Sumter v. Lewis Transcript of Record

    The State of South Carolina
IN THE SUPREME COURT

APPEAL FROM SUMTER COUNTY 
H onorable J ames H ugh  M cF addin

CITY OF SUMTER, Respondent, 

against

JAMES E. LEWIS, FREDDIE LEE WILLIAMS, 
LECKYLER GILLARD, JOHN E. T O N E Y ,  
JOHNNY LEE DAVIS, and ROOSEVELT Mc- 
COLLOUGII, Appellants.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

E rnest A. F in n ey , Jr., 
Sumter, S. C.,

W illiam  W . B ennett , 
Florence, S. C.,

J enkins & P erry,
Columbia, S. C.,

Attorneys for Appellants.

C. M. E dmunds,
Sumter, S. C.,

Attorney for Respondent.



INDEX
P age

Statement ..................................................................  1

Affidavit ......................................................................  2

Warrant ......................................................................  3

Proceedings on T r ia l................................................  4

Case for the Defendants...........................................  19

Order ..........................................................................  46

Exceptions ..................................................................  49

Agreement ..................................................................  51



1

STATEMENT
The six (6) appellants, all of whom are Morris Col­

lege students, a Negro College in Sumter, South Caro­
lina, were arrested on October 12, 1960, and charged 
with the common law offense of breach of peace. Ap­
pellants were tried before Sumter City Recorder Ray- 
mon Schwarz, Jr., sitting without a jury, on Novem­
ber 22, 1960. At the conclusion of all the evidence, 2 

Judge Schwarz found each of the appellants guilty and 
sentenced each of them to pay fines of One Hundred 
($100.00) Dollars or serve thirty (30) days in prison. 
Notice of Intention to Appeal was duly served upon 
the City Recorder.

Thereafter, the matter was argued before Honorable 
James Hugh McFaddin, Resident Judge, Third Judi­
cial Circuit. On February 23, 1962, Judge McFaddin 
issued an Order, affirming the judgment of the City 
Recorder. Notice of Intention to Appeal was there- g 
upon duly served upon the City Attorney.

4

( 1 )



2 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

City  and County of Sumter .

Personally came before me Raymon Schwarz, Jr., 
Recorder of the City of Sumter, E. E. McIntosh, who 
being duly sworn says: That he is informed and be­
lieves that at Sumter, S. C., on or about the 12th day of 
October, 1960, one James Edward Lewis, Johnny Lee 
Davis and Roosevelt McCullough, were marching for 
some considerable time back and forth on the sidewalk 
in the City of Sumter, S. C., in front of the store of 
S. H. Kress, carrying placards bearing printed mat­
ter thereon which, in conjunction with the continuous 
marching up and down the sidewalk, tended to and did 
breach the peace and tranquility of the community, 
in violation of an Ordinance of City of Sumter, and 
that deponent and others are material witness to prove 
the above allegations.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th 
day of October, 1961.

E. E. M cI ntosh / s/

R aymon  S chwarz, J r . / s/  (L. S.)
Recorder.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

3

WARRANT
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Citt  and County or Sumtek .
To the Sheriff of Sumter County or to any or either 

of the Policemen of the City of Sumter.
Whereas, complaint upon oatli has been made be­

fore me as Recorder of the City of Sumter, by E. E. 
McIntosh, That he is informed and believes that at 
Sumter, S. C., on or about the 12th day of October, 
1960, one James Edward Lewis, Johnny Lee Davis and 
Roosevelt McCullough, were marching for some con­
siderable time back and forth on the sidewalk in the 
City of Sumter, South Carolina in front of the store 
of S. H. Kress carrying placards bearing printed mat­
ter thereon, which in conjunction with the continuous 
marching up and down the sidewalk tended to and did 
breach the peace and tranquility of the community, 
in violation of an Ordinance of City of Sumter in such 
cases made and provided.

These are therefore to authorize and command you 
to arrest the witness above named and James Edward 
Lewis, Johnny Lee Davis and Roosevelt McCullough 
and bring them before me at Recorder’s Court to be 
dealt with according to law.

Given under my hand and Seal this 12th day of Oc­
tober, 1960.

R aymon  S chwabz, Jr. / s/  (L. S.)
Recorder.



4 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

PROCEEDINGS ON TRIAL 
Appearances:

For the City: C. M. Edmunds, Esq.
For the Defendants: Lincoln Jenkins, Esq., and 

Ernest A. Finney, Esq.
Case Tried November 22nd, 1960.
His Honor, Judge Raymon Schwarz, Jr., Pre­

siding.
The Court: The Court will come to order. We are 

here today to try the case of the City of Sumter against 
Freddie Lee Williams, please answer as I call your 
names, John Endicott Toney, Leckyler Virgill Gail- 
lard, James Edward Lewis, Johnny Lee Davis and 
Roosevelt McCollough.

(All defendants answer present.)
The Court: Is the City ready!
Mr. Edmunds: Yes, sir.
The Court: Are the defendants ready!
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, sir.
The Court: The defendants in this case are charged 

with breach of the peace. Before I ask for a plea, I 
wonder if in the interest of time we might just insert 
in the record the same statement that was given prior 
to the commencement of the trial of the companion 
case. Any objection from the City or the defendants!

Counsel: No, sir.
The Court: Before actually reading the warrants 

and in order that the entire record may be transcribed, 
the Court Reporter being present at this time, I would 
like to insert this statement in the record, of what has 
transpired heretofore in connection with these cases.

On Wednesday, October 12th, 1960, I had presented 
to me and I did sign, four warrants involving incidents



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

5

in which eleven Negroes were arrested and charged 
with breach of the peace. When I appeared in Record­
er’s Court a little before three o’clock on that after­
noon, I was advised that, of the eleven defendants, 
four had refused to accept bond which was made avail­
able to them through their attorney, Ernest A. Fin­
ney, of Sumter, South Carolina. These defendants 
were brought into the courtroom and in detail I ad­
vised them of their rights, including the right of trial 
by jury, the right to obtain counsel to represent them, 
the right to not be required to offer incriminating tes­
timony against themselves, the right to plead not 
guilty and to have their guilt proved by the City be­
yond a reasonable doubt, the right to understand the 
nature of the offense with which they were charged and 
to realize the possible consequences in the event of a 
guilty plea or conviction. I further explained the na­
ture of the offense to the defendants, and told them 
that the maximum penalty in each case, should they be 
convicted or plead guilty, would be $100.00 or thirty 
days, and the defendants were asked if they had any 
questions as to these or any other rights which they 
had, or thought they had, to which they each replied 
in the negative. I then asked the four defendants how 
they plead to the charges which had been placed 
against them, and each individually pleaded not guilty.

C. M. Edmunds, Esq., was present, representing the 
City of Sumter, and upon his motion, after an oppor­
tunity of objection was given to each of the defend­
ants, and after each defendant had consented to the 
motion, trial of the cases was postponed until Thurs­
day afternoon, October 13th, at 3 :00 o’clock p. m. The 
defendants were then asked by the Court if they had 
any objection to having all of the cases tried together, 
together with the seven cases which were out on bond,



6 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

and they were advised that the City had the right to 
try those cases which were indicted together, or joined 
together in one warrant, but that the defendants could 
insist that the cases represented by the four separate 
warrants be tried separately. The defendants each 
stated that they had no objection to joining the cases 
in any way.

