseph Saye of Sharon.
Perhaps some of these knew about the enmity between Gibson, Sutton, and Hayworth, but they could not have known what was about to happen. Tempers were boiling from an earlier confrontation between Gibson and Hayworth, and when their paths converged in front of Mills’ store, the cool November air was broken by a blast of hot, profane language. Hayworth cursed and taunted Gibson, asking about the sale of a piece of land. When Gibson shouted that it had been sold, Hayworth called him a “d—– son of a b—-.” “If I am one, you are one,” Gibson shouted back. Glancing toward Sutton, who was standing a few feet away in front of the post office, he shouted, “I’ve been s— on by a set of low down people as long as I intend to be, and there are other d— rascals around here beside you.” “Are you alluding to me?” snapped Sutton. Gibson snapped, “D— you,” Gibson said. “If the shoe fits, you wear it!”
Some months earlier when Gibson was acting as a constable, he served a process on the property of William Hayworth while Hayworth was out of state. After Gibson secured the estate, he charged Sutton with breaking into the house and removing articles that had been levied. Strong words had passed between the men, but now the situation was rapidly escalating.
The Rock Hill Herald on Aug. 16, 1883 reported – ” the firm of Durant and Stewart has been dissolved. The business will be continued by Mr. W.G. Durant.”
Everyone on the street turned their attention to the ruckus. Samuel Ormand and W. H. Cook were inside the post office and both turned to the shouting outside. Alice Paul and her fiancé D. J. Carothers, were in Durant’s store across the street, and they stepped up to the front window to see what the shouting and cursing was about. Carothers and Ormond saw Gibson place his right hand on his back pocket several times during the argument.
Just as Gibson took a stance on the post office steps and made the “if the shoe fits” remark, Sutton shouted, “If that is what you are up to, two can play that game.” In one motion Gibson snatched out his pistol, shouting, “D— you, don’t put your hands on me,” and fired. Only five feet apart, the bullet amazingly missed its mark and passed through Sutton’s coat. Sutton had drawn his pistol, and he fired.
Gibson darted into the post office and took cover behind a door. Sutton rushed in behind him and fired, delivering a mortal blow to Gibson’s right chest. The wounded man fell dead in front of Ormand and Cook.
In all, seven shots were fired. When the shooting began, Durant turned to Alice Paul and said, “Turn your head Miss Alice, or they will have you at York,” meaning that she would be called as a witness. And indeed she was.
As the smoke cleared, Sutton stepped out of the post office and was overheard saying he would allow no man to back him down. H. L. Bradford ran up the street and heard Hayworth say to Sutton, “There is another d—– son of a b—- less.” Sutton stayed on the scene for a few minutes, speaking to several bystanders, and then he began walking away. As he crossed back over the bridge over the railroad, Dr. Massey, a town councilman, was seen in a fast walk behind Sutton.
Sutton was promptly charged with murder and arrested, along with Hayworth, who was charged as an accessory to the fact. The trial judge, T. G. Culp, acting as coroner, impaneled a jury and began to hear testimony late that afternoon on November 9, 1881, and continued into the next day. Ironically, all three men were described as “peaceable.”
Sutton testified that he was not accustomed to carrying a pistol, but a few days earlier, his sister’s property had been illegally attached, and he was attacked by two men named Bradford, one with a bar of iron and another with a knife. A second reason, he said, was because he heard another threat on his life had been made.
The inquest jury returned a verdict that “N. T. Gibson came to his death at Fort Mill, on the 9th day of November, 1881, by a leaden bullet fired from a pistol in the hands of James H. Sutton.” The trial was placed on the General Sessions docket for the spring session and began Thursday, March 30, 1882. The state, represented by Solicitor Gaston, prosecuted the case. And the Yorkville law firm of Wilson & Wilson and C. E. Spencer represented Sutton and Hayworth.
During the two-day trial, 36 witnesses were called, including the defendants and the widow of Nathaniel Gibson. Gibson was a native of Stokes County, North Carolina, and had operated a business in Charlotte for several years before coming to Fort Mill in 1875. Just a month before, the shooting Gibson had prosecuted a case of miscegenation (mixed race cohabitation, illegal at the time). A wife and two children survived him.
When the prosecution closed its case, Judge Cothran then gave leave to the defense council to present their case to the jury. Usually these addresses are lost to time, but in this case, the Museum of Western York County furnishes a handwritten copy of the defense’s charge to the jury, written by A. W. Ingold, the court-appointed reporter.
In the defense’s closing remarks we learn that the foreman of the jury, Andrew Jackson, was minus an arm due to wounds received in the Civil War. We also learn that the case was somewhat hinged on the testimony of Dr. Massey — whether he saw what he testified or misinterpreted what he saw. The transcript of the defense’s statement follows.
“Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the jury: The defendants, James Sutton and William Hayworth, are indicted for murder. In the progress of this case it has been said to you by the learned counsel that murder is the highest crime known to the law. Practically, this is so, in this county; but the crimes of treason, which, however, occurs so rarely as to be lost sight of, and for which there has never been a successful prosecution under our government, is the highest crime known to human law. Treason is attempting the life of the country — of the government — and as the country is considered to be of far greater importance than a single individual, or even a number of individuals, who may be slain, the taking of the life of the country is a greater crime than murder. Hence, murder is the highest crime known to our law. Its antiquity, as is well understood dates back almost to man’s first offense. After it, the first crime—the first recorded transgression against Divine law — was murder. From that day to this, how much sadness and sorrow — how many widows and orphans — how many tears of anguish — have been caused by the commission of this great crime!
“I have thought, from the circumstances connected with the cause of your armless sleeve, Mr. Forman, and the scenes of carnage to which so many of our people became accustomed and familiar with, that even now, at this late period, after the days of strife, we are apt to regard human life too lightly. It is an awful thing to take a human life; that mysterious thing by which mortal bodies have their being and existence, and which, it seems, God in His wisdom, has created in us a desire to protect and prolong; which come, we know not how; which we must give up, we know not why; and which goes, we know not whither.
“But in deliberating over a case where a human life has been taken, however much we may shrink at the enormity of the deed, where the law has been violated, every circumstance attending the deed must be duly weighed and considered. And I warn you now, Mr. Foreman, and gentlemen, and I charge you, in the consideration of this case, to come up to the full discharge of your duty. Sympathy should have no place here. For the unfortunate prisoners at the bar, you should manifest no feeling of concern. If they have troops of friends and the sympathies of every man outside of the jury box; if the number of their friends or their influence in the community is greater than was that of the deceased, that question must have no consideration here. Nor are you to consider the unfortunate woman left a widow by the act. In the analysis which thee makes, the scalding tears which furrow her cheeks are but salt and water. I have deemed it proper to say this much in order to present the case before you in its true light.
“The Judge declares the law; the jury decides the questions of fact. Our responsibilities are divided. It is, however, as necessary that you know the law, as for the mechanic to know and understand the tools with which he works as his trade. The testimony here is the timber out of which the verdict is to be built, which to construct it.
“Of murder I know no shorter definition than that given in our own statutes, viz.: the taking of human life with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The only difference between murder and manslaughter is the existence of malice. Malice is the essential ingredient of murder. To constitute murder, there must be malice, express or implied. By express malice, is where the crime has been committed deliberately, after preparation, after threats, or from old grudges, etc. But often, to shield themselves from the consequences of the law, men have committed the crime with too much caution to express malice, to meet which, is implied malice, and which the law adjudges and defines under certain circumstances. I can best illustrate implied malice by supposing that, sitting here, I were to take a pistol and while looking at you, Mr. Foreman, I were to fire at the audience in my front, regardless of consequences, and a man were killed, though I aimed at no particular person, when brought to trial the law says it is murder — a reckless, wanton act — implying malice. Malice may be implied from other circumstances, not necessary to consider in this case.
“In the crime of manslaughter, the element of malice is wanting. The law reduces the crime from the magnitude of murder, where the element of manslaughter exists, by reason of the infirmity of our nature. And even manslaughter is a terrible crime! We who commits it, is, [sic] by the laws of the land, subject to great punishment.