About this time, Attorney Ernest A. Finney, Jr., 
appeared to have the bond for the other seven defend­
ants approved. This bond was approved, and Attorney 
Finney requested permission to speak to the four de­
fendants who were still in jail, which permission was 
granted, after the Court determined from the four de­
fendants that they were also represented by Attorney 
Finney.

The question was then posed to the Defense counsel 
concerning the joining of the different warrants for 
trial together. He advised the Court that it would be 
agreeable to try all of the defendants in two separate 
cases, one to be the trial of those who had participated 
in the sit-in demonstrations, and the other to be the 
trial of those who had participated in the demonstra­
tions on the streets with placards, and so forth. This 
was agreeable to the City Attorney, who then stated 
that he would permit the Defense Counsel to choose 
which group would be tried first. The Defense coun­
sel advised the Court that he preferred that the sit-in 
demonstration cases be tried first; and it was so or­
dered by the Court; and it was again agreed that the 
trial would be scheduled for 3 :00 o’clock p. m. the fol­
lowing afternoon, giving consideration for such an 
early trial to the four defendants who had refused 
bond.

Subsequently, on Thursday afternoon, October 13th, 
Attorney Ernest A. Finney, Jr., contacted the Court



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

7

to request that a court stenographer he made avail­
able to take the testimony, and he was advised that the 
defendants had the right to have the testimony tran­
scribed, but that this would have to be done at the 
expense of, and through arrangements made by, such 
defendants. The Court at this time granted permission 
for the use of a recording machine upon Defense coun­
sel’s inquiry as to whether or not this would be per­
missible. The Court was informed that there was a 
possibility that Mr. Luther Wimberly would be avail­
able for the purpose of taking the testimony at three 
o’clock on that day, the time that the case was sched­
uled, but this was not certain, though it was expected 
that he would be available the next morning.

Court convened about three o’clock p. m., and upon 
investigation it was determined that Mr. Wimberly 
was not available on that day, he being then engaged 
in the Court of Common Pleas, and after the four de­
fendants who were still in jail agreed to accept the 
bond which had been available to them from the time 
the other seven defendants had been released from jail, 
it was agreed by C. M. Edmunds, Esq., counsel for the 
City, and Ernest A. Finney, Jr., counsel for the de­
fendants, he having been joined in representation by 
Attorneys Lincoln Jenkins, of Columbia, and William 
C. Bennett, of Florence, that the trial be scheduled for 
Thursday, October 27th, 1960, at 3 :00 o’clock p. m., 
and it was so ordered by the Court. The Defense coun­
sel notified the Court that trial by jury was waived in 
these matters.

The attorneys representing the City of Sumter and 
the defendants, re-confirmed the agreement whereby 
all the defendants would be tried in the two trials, as 
outlined heretofore.



8 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Subsequently, on Friday, October 14th, 1960, it 

came to the attention of the Court that due to a per­
sonal conflict of engagements, it would inconvenience 
the Court to commence the trial on the afternoon of 
Thursday, October 27th, so the time of trial was 
changed to 10:00 o’clock a. m., on Thursday, October 
27th; and C. M. Edmunds, Esq., representing the City, 
and Ernest A. Finney, Jr., of Counsel for the defend­
ants, were so notified.

Are there any questions, suggestions or additions to 
the record of what has transpired heretofore as has 
been related in court?

Mr. Edmunds: Nothing from the City, Your Honor.
Mr. Finney: Nothing from the defendants, Your 

Honor.
The Court: The defendants are charged with breach 

of the peace. They are each individually in court. How 
do they plead to the charge? Do you wish to plead 
them all at one time?

Mr. Finney: Yes, sir, not guilty, Your Honor.
Mr. Finney: It is understood also that we are try­

ing them by agreement all together?
The Court: Yes, this stipulation was inserted in the 

record and will be put in later. (Referring to the state­
ment just inserted.)

Sheriff I. B yrd P arnell was duly sworn and testi­
fied as follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. You are the Sheriff of Sumter County?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you been so?
A. Eight years.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

9

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Q. I believe you have what, about four years to go 

now?
A. Yes, sir, just been re-elected.
Q. Sheriff, this warrant gives the date, the 12th of 

October, 1960, and so does the other warrant. On or 
about the 12th of October, 1960, were you performing 
your duties as Sheriff of Sumter County, sir?

A. I was.
Q. And did you have occasion to arrest or assist in 

the arrest of the six defendants in these two warrants 
whom you heard the Judge call out a while ago ?

A. I did.
Q. Please explain the circumstances and the proba­

ble time that the arrests were made?
A. Oh, I believe it was Wednesday morning, Octo­

ber 12th, 1960, Chief McIntosh and myself were to­
gether. We went south on Harvin Street, turned right 
on Caldwell and about the middle of the block, I would 
say, the rear entrance of the Dime Store there, we 
looked up and, you could see people standing in the 
door of the Home Furniture Company and Hope’s 
Jewelers and Efird’s Department Store. There were 
three or four in each group. And we didn’t know what 
the trouble was, we drove on up to the corner and, of 
Main and Caldwell, and we saw three young colored 
males on the sidewalk in front of Kresses and across 
the street in front of the Cut Rate Drug Store there 
were three others. And we got out of the automobile 
and put them under arrest.

Q. What were they doing when you saw them?
A. They had placards on their backs, they were 

marching up and down in front of the stores, on the 
sidewalk.



10 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Q. In front of Kresses, is that in the limits of the 

City of Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In front of the Cut Rate, is that within the limits 

of the City of Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this happened at about what time roughly?
A. I would say eleven o’clock or a few minutes after. 

Right around eleven o’clock.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you had had some 

disturbance shortly before that at Kresses?
A. Yes, sir, we had.
Q. Both places?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the nature of that briefly, Sheriff?
A. We had sit-in demonstrations at both places 

there, attempted at the Cut Rate, and—
Q. By sit-in demonstrations, what do you mean?
A. Colored people who tried to sit in at the lunch 

counters.
Q. And I believe, state whether or not they were 

arrested?
A. Yes, sir, they had been put in jail, and Chief Mc­

Intosh and myself went back down Harvin and circled 
around Caldwell and we weren’t, we didn’t know any­
thing, we had not had a call on these people being 
there. We just happened to drive by there and saw this 
group of people there in front of these stores.

Q. Sheriff, at this time, from your experience, what 
experience have you had prior to being Sheriff for the 
past eight years, in law enforcement?

A. I had sixteen years, I think I am in my twenty- 
fourth year as a police officer, highway patrolman and 
city police.



Appeal from Sumter County
SUPREME COURT 11

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell,
Q. Was there, or not, any tension in this locality at 

that time!
A. These people were standing in groups there, 

there was an air of tension, and I would say apprehen­
sion. We didn’t know what was going to happen there. 
The people on Main Street there, that is the reason we 
got those people out the way.

Q. Did you, or not, notice a condition not ordinary!
A. There were more people standing in groups, 

there was more of an air of tension than normal, and 
these other incidents had apparently brought it about.

Q. And from the expressions on the faces, could you 
deduce anything, whether there was tension or not, or 
lack of tension?

Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, it appears to me that 
counsel for the city is testifying rather than the wit­
ness. We object to the manner in which this question 
is asked.

The Court: I think that counsel can ask if there was 
any way in which he noticed tension. You were leading 
him a little bit.

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. All right, sir. Have you the placards with you in 

court!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like to see them, if you will hand them to 

the Judge.
The Court: I think possibly since I am sitting as 

Judge and jury it would be wise to ask the defense 
counsel to inspect them and see if they have any ob­
jection.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, if these are, in 
fact, the placards, we would like them introduced in 
evidence and form a part of the record.



City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Mr. Edmunds: I intended to introduce them after 

he identified them.
Mr. Jenkins: We would have no objection to that.
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Will you identify them separately, please? And 

for the sake of the record I wish you would read them 
as you identify them.

A. This one says—
The Court: Sheriff, let me ask you, I see two of them 

tied together. Would that indicate that one person was 
wearing it?

A. Yes, sir, part on the back and part on the front. 
This one says, “ Don’t buy where you can’t eat.” and 
on this side it says “Don’t buy where you can’t eat” , 
c-o-r-e.”

The Court: Approximately what is the size of the 
placard, Sheriff ?

A. I would say about two by eighteen, two by one 
and a half.

Mr. Jenkins: This may appear out of order but I 
wonder if the Sheriff would let us know what he means.

A. Anybody knows it is not two inches. Two feet 
by one and a half feet.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, sir, but I wanted it for the record.
The Court: The first exhibit will be marked Exhibit

1. The placards tied together being accepted as one 
exhibit.

A. All right, on this one it says “Jesus died to save 
all men” , “We demand complete service or no service” . 
That has c-o-r-e on the bottom. That is the same size, 
about one and a half feet by two feet,

The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Jenkins: No objection.

12 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

13

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
The Court: Exhibit 2.
A. On this one it has “ Segregation is America’s 

shame”, c-o-r-e on the bottom, and this says “ Is there 
a color line in heaven” . That is the same size placard.

The Court: Any objection to this?
Mr. Jenkins: No objection.
The Court: Exhibit 3.
A. Now those are the three signs that were worn 

by the ones who were in front of Kresses. This looks 
like has, Henry Pringle, I don’t know what that is.

The Court: Maybe you are reading the wrong side.
A. Maybe. “ Freedom and justice for all” , signed 

c-o-r-e. “ If Khrushchev ate here why can’t we” , 
c-o-r-e.

The Court: There was some writing on the inside 
that apparently was not connected with the case. 
Would you like to inspect that?

Mr. Jenkins: We would have no objection.
The Court: This will be Exhibit 4.
A. On this “Father forgive them for they know not 

what they do” , c-o-r-e. On the other side, “ Segregation 
is morally wrong” , c-o-r-e.

The Court: Any objection to this?
Mr. Jenkins: No, sir.
The Court: Exhibit 5.
A. “ Segregation is morally wrong,” c-o-r-e. “Free­

dom and justice for all,” c-o-r-e. Those were taken off 
of the ones in front of the Sumter Cut Rate.

The Court: That will be received and marked Ex­
hibit 6.

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. And of course the City of Sumter is in the County 

of Sumter, is it not, sir ?
A. Yes, sir.



14 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Q. And did you and the Chief assist or order the 

arrest of these six defendants!
A. We arrested three of them, Lewis, the one next 

to the end, and this one, I believe, anyway there were 
three on this side and three across the street.

Q. And you arrested all six of them!
A. We arrested three and ordered the arrest of the 

other three.
Q. And they, the others were arrested!
A. Yes.
Q. What were they doing when you first saw them, 

64 Sheriff!
A. Right on the corner of Caldwell and Main they 

were parading hack and forth in front with those 
placards on the hack and front.

Q. In the street or on the sidewalk!
A. On the sidewalk.
Q. Parading hack and forth in front of Kresses and 

Cut Rate!
A. Yes, sir.

Cross Examination 
a By Mr. Finney:

Q. Sheriff, how long did you observe these defend­
ants!

A. Just two or three minutes, I would say, if that 
long.

Q. Did you observe them those two or three minutes 
while traveling in the car with the Chief of Police!

A. We, I could see one of them from about the time 
we got opposite the post office, the rear part of the 
post office, and came on up to the corner and the others 
were in front of Kresses.

°b Q. And your total time for observing was two or 
three minutes!



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

15

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell

A. I would say so.
Q. During the two or three minutes did you observe 

the defendants as well as the spectators ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you see any overt act of tension1?
A. There was no moving, like anything was going 

to happen, no.
Q. Were these defendants walking up and down the 

sidewalk in a normal manner!
A. They were walking up and down in front of these 

places.
Q. Were they walking two abreast or were they 

walking single?
A. Walking single file.
Q. Do you know for a fact why the people were 

standing in the doors as you testified on direct exami­
nation, that they were people standing in the doorways, 
do you know why they were standing in the doorways?

A. Why they were?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Looking, looking.
Q. The fact that these people were standing there 

looking did not indicate necessarily any trouble, did it?
A. Could have.
Q. The fact that these people were standing there 

did not necessarily indicate any trouble, did it?
A. It could have led to trouble.
Mr. Finney: Your Honor, he does not answer the 

question.
The Court: I think, you can’t always expect a yes or 

no answer, I think it is sufficient.
By Mr. Finney:
Q* If a fire truck goes down the street, Sheriff, peo­

ple stand and look at that sometimes, don’t they?



16 SUPEEME COUET 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
A. Out of curiosity, yes.
Q. The individuals who were standing looking at 

these individuals walking on the sidewalk, could have 
been looking out of curiosity?

A. Some could have.
Q. Prior to the arrest of these defendants, what did 

you say to them, Sheriff?
A. I believe anything that was said to them was said 

simultaneously with the arrest.
Q. Prior to the arrest you did not say anything?
A. No.
Q. Did you observe any disorderly conduct on the 

part of any of these defendants?
A. Not on their part.
Q. Did you question any of the observers who were 

looking at these defendants?
A. I did not.
Q. The signs which have been introduced in evidence 

by the City, do they mean anything to you?
A. In what way?
Q. The wording included on the signs that you just 

read, does that mean anything to you?
A. It means that those signs could cause some trou­

ble, people wearing them up and down the street, walk­
ing up and down the street.

Q. Did you not know that these defendants were 
protesting against a custom by these signs ?

A. I think that is the general idea, yes, I know that.
Q. And was it not your opinion in making these ar­

rests that in protesting these customs they were vio­
lating your belief?

A. They were violating my belief and they are also 
violating or could cause some trouble here as far as a 
racial disorder is concerned.



SUPREME COURT 17
Appeal from Sumter County 

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell
Q. So at the time you made the arrests there was 

in your mind the fact that they were doing something 
contrary to something you believed!

A. Any time somebody does anything contrary to 
the custom that is a breach of the peace.

Mr. Finney: I move that last be stricken, I think that 
is a matter for the Court to determine.

The Court: Yes, I don’t think it was responsive.
By Mr. Finney:
Q. At the time you observed these defendants were 

they making any noise!
A. None.
Q. Did you see them come in contact with anyone?
A. None.
Q. Were they, was there a space between the defend­

ants as they walked?
A. Enough for them to walk without bumping into 

each other.
Q. Were the defendants closer to the curb or to the 

store entrances?
A. They were marching from Caldwell up to the 

store entrance and coming back, they were kind of in 
an oblong, wasn’t a circle, it was oblong.

Q. Did you notice anyone trying to get past these 
defendants and being unable to pass?

A. I don’t believe there was too much, too many peo­
ple right there in the area where they were walking.

Q. And the people you observed then were some dis­
tance from the defendants?

A. Some across the street and some in this doorway 
a little distance from them.

Q. Sheriff, this custom which these defendants were 
protesting, is that not a custom in which you are in 
agreement? Namely, the custom of racial segregation?



City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.
SUPREME COURT18

S heriff I. B ybd P arnell

A. I am.
Mr. Edmunds: Just a minute, Your Honor. I let that 

through already in this trial, more or less repetition. 
Now I wish to object on the grounds that he is the 
qualified Sheriff of Sumter County, and he might have 
to arrest his own brother as Sheriff, and what his be­
liefs are has nothing to do with this case, as I see it.

The Court: I am inclined to agree that it is not ma­
terial to the case, but since this is cross examination, 
I am going to permit the question and answer.

Mr. Finney: That is all.
70

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Sheriff, in view of what has happened within the 

hour at the same location to your knowledge as you 
testified to, and in view of what you saw and observed 
when you got hack to Kresses, and in front of Kresses, 
what was your conclusion, sir, in regard to these six 
defendants marching up and down the street as you 
testified to with those placards? 

n A. Could have caused trouble, that is the reason I 
arrested them.

Re-cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Did you arrest any of the persons who were 

standing around!
A. I did not.

Re-re-direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Since counsel has asked you about your opinion, 

I would like to ask you to state whether or not in your 
opinion and in your experience, whether or not their



SUPREME COURT 19
Appeal from Sumter County

S heriff I. B yrd P arnell 
F reddie L ee W illiams

actions under the circumstances were likely to cause 
trouble.

A. I so testified a few minutes ago, yes, sir.
Mr. Edmunds: That is the City’s case.

CASE FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Mr. Finney: Your Honor, at this time we would like 

to make several motions. We would like to move for a 
dismissal on the ground there has been no competent 
evidence introduced by the City to show that there has 
been a breach of the peace as defined under the stat­
utes and laws of South Carolina.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Finney: I think we will make the other motions 

later.

F reddie L ee W illiams was duly sworn and testified 
as fo llo w s :

Direct Examination
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You are Freddie Lee Williams, one of the de­

fendants in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were, of course, arrested with the other 

defendants on the 12th day of October, 1960?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time of your arrest what were you doing?
A. At the time of the arrest we were protesting 

against—
Q. May I, I wonder if I may strike that question and 

the attempt to answer and rephrase the question.
The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Edmunds: No, sir.



20 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams 
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Where were you at the time of your arrest?
A. In front of Cut Rate Drug Store.
Q. Were you on the street?
A. We were on the sidewalk.
Q. What, do you know the name of that street ?
A. Main Street.
Q. Is that a public street in the City of Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you were in the company of how many other 

persons at the time of your arrest?
A. Two other persons.
Q. There were three persons grouped with you, is 

that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were on the Main Street here in Sumter ? 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you walking on the sidewalk?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you walking up and down?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In opposite directions, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now would you walk up one way and turn and 

walk back the other, is that what you are saying?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were picketing then?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmunds: I object, if Your Honor pleases.
The Court: I will strike the question and the answer. 

A little bit leading, I think.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Do you know approximately how wide that side­

walk is ?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

21

F reddie L ee W illiams
A. That sidewalk, approximately, I couldn’t tell you 

in feet but it is a good size.
Q. It is about, between ten and fifteen feet, is that 

right?
A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. You were walking near the edge, near the curb?
A. Yes, sir, very near the curb.
Q. How far in one direction would you and your 

group walk before turning and walking in the other 
direction?

A. Well, we were at about, I will say about two to 
three feet intervals, and—

Q. Let me ask you another question. Does Main 
Street run north and south or east and west?

A. North and south.
Q. And I believe you and your group would start, 

let’s say from a point on the southern end and walk 
north, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after you got a certain point you would turn 

around and walk south—
Mr. Edmunds: Wait a minute, let’s don’t lead him 

any more.
The Court: The objection is sustained. Please don’t 

lead him.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Were you walking in front of a particular store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now approximately how wide on Main Street is 

that store ?
A. In feet, I would say the store would be, maybe 

twenty or thirty feet wide.
Q. Is it as wide on the front as this room is across ?
A. Just about that wide.



22 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams
Q. Now in connection with the width of that store, 

how far north did you walk before turning and walking 
south?

A. We only went the grounds of that store and we 
turned.

Q. And there were three of you in your group?
A. Three.
Q. You didn’t have, did you have any physical con­

tact with any pedestrians who may have been using 
that sidewalk?

A. No physical contact, no, sir.
86

Q. Approximately how long did you and your group 
walk up and down in front of that store?

A. We walked for about two or three minutes.
Q. That is before you were arrested?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were all three of you arrested at the same time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did you testify as to the name of that store? 

I don’t remember.
87 A. The Cut Rate Drug Store.

Q. It was the Cut Rate Drug Store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you carrying a placard or sign on your 

body?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Were, were you in court when certain signs and 

placards were introduced in evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you carrying one of those signs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall which one it was?

88



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

23

F reddie L ee W illiams
A. I had the one that said “ Segregation is morally 

wrong”, and “ Christ died—” let’s see, I don’t remember 
what was on the other side.

Q. The sign you were carrying was introduced in 
evidence today?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you do remember it said something about 

segregation is morally wrong, or words to that effect?
jA. Yes, sir.
Q. State to the Court your purpose for walking up 

and down in front of the Cut Rate store on that day?
A. The purpose was that I was protesting against 

segregated lunch counters in the Cut Rate Drug Store, 
that if I could spend my dollar one place it should be 
the same at a lunch counter.

Q. Why did you pick this method of protesting?
A. I picked this method because it was in an orderly 

manner and it was where I could contact the public.
Q. Where you could contact the public?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you hope to accomplish by contacting 

the public in this manner?
A. To show the people that I was dissatisfied with 

the discrimination.
Q. Did you have any particular people in mind that 

you wanted to become aware of your dissatisfaction?
A. Only the, er, only the people that run the Cut 

Rate Drug Store and the spectators, Negroes that 
trade there.

Q. Anybody else you had in mind? Any other group 
of people?

A. Well, the public as a whole.
Q. Were you talking to anybody during the course 

of your walking?



24 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams
„„ A. No, sir.

Q. Anybody say anything to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall whether there were a large number 

of people on the street?
A. No, sir, I didn’t see a large number of people 

on the street.
Q. Did you notice whether or not there was any 

unusual attraction as far as other people were con­
cerned?

A. Nothing unusual.
94 Q. Did you notice any other people who may have 

been standing in the stores or on the streets during 
that time?

A. There may have been some watching the signs.
Q. Did you notice anybody paying particular at­

tention to you and your group?
A. No, sir.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Freddie, your purpose in walking up and down 

as with that sign or placard was for the public and every­
body on the street to pay particular attention to you, 
was it not?

A- Yes, sir.
Q. You lived in Sumter all of your life?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where are you from?
A. Florence.
Q. What year are you at Morris College?
A. Freshman.
Q. You never lived in Sumter before you came to 

Morris College?
A. No, sir.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

25

F reddie L ee W illiams
Q. But you have been to Sumter on occasions of 

course!
A. A long time ago.
Q. And when did you first come to Morris College!
A. September of this year.
Q. 1960!
A. Right.
Q. Now who painted that placard you were wearing!
A. I don’t know.
Q. Where did you get it from!
A. Me! Where did I get it from!
Q. Who do you think I am talking to! You can hear 

me, can’t you!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I asked you who painted it and you said you 

didn’t know. Now my question is where did you get it 
from.

A. I got it from one of the fellows, Lewiss.
Q. One of the defendants!
A. Right.
Q. And when did you get it from him!
A. The morning we went down there.
Q. You don’t know whether it was painted the night 

before or not, do you!
A. No, sir.
Q. Or do you know!
A. No, sir.
Q. You did know that these other six were going into 

Kresses and the Cut Rate to demand lunch service, 
didn’t you!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you anticipated the probabilities that they 

would not he served, did you not!
A. Yes, sir.



26 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams
Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, I don’t recall that there

101
is any testimony in the record that these six defend­
ants were ever in either of these stores.

The Court: No, sir, but it is still proper cross ex­
amination. He can ask him if they went in. Objection 
overruled.

Mr. Jenkins: I wonder if Your Honor would allow 
the last couple of questions asked by the City to be 
read back.

The Court: I will be glad to hear them, but if he 
wants to ask him at this time if he helped think up the

102 wording for the signs or did he not help, the fact that 
there is nothing in the record about it does not preclude 
it on cross examination.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, my objection 
does not go to the wording of the signs or anything 
with reference to the signs.

The Court: I realize that. You objected to the ques­
tion of entering the stores. I think it would be material 
to show the overall trend of what was happening and 
would be proper cross examination. There is something

103 in the record from the Sheriff on direct examination 
that this was the same day that there had been an ar­
rest for what has been referred to as sit-in demonstra­
tions, and if he wants to proceed further on cross ex­
amination on that, that is his right.

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. You did know, you say, that these other six de­

fendants that were arrested for the sit-in demonstra­
tions, or who demanded lunch counter service, were 
going to demand it that same morning, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.
104 ?

Q. And you anticipated the probability of their being 
refused, did you not?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

27

F reddie L ee W illiams

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the reason the signs were already 

printed, for this very reason and purpose, isn’t that 
right ?

A. I don’t know sir.
Q. You knew that morning that you were to come 

down town if called upon to do so, and parade up and 
down one of these stores, did you not?

A. Will you repeat that please?
Q. You knew that you were scheduled to come down 

town on this particular morning to wear placards 
either in front of Kresses or in front of the Cut Rate, 
did you not?

A. Scheduled? No, sir, I wasn’t scheduled.
Q. You were ready to come?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were briefed to come, if that is the word 

you want?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were told to come?
A. No, sir.
Q. You had your mind made up to come, your plans 

made, did you not?
(A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, that is the same question. And when 

you left Morris College did you know whether you 
were going in front of Kresses or in front of the Cut 
Rate?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you left Morris College you knew that your 

place was going to be in front of the Cut Rate?
A. Yes, sir.



28 SUPREME COURT_______________
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams
Q. And of course you knew the custom that colored 

folks were not served at those lunch counters, did you 
not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the very thing you were protesting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now you say you marched in single file up and 

down in, the northern and southern boundaries of the 
front of the Cut Rate store?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how far apart?

110 A. We were about two to three feet apart.
Q. All right, were you the leader or in the middle or 

the third man ?
A. I was leading.
Q. Well not, when you got to one end of the Cut 

Rate, would you just make an about face and go back, 
or would you make a kind of oval turn?

A. Well, it weren’t about face, and it weren’t an 
oval turn, it was just a matter of turning around.

Q. You would just do like they do in the military, 
in that way, and straight hack?

A. No, sir, not the direct procedure, but just a turn.
Q. You made what you might call a curve turn, is 

that right?
A. Well, it wasn’t a curve, just a turn around.
Q. Did you pig track back in the same tracks you 

had been in ?
tA. Almost the same tracks.
Q. Then to he going down the sidewalk and without

any warning just to turn an abrupt around and come
back, why wouldn’t you run into somebody, or them 

112 .run into you?
A. Because they were a distance behind me.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

29

F reddie L ee W illiams
Q. How about somebody else that had a right to use 

that sidewalk maybe?
A. No one else was there.
Q. Nobody else was using the sidewalk? Did you see 

groups of people here, there and yonder looking at the 
signs ?

A. Here, there and yonder?
Q. Yes. Didn’t you see groups of people near the 

Cut Rate, across the street or up and down the street 
looking at you people?

A. Right.
Q. And you knew you were going to be arrested, 

didn’t you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You thought so, didn’t you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You offered your services to be arrested, did you 

not?
A. Will you repeat that last question please? (Ques­

tion read.)
A. No, sir.
Q. You want me to talk loud so you can hear me or 

what? You can’t understand what I am saying?
A. No, sir, I can’t interpret your word offered.
Q. You don’t have the word offered at Morris Col­

lege?
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, I would like 

for the Court to take into consideration that this is a 
youth, so to speak, and he is certain inexperienced so 
far as courtroom procedure is concerned. It would ap­
pear to me that this witness is doing no more than try­
ing to think through the meaning of the words that 
are asked him. I don’t think he is trying to evade the 
questions asked by the attorney for the City.



30 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

F reddie L ee W illiams
The Court: I might say, just for the record, I don’t 

think Mr. Edmunds has gotten out of the realm of cross 
examination.

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Didn’t you know, or didn’t you feel that your ac­

tions together with your two friends would probably 
cause trouble down town?

A. No, sir.
Q. Who told you to take part in this walking back 

and forth in front of the Cut Rate?
A. No one.
Q. Who did you ask if you could do it?
A. No one.
Q. Now did you get excused from classes on that 

morning?
A. I didn’t get excused, I didn’t have a class.
Mr. Edmunds: That is all.

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. For the record again, state what your purpose 

was in being down town on that particular day, Octo­
ber 12th, 1960.

A. My purpose for being down town was to protest 
against the discrimination of lunch counter service 
in the Cut Rate Drug Store.

Q. Now will you state whether you were expressing 
your own feelings about the matter?

A. Yes, sir my own feelings.
Re-cross Examination

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. I believe you said you didn’t write the wording 

on your placard?
A. No, sir.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

31

F reddie L ee W illiams 
R oosevelt M cCollotjgh

Q. That you didn’t tell anybody else to write it!
A. No, sir.
Q. And that you got it from somebody else?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins: Does the Court have any questions?
The Court: No.
Mr. Edmunds: Now, do you want a stipulation?
Mr. Jenkins: Since there were two groups, I had in 

mind a witness, a defendant from the other group tes­
tifying, and after his testimony entering into a stipula­
tion, if it is agreeable with the city attorney.

Mr. Edmunds: That is all right with me.

R oosevelt M cCollough was duly sworn and testi­
fied as fo llow s:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. How old are you, McCollough?
A. Nineteen.
Q. You are a defendant in this case, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are one of those who participated in this 

picketing—
Mr. Edmunds: Now, I object to the picketing, if Your 

Honor pleases.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. I will rephrase it. You are a defendant in this 

case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were arrested on the 12th of October, 1960?
A. Yes, sir.



32 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

R oosevelt M cCollough
Q. Where were you arrested!
A. In front of Kress Five and Ten Cents Store, I 

think is the name of it.
Q. Is that on Main Street in the City of Sumter?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. At the time of your arrest state whether or not 

you were engaged in marching in concert with two 
other persons up and down in front of Kresses ?

A. Yes, sir, I was marching with two other persons.
Q. You were carrying a placard?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Do you recall what was on the placard that you 

had?
A. I remember one was, “ Is there a color line in 

heaven”, but I don’t know what the other one was.
Q. Now was the sign, the placard which you had that 

day, introduced in evidence here today?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now on this particular day, there were two other 

persons with you, is that right?
■VA. Yes, sir.
Q. And the three of you were marching up and down 

in front of Kresses store here in Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you describe to the Court the manner of your 

march?
A. Well we were marching about from two to three 

yards apart and we were near the curb of the street.
Q. Did you march only on Main Street, or was there 

any other street you traveled ?
A. We marched down Main and turned the corner at 

Caldwell I believe, Kress Department store is situated 
on Caldwell and Main, the corner, and we walked about, 
from two to five yards down Caldwell Street.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

33

R oosevelt M cCollough
Q. Now after you marched down there did you turn 

and come back over the same route you had gone?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall how many times you followed that 

route!
A. It was from, I would say from about three to 

seven times. I don’t know the exact number.
Q. Would you say all that took about five or ten 

minutes, or how many minutes would you estimate it 
took you to do that?

A. I would say between three and seven minutes.
Q. And you were arrested that day ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the time you were engaged in this march, 

carrying this placard, were you talking to anyone?
A. No, sir.
Q. Anyone talk to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you notice any persons who may have been 

on the street besides you and the other persons with 
you?

A. What part of the street you talking about? You 
mean—

Q. I will rephrase that question. Did you come in 
contact, bodily contact, with any other persons using 
the streets at that time?

A. No, sir.
Q. Were there pedestrians using the sidewalk other 

than you and your two companions in the immediate vi­
cinity of where you were?

A. Yes, sir, there was a few pedestrians.
Q. Did you pay any particular attention to them?
A. No, sir.



34 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

R oosevelt M cCollottgh
Q. You can’t say, or can you, whether they paid any 

particular attention to you ?
A. I couldn’t say.
Q. Did any of them say anything to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear any remarks from any of them 

which may have had a connotation of belligerence or 
opposition to what you were doing?

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you pay any attention to anybody who may 

have been standing in the doorways of stores, or any­
thing like that?

A. No, sir, I didn’t notice them.
Q. Did anybody make any threatening gestures to­

wards you?
A. No, sir.
Q. By whom were you arrested? Do you know?
A. I think it was the Sheriff.
Q. Did you offer any resistance or opposition to the 

arrest?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were orderly at all times?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any purpose in mind in your march 

up and down in front of the store?
A. I was on my own, I marched because of the seg­

regated lunch counters that they have within the store.
Q. Now did you have any—strike that please. Did 

you hope to accomplish anything by your march?
A. Yes, I hoped to accomplish, in order to tell the 

people how I felt towards the situation.
Q. Were you in agreement with the custom of seg­

regation ?
A. No, sir, I was not.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

35

R oosevelt M cCollough
Q. Were you in opposition to that custom?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether or not you wanted other persons, 

the public, to know your position in the matter?
A. Yes, sir, that is the reason, walking up and down 

the street, trying to get the public to know how I felt 
towards the situation.

Q. Now did you know at the time you were engaged 
in this march that other persons protesting against 
segregation and racial discrimination had been ar­
rested in Sumter?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you state how you felt about those ar­

rests?
A. I felt that was wrong, that the arrests that were 

made was wrong.
Q. Would you state whether or not that opinion was 

in your mind when you were making your protest?
A- Yes, it was.
Q. Tell me this, were you trying to bring to the at­

tention of anybody else your position when you were 
engaged in that march?

A. I was trying to bring it to the attention of the 
public.

Q. Trying to let them know how you felt about the 
matter?

A. Yes, sir.
Cross Examination

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Then if you wanted the public to know, then what 

your real desire was to get a big crowd there so you 
could get a lot of people of the public knowing what 
your protest and opinions were, is that right?

A. No, it was not to get a crowd.



36 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

R oosevelt M cCollottgh
141 Q. You didn’t care if any of the public paid you any 

attention ?
A. No, not necessarily.
Q. Now did you write the writing on your placard?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you do it? The day before?
A. The night before.
Q. And you thought that these other citizens that 

you heard had been arrested, you thought that was
142 wrong against them, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And knowing that had been arrested and thinking 

it was wrong, then you anticipated you yourself would 
he arrested for what you did, did you not?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. You had your idea that you would be arrested?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now who instructed you and your two friends to 

walk in single file? I believe you said two to five yards
143 apart, is that what you said?

A. I believe I did, yes, sir.
Q. Who instructed you to walk in that fashion in 

front of Kresses?
A. No one, sir.
Q. Did you and your two friends discuss how you 

would walk?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you discuss that you would walk abreast or in 

single file?
A. No, sir.
Q. You just happened to do it that way?
A. Yes, sir.

144



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

37

R oosevelt M cCollough

Q. It was just accidental?
A. I guess you would call it that.
Q. You might just as well then have walked abreast, 

is that right?
A. I couldn’t say that, sir.
Q. You were not instructed to walk in single file?
A. We weren’t instructed to walk any way.
Q. Now you knew that those people who went in and 

demanded lunch service were going to do so before 
your part took place, did you not?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. You didn’t know that they were coming down 

there that morning?
A. No, sir.
Q. It is just purely accidental that you came just 

after they were arrested?
A. I wouldn’t say accidental, no.
Q. Then would you say that you knew they were 

coming down?
A. No, I say I knew they had been arrested, but I 

didn’t know they were coming down before they came 
down.

Q. Well then, what was your reason in printing up 
the card the night before to use the next morning if you 
didn’t know?

A. I planned to come down but I didn ’t know that 
they were com ing doAvn before us.

Q. You were just going to protest on general prin­
ciples ?

A. No, on the day before they also had been refused 
lunch counter service.

Q. You know about that? And what were your two 
friends’ names marching with you?

A. Reverend Lewis and Johnny Davis, I think.



SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

R oosevelt M cCollough 
Q. You made plans with them the night before?
A. No, not exactly them, no, sir.
Q. You had a meeting about it with some friends? 
,A. Yes, sir.
Q. You drew all these placards yourself?
A. No, sir, just mine.
Q. You didn’t draw any others?
A. No, sir.
Q. How long have you been living in Sumter?
A. One full year, September of 1959.
Q. And you are a sophomore at Morris?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you come from?
A. I came from Catawba, South Carolina.
Q. And you spent all your life there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course you knew the custom of segrega­

tion at lunch counters, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And protested that and were protesting it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say while the others were wrongly ar­

rested in your opinion you did not have any idea that 
you would be arrested? 

rA. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. But you did want the general public to see and 

understand your protest?
A. Just how I felt about the situation, yes, sir.
Q. And of course you wanted as much of the gen­

eral public to see you and understand as you could get, 
did you not?

A. Well, just the general public.
Q. But you wanted as many as you could get, didn’t 

you?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

39

R oosevelt M cCollotjgh
A. Well not as many, but just the public—
Q. You really, and your friends, wanted to create 

some excitement where it would impress hte people, did 
you not?

A. I don’t know what you mean by excitement.
Mr. Edmunds: No further questions.

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Did you see the other signs that were carried by 

your friends in this protest march?
A. You mean before—
Q. During the march, did you see what was on those 

signs ?
A. Probably one or two.
Q. You knew generally what was on those signs, did 

you not!
Mr. Edmunds: Leading, Your Honor.
The Court: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Did you know why your friends were along with 

you, in this protest march?
A. Yes.
Q. Now state to the Court what their purpose was, 

as far as you know.
Mr. Edmunds: I object, if Your Honor pleases. He 

can go into his purpose but not anybody else’s pur­
pose.

The Court: As I understand this will be covered in 
part by your stipulation.

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You said you did see, however, some of the writ­

ing on some other signs?
A. Yes, sir.



City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

R oosevelt M cCollough
Q. At that time you had in mind what that writing 

was, although you may not remember now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now state whether or not you were generally in 

accord with what was said on those other signs?
Mr. Edmunds: I object, if Your Honor pleases. I 

don’t see—
The Court: I am going to allow the question.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. If I might ask the question again, I ask you to 

state whether or not you were generally in accord 
with what was stated on those signs.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now state whether you were generally in accord 

with the purpose to be accomplished by carrying those 
signs?

;A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Let me ask you one or two questions. 

Where were you marching? In front of what store?
A. Kresses.
The Court: And when did you determine, and how, 

that you would march in front of Kresses ?
A. We, after we got down town.
The Court: Had you decided the night before that 

you were going to pick out any particular store when 
you printed your sign?

A. No, sir.
The Court: Were you planning on marching all the 

way up and down Main Street at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. How were you going to determine what stores 

you were going to march in front of the next day, if 
you were not familiar with what was going to happen 
the next day?

40 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

41

R oosevelt M cCollotjgh
A. We knew we were going to march, but we didn’t 

know exactly which store.
The Court: If no one else had marched would you 

have gotten out and marched by yourself ?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, we would now 

like to enter into a stipulation in accordance with what 
has been suggested previously.

The Court: Let me see if I can word the stipulation. 
Maybe we will save a little time. The defense now 
wishes to stipulate that if the other defendants were 
called to testify, that they would testify substantially 
to what has been testified by the representatives of the 
group in which they were marching. The City accepts 
the stipulation without admitting the veracity of the 
agreed testimony that would be testified to by each 
witness individually. Is that substantially what you 
want?

Mr. Jenkins: That is all right.
Mr. Edmunds: It is agreeable to us.
The Court: Anything else from the defendants?
Mr. Jenkins: At this time we would like to make 

certain motions.
The Court: Do you want to make the motions prior 

to my asking the City if there is anything in reply?
Mr. Jenkins: No, sir.
The Court: Is there anything in reply?
Mr. Edmunds: Nothing in reply.
Mr. Finney: The defendants make a motion for—
The Court: Are there more than one motion?
Mr. Jenkins: If I recall correctly there are three 

separate motions.



42 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

The Court: Then I would like to rule on each indivi-
m dual motion, in the event that none of my rulings pre­

cludes the making of the other motion.
Mr. Finney: Yes, sir. The defendants move for a 

dismissal on the ground that there has been no com­
petent evidence produced which would show a breach 
of the peace under the statutes and laws of South Caro­
lina.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Finney: The defendants more for a dismissal of 

the charge as recited in the warrant on the ground 
that the testimony shows at the time of their arrest the

166 defendants were engaged in peacefully and orderly 
picketing upon the streets of the City of Sumter, South 
Carolina, in protest of the practices, policies, customs 
and discrimination based on race or color, in violation 
of their rights under the guaranties of the First and 
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Consti­
tution.

The Court: In overruling this motion the Court 
would comment that it is quite possible for one to do 
that which is guaranteed to the party charged with a

167 crime under the Constitution, but to do it in an unlaw­
ful manner. For instance, the Constitution guarantees 
everyone freedom of speech, but this is not to say 
that freedom of speech could not be abused to the ex­
tent that through speaking a violation of a statute or 
common law does not occur. Therefore I feel that this 
case, together with the situation, because of the tension 
that has been testified to, anything which might tend 
to bring about a disturbance of breach of the peace 
would be a violation of the law. The motion is denied.

Mr. Finnev: The defendants move for a dismissal of168 *

the charge as recited in the warrant on the ground 
that the evidence shows that at the time of the arrest



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

43

they were engaged in peaceful and orderly picketing on 
the streets of the City of Sumter, South Carolina, in 
protest against certain practices, policies and customs 
of discrimination based upon race or color, the right to 
engage in such activities being protected to the defend­
ants under the guaranties included in Article 1, Sec­
tions 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the State of South 
Carolina.

The Court: Motion denied upon the same grounds as 
previously stated.

Mr. Finney: The defendants move for a dismissal of 
the charge of breach of the peace as recited in the war­
rant on the ground that the evidence shows that the 
arresting officers made the arrests for the purpose of 
preventing these defendants from engaging in peace­
ful and orderly picketing upon the public streets of 
Sumter, South Carolina, in protest against certain 
practices, policies and customs of discrimination based 
upon race or color, the motive of said officers being to 
maintain the said policies, customs and practices of 
discrimination, based solely upon race or color; such 
conduct of the police officials, as representatives of an 
instrument of the State being proscribed by the due 
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court: In refusing this motion I will comment 
further that I think the officers, being cognizant of the 
situation that existed, acted in what they felt to be 
the best interests of the public, feeling that a breach of 
peace had been brought about because of the tendency 
to disrupt normal quietude, calmness, peace and tran­
quility. Motion refused.

Mr. Finney: The defendants move for a dismissal of 
the charges recited in the warrant, on the ground that 
this Court lacks jurisdiction to try them under the eir-



44 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

cumstances surrounding the ease. The evidence show­
ing that these defendants were arrested to prevent 
their orderly and peaceful picketing on the public 
streets of the City of Sumter, South Carolina, in pro­
test against certain practices, policies and customs of 
discrimination based upon race or color, the right to 
such activities being protected to them by the First and 
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con­
stitution. That this Court by this trial is being called 
upon to assist in the maintenance of the customs and 
practices of racial discrimination and as an instrument 
of the State, this Court is forbidden to lend itself to as­
sist in any such scheme by the provisions of the due 
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The Court: In this motion I understand counsel to 
question the jurisdiction of the Court in that, 1, the 
violation did not occur in the City, or 2, that the Court 
has no jurisdiction of trial of a breach of the peace?

Mr. Finney: No, sir, we say that the Court is lending 
itself to assist in the maintenance of the practices and 
customs of discrimination.

The Court: The Court feels that it has jurisdiction 
to try and alleged breach of peace in the City, and of 
course if a breach of peace has not been proved as hav­
ing taken place, then it will have, there will have to be 
an acquital. However this is a factual matter and the 
Court does have jurisdiction. Motion denied.

Mr. Finney: That is all, Your Honor.
The Court: Anything further from either side?
Mr. Edmunds: Nothing from the City.
Mr. Jenkins: Nothing at this time, if Your Honor 

pleases.
The Court: Well, once again I would like to comment 

that if the efforts of organization and enthusiasm that



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

45

have gone into bring this case into court were directed 
towards bettering the relations, which have always 
been good in Sumter between the races, that our com­
munity would be a lot better off. It is unfortunate that 
people, these defendants, have found it in their heats 
to combine their forces for something that quite ob­
viously and evidently can only bring about a break­
down of the relations of the races in this community. 
I find each of the defendants guilty of breach of the 
peace as charged.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, depending 
upon what ever sentence  ̂the Court will pass, I would 
like to have something to say.

The Court: All right. In each case I impose a fine 
of $100.00 or thirty days.

Mr. Jenkins: Now if Your Honor pleases, at this 
time the defendants would like to make a motion for 
arrest of judgment or in the alternative for a new trial, 
based upon the grounds as set forth in the record as 
the basis for the motions heretofore made. Now I am 
wondering whether or not we could agree that in stat­
ing these grounds fully that the record will show that 
the motions were made for arrest of judgment or in 
the alternative for a new trial, based upon the same 
grounds as were given in support of the motions made 
for dismissal.

Mr. Edmunds: That is agreeable with the City.
The Court: It is so ordered. Do you wish to argue 

the motions?
Mr. Jenkins: No, sir.
The Court: I overrule all motions, or the motions 

upon the, all grounds.
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, sir. At this time the defendants 

serve verbal notice of intention to appeal, being cog­
nizant of the fact that within the twenty-four hour



46 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

period written notice will be served setting forth the 
exceptions. And further, we request that the Court set 
an appeal bond for each defendant.

The Court: The appeal bond as required by the stat­
ute or ordinance will be double the amount of the fine, 
$20.00 in each case.

ORDER
The defendants herein were tried and found guilty 

of breach of the peace by the City Recorder of Sumter 
and they appealed to this Court upon ten exceptions 
which were argued before me in Manning, South Caro­
lina. This Court has been aided by elaborate briefs, 
as well as oral arguments, from both sides in the de­
cision hereinafter made.

The first exception charges that the Court erred in 
refusing to acquit the defendants upon the grounds 
that there was no competent evidence to show breach 
of the peace under the statute laws of this state; and 
the sixth exception alleges error upon the same ground 
in the failure to grant a new trial.

A brief resume of the facts is that the defendants 
with signs, some reading as follows:

‘If Kruschev ate here, why can’t we!” “ CORE” 
“ Jesus died to save all men.”
“Segregation is America’s shame.”
“ Is there a color line in Heaven!”
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what 

they do.”
were marching back and forth in front of the stores 
and on the sidewalks in the City of Sumter. The de­
fendants were at the same stores at which there had 
been a sit-in demonstration previously and the people 
were standing in small groups, watching and discus­
sing what the defendants were doing. The defendants



SUPEEME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

47

had the signs painted the night before the incident- and 
went to the Cut Rate Drug Store and Kresses dime 
store and demanded lunch service which was refused. 
It was after this that the incident recited above oc­
curred.

The evidence showed that the defendants had or­
ganized their actions and followed a precise course, 
and they wanted the general public to understand their 
protest of the arrest of their schoolmates on a previous 
occasion.

The term breach of peace has been defined as:
“a violation of public order, a disturbance of the 
public tranquility, by any act or conduct, inciting 
to violence or tending to provoke or excite others 
to break the peace, or, as sometimes said, it in­
cludes any violation of any law enacted to pre­
serve peace and good order. It may consist of an 
act of violence or an act likely to produce violence. 
It is not necessary that the peace be actually 
broken to lay the foundation for a prosecution for 
this offense. If what is done is unjustifiable and 
unlawful, tending with sufficient directness to 
break the peace, no more is required. Nor is actual 
personal violence an essential element in the of­
fense. If it were, communities might be kept in a 
constant state of turmoil, fear, and anticipated 
danger from the wicked language and conduct of 
a guilty party, not only destructive of the peace 
of the citizens but of public morals without the 
commission of the offense. The good sense and 
morality of the law forbid such a construction.

By ‘peace’, as used in the law in this connection, 
is meant the tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a 
municipality or community where good order 
reigns among its members, which is the natural



48 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

right of all persons in political society. It is, so 
to speak, that invisible sense of security which 
every man feels so necessary to his comfort, and 
for which all governments are instituted.” (8 Am. 
Jur. 834; Lydia v. Cooper et al., 169 S. C. 451, 169 
S. E. 236.)

Prom the foregoing it can be seen that it is not nec­
essary that the peace be actually broken. It only re­
quires that the actions of the defendant is likely to 
produce violence. I am of the opinion that the evidence 
herein meets this test and exceptions one and six are, 
therefore, without merit and are overruled.

The other eight exceptions charge that the rights of 
the defendant guaranteed by the first and fourteenth 
amendments of the Constitution of the United States, 
and Article One, sections four and five of the Consti­
tution of the State of South Carolina—-prohibiting 
laws establishing religion, abridging the freedom of 
speech and the press, and the right to peaceably as­
semble, to petition the government for a redress of 
grievances, and the privilege of citizens of the United 
States for enjoyment of life, liberty and property 
under due process of law, and equal protection of all 
the laws—have been violated by their conviction.

The right to engage in a demonstration is one phase 
of the exercise of the fundamental right of free speech, 
but such right is subject to reasonable and non-dis- 
criminatory regulation and limitation. The right of the 
appellants to give expression to their views is not in 
question. They were not arrested for parading or pick­
eting with placards, but they were arrested because 
the police authorities concluded that a breach of peace 
had been committed. It is necessary for society that 
the citizens of a municipality or community preserve



Appeal from Sumter County

good order. The rights of other people to enjoy the 
peace and tranquility of their city is a proper consid­
eration in the determination of the rights of these de­
fendants. The liberty of one citizen ends when the lib­
erty of another citizen begins. The rights of all citi­
zens are relative and the enjoyment thereof must be 
taken in the light of the right of the citizens of one’s 
fellowman.

In the light of these principles, this Court has re­
viewed the evidence and finds that no constitutional 
rights of the defendants either state or federal have 
been violated and the exceptions raising these issues 
are without merit. Accordingly, it is

Ordered that the conviction and sentence of the de­
fendants in the Court below be and the same are here­
by confirmed.

J ambs H ugh M cF addin, 
Judge of Third Judicial Circuit.

Manning, S. C.,
February 23, 1962.

SUPBEME COUBT 49

EXCEPTIONS
1. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the City 

of Sumter failed to prove a prima facie case, in that:
(a) It was not shown that appellants engaged 

in conduct which was unlawful.
(b) It was not shown that appellants commit­

ted acts which directly tended to breach the peace.
(c) It was not shown that appellants commit­

ted acts or engaged in conduct which incited others 
to violence.

(d) It was not shown that appellants commit­
ted acts of violence.



50 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Lewis et al.

(e) It was not shown that appellants engaged 
in obscene conduct.

(f) It was not shown that appellants uttered 
profane language.

(g) It was not shown that appellants conducted 
themselves in disorderly fashion.

2. The Court erred in refusing to hold that appel­
lants were convicted upon a record devoid of any evi­
dence of the commission of any of the essential ele­
ments of the crime charged, in violation of appellants’ 
right to due process of law, guaranteed by the Four­
teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
and by Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the State 
of South Carolina.

3. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the evi­
dence holds conclusively that at the time of their ar­
rests, appellants were peacefully upon the public 
streets of the City of Sumter, South Carolina, engag­
ing in picketing activities designed to impress upon the 
public mind their dissatisfaction with local customs 
pertaining to segregaton of the races and were carry­
ing signs or placards to that effect and that the right 
to engage in such conduct is protected by Article I, 
Section 4, Constitution of the State of South Carolina 
and by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the 
United States Constitution.

4. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the evi­
dence shows conclusively that by the arrests and con­
victions of the appellants, police powers of the State 
of South Carolina were used to deprive appellants of 
the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, guar­
anteed them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the United States Constitution and by Article I, 
Section 4, Constitution of the State of South Carolina.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

51

AGREEMENT
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between 

counsel for the appellants and respondent that the 
foregoing, when printed, shall constitute the Tran­
script of Record herein and that printed copies thereof 
may be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and 
shall constitute the Return herein.

C. M. E dmunds,
Sumter, S. C.,

Attorney for Respondent.

E knest A. F in n ey , Jb.,
Sumter, S. C.,

W illiam  W . B ennett,
Florence, S. C.,

J enkins and P ebby,
Columbia, S. C.,

Attorneys for Appellants.

203

204