“Those enumerated are the most serious forms of crime under which a human life may be taken. The law defines excusable homicide to be where a man takes a life in self defense — when he could not escape if he would. Then, to save his own life, or to prevent great bodily harm, the law says he may take the life of the man who assails him.
“No man has the right to take the life of another, even in self defense, if he is in fault; if he provoked the quarrel, or by his own act brought about the difficulty imperiling his own life. It is a high privilege for a man to be allowed to take the life of even an adversary. But his hands must be clean before he can be excused by the law. The sheriff may hang a man and cause his death under the sentence of the law, and that would be justifiable. It is not the sheriff who causes his death, but the law. The sheriff is only the agent executing the mandate of the law. And in thus defining justifiable homicide, as in the case of a sheriff executing the sentence of a court, I may call your attention to the great difference between justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. If a man commits excusable homicide, still he is guilty of crime. For if it is not wrong, why excuse him? If it were not a crime, there would be no necessity of excusing him. The law excuses when you take a life in self defense; not even then that you are guiltless. The sheriff can, as an agent of the law, and only as the agent of the law, commit justifiable homicide, and under no other circumstances can justifiable homicide be committed. The qualification of excusable homicide even carries with it the meaning that a crime has been committed. Such is the spirit which the law regards excusable homicide.
“And now as to the question of self defense, the taking of a human life where the slayer is excused by the law. In determining, from the testimony, whether or not these prisoners took the life of the deceased in self defense, you are to weigh well all the facts bearing upon their conduct before and during the quarrel, and whether or not it was by their connivance, and through their efforts that the quarrel was brought about. The law on this point can be made more clear to you by reading from the book: ‘One who is without fault himself, when assailed by another, may kill his adversary if the circumstances be such as to furnish reasonable grounds for apprehending a design to take away his life, or to do him some great bodily harm, and there is also reasonable ground for believing the danger imminent that such design will be accomplished, although it may afterwards turn out that the appearances were false, and that there was in fact no such design, nor any danger that it would be accomplished.
“Such is the law, and you see how it restricts and qualifies the circumstances in which a man may slay another, even in self defense. The fault meant, is the fault of bringing about the collision. Even though the slayer might have acted in self defense, often provoking the quarrel, the defense will not avail. You are to consider whether or not the defendants were in fault in bringing about the state of things at Fort Mill on the 9th of last November. From the evidence it is for you to judge. If they were at fault in bringing about the quarrel; if they connived in following up the deceased to the post office and provoking him into a quarrel, even though the fatal shot was fired in self defense, I charge you that the guilt is with them and upon them.
“As to the circumstances which led to this difficulty, as shown by the testimony, it may be well to briefly allude. If the deceased was a constable and had levied on certain goods, and afterwards had been informed that they or a part of them had been removed from the place of the levy, he had the right to go and see to them, and he also had the right to say to whoever moved them that the act was a penitentiary offence. Did the affair of Sunday, at Dinkins’ house lead to this collision on the following Wednesday? From the evidence before you, it is for you to say.
“On the subject of threats, which feature is also presented in this case: threats are both foolish and wicked — foolish if not carried out, and wicked if executed. In reference to the alleged threats of the deceased, you are to consider the state of his mind when made; his position as a constable, and whether or not they meant that he had obtained satisfaction. They were significant speech, and are to be considered by you.
“But on the circumstances of Wednesday, when these parties met at the post office in Fort Mill this case hinges more than upon any other. Who fired the first shot? Who caused it to be fired? Was the meeting of these three men at the post office on that Wednesday accidental, or on the part of these defendants premeditated? These are questions for you to consider. If you conclude, from the testimony, that these prisoners brought about the hostile meeting, by their own conduct and connivance, then the pleas of self defense will not avail. No man has a right to provoke a difficulty. Unless you find in the evidence that Hayworth was present to provoke this difficulty, and that Sutton was present to do what he did, then I must say to you that the words of Sutton were not sufficient to warrant the dead man in doing what he did. A man has no right to avenge with deadly weapon an insult given or offered only in words. The law gives no man the right to avenge words with a blow. A blow may be returned by a blow. The law says that a person receiving a blow may strike back; but even with this right accorded by the law, it does not say that for a light blow you may take a man’s life. Here the law comes in and makes provision for human infirmities. It grants a blow for a blow, even permitting a harder blow to be returned, but not excessively harder than the blow received. As to who fired the first shot: If you find nothing in the evidence that these men were setting upon the deceased; that Hayworth had made no attack; that he was not holding his knife with the view or purpose of making an assault upon the deceased; that there was no combination between the prisoners to make an attack; that Sutton had done nothing more than use the objectionable words to Gibson; that Sutton was at the post office without pre concert; and that the deceased man was talking to Hayworth, and then turning to Sutton, knowing the relations and bad feeling existing between himself and Sutton, whether he looked directly at Sutton or not, when he used the words attributed to him, I charge you that Sutton had the right to enquire if he was alluded to in the remark. And if you find in the testimony that in replying to this question of Sutton’s accompanied by no hostile demonstrations, the deceased drew his pistol to fire, then I charge you that Sutton had the right, by the law, to shoot. If you believe the party killed fell back into the post office for the purpose of keeping up the fight, it would have been foolish in Sutton to attempt to get away. He had the right to return the shots as promptly as he could. If you believe the first shot was fired by the deceased man, and that Sutton was not in fault in the manner before described, then Sutton had the right to fire.
“The law holds the crime of murder to be exceptional. Where a man kills another, the law presumes the slayers guilty of murder; and had this case been submitted to you on Dr. Massey’s testimony, it would have been your duty to write a verdict of guilty. But when proof is introduced, presumptions must give way. And a question for you to consider is, has this presumption been broken by the weight of testimony offered by the defense? The burden of proof is on the defendants. The State takes the burden to establish the guilt it charges, that is, the fact of killing. You will decide on the defendants’ defense by the clear preponderance of the evidence, and in doing so, you will give to the prisoners the benefit of every reasonable doubt upon the whole case. Dr. Massey may have been honestly mistaken. You must be governed on this point by the circumstances, the opportunity for observation, distance of the respective witnesses from the scene, and attending circumstances. If the defense has satisfied you that Dr. Massey was honestly mistaken, then their case has been established, and they are entitled to a verdict. If they have satisfied you that Gibson was first to draw, then they are entitled to a verdict. It is not the number of witnesses required to establish a fact, but the reasonableness of their testimony. One witness, owing to his opportunities and information, and high character for truth, might make a statement that fifty more could not overcome. But should you have a reasonable doubt upon the point presented by this feature of the case, then upon the doctrine of reasonable doubts, you will write a verdict of not guilty.
“If you believe, however, that the prisoners went there for the purpose of provoking a difficulty, then it cannot be made a case of self defense. But if the meeting was casual and accidental, and you believe the defendants’ witnesses, their defense is made out, and the presumption of the law is overcome.”
When the defense put their case to rest, Judge J. L. Cothran then instructed the jury of their duty and at 6:15 on the evening of March 31, 1882, the jury retired. They were out for only 36 minutes and returned with a “not guilty” verdict.
J.L. West – Author
This article and many others found on the pages of Roots and Recall, were written by author J.L. West, for the YC Magazine and have been reprinted on R&R, with full permission – not for distribution or reprint!
Stay Connected
Explore history, houses, and stories across S.C. Your membership provides you with updates on regional topics, information on historic research, preservation, and monthly feature articles. But remember R&R wants to hear from you and assist in preserving your own family genealogy and memorabilia.
Visit the Southern Queries – Forum to receive assistance in answering questions, discuss genealogy, and enjoy exploring preservation topics with other members. Also listed are several history and genealogical researchers for hire.
User comments welcome — post at the bottom of this page.
Please enjoy this structure and all those listed in Roots and Recall. But remember each is private property. So view them from a distance or from a public area such as the sidewalk or public road.
Do you have information to share and preserve? Family, school, church, or other older photos and stories are welcome. Send them digitally through the “Share Your Story” link, so they too might be posted on Roots and Recall.
Thanks!
User comments always welcome - please post at the bottom of this page.
Share Your Comments & Feedback: