Sumter v. Gregg Transcript of Record

    The State of South Carolina
IN THE SUPREME COURT

APPEAL FROM SUMTER COUNTY

H onorable  J a m es  H u g h  M cF addin , J udge

CITY OF 8TJMTEB, Respondent, 

against

ALMA GREGG and JOSHUA PRIOLEAU,
Appellants

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

E r n e st  A. F in n e y , Jr.,
Sumter, S. C.,

W il l ia m  W . B e n n e t t ,
Florence, S. C.,

J e n k in s  &  P err y ,
Columbia, S. C.,

Attorneys for Appellants.

C. M. E d m u n d s,
Sumter, S. C.,

Attorney for Respondent.



P age

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

Warrants ..................................................................... 2

Transcript of Trial Proceedings............................. 3

Witnesses for the State:
Leon Dollard:

Direct Examination....................................  6
Cross Examination ....................................  10
Re-direct Examination ..............................  20
Re-cross Examination................................  22

Leslie Hobbs:
Direct Examination....................................  29
Cross Examination ....................................  31

B. H. Goodson:
Direct Examination....................................  37
Cross Examination ....................................  40

Willie Hall:
Direct Examination....................................  43
Cross Examination ....................................  44

Witnesses for the Defendants:
Joshua Prioleau:

Direct Examination....................................  49
Cross Examination ....................................  54
Re-direct Examination..............................  61

Betty Richardson:
Direct Examination....................................  61

INDEX



Page

James West:
Direct Examination.................................  63
Cross Examination ....................................  65
Ee-direct Examination...............................  65
Ee-cross Examination...............................  66

Eva Allen:
Direct Examination.................................  66
Cross Examination ....................................  68

Alma Gregg:
Direct Examination.................................  69
Cross Examination ....................................  73

Order of Judge McFaddin, Dated March 1, 1962 . . 81

Order of Judge McFaddin, Dated April 14, 1962 . . 89

Exceptions ..................................................................  90

Agreement ..................................................................  91

INDEX—Continued



STATEMENT
The appellants, along with two other persons, were 

arrested on February 15, 1961. All of the persons ar­
rested were charged with the offense of parading with- 1 
out a license. Appellants also were charged with re­
sisting arrest. Appellants, together with their co-de­
fendants were tried before Sumter City Recorder Ray- 
mon Schwarz, Jr., sitting without a jury, on March 
2, 1961. At the conclusion of all the evidence, Judge 
Schwarz found all of the defendants except appellant, 
Alma Gregg, guilty of parading without a license in 
violation of an Ordinance prohibiting same and sen­
tenced each of them to pay tines of One Hundred 
($100.00) Dollars or serve thirty (30) days in prison. 
Appellants were also found guilty of resisting arrest 2 
and were sentenced to pay fines of One Hundred ($100- 
.00) Dollars or serve thirty (30) days in prison. No­
tice of Intention to Appeal was duly served upon the 
City Recorder.

Thereafter, the matter was heard before Honorable 
James Hugh McFaddin, Resident Judge, Third Judi­
cial Circuit. On March 1, 1962, Judge McFaddin issued 
an Order, reversing the Judgments of the City Re­
corder as to all persons concerning the offense of 
parading without a license. However, he affirmed the s 
judgment of the City Recorder as to the appellant, 
Alma Gregg, concerning the offense of resisting arrest. 
Notice of Intention to Appeal was duly served upon 
the City Attorney.

Thereafter, Judge McFaddin issued a Supplemental
Order, affirming the judgment of the City Recorder as 
to the offense of resisting arrest against the appellant, 
Joshua Prioleau. Notice of Intention to Appeal was 
duly served upon the City Attorney.

( 1 )



2 SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA,

C it y  and  C o u n t y  of S u m t e r .

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 15th day 
of February, 1961, one Joshua Prioleau, Clifford 
Grady Sumner, David Rayon and Alma Gregg, did 
parade without a permit on said day and that Joshua 
Prioleau and Alma Gregg did resist arrest on said day. 
in violation of an Ordinance of City of Sumter, and 
that deponent and others are material witnesses to 
prove the above allegations.

E. E. M cI n to sh  / s/

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd 
day of February, 1961.
R a ym o n  S c h w a k z , J r . / s/  (L. S.)

Recorder.
WARRANT

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
C it y  and  C o u n t y  of S u m t e e .

To the Sheriff of Sumter County or to any or either 
of the Policemen of the City of Sumter.

Whereas, complaint upon oath has been made before 
me as Recorder of the City of Sumter, by E. E. Mc­
Intosh That he is informed and believes that at Sum­
ter, S. C., on or about the 15th day of February, 1961, 
one Joshua Prioleau, Clifford Grady Sumner, David 
Rayon and Alma Gregg did parade without a permit 
on said day and that Joshua Prioleau and Alma Gregg 
did resist arrest on said day.



City of Sumter v. G-regg et al.
SUPREME COURT 3

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 witnesses above named and Joshua Prio- 
leau, Clifford Grady Sumner, David Rayon and Alma 
Gregg and bring them before me at Recorder’s Court 
to be dealt with according to law.

Given under my hand and Seal this 22nd day of 
February, 1961.

R a ym o n  S c h w a e z  / s/  (L. S .)
Recorder.

PROCEEDINGS
The Court: The court will come to order again.
We are preparing to try the case of City of Sumter 

v. Joshua Prioleau, Clifford Grady Sumners, David 
Rayon and Alma Gregg. Are the names correct!

Mr. Finney: That’s correct, Your Honor.
The Court: In these warrants each of the four de­

fendants—and I will call them in a moment—are 
charged with parading without a permit. Joshua Prio­
leau and Alma Gregg are additionally charged with re­
sisting arrest.

The parading-without-a-permit statute, Chapter 22, 
Section 49, of the Code of the City of Sumter states: 
“ It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corpora­
tion to solicit or to distribute literature of any kind 
or to use a loud-speaker upon any public way, walk­
way, alley or street in the City of Sumter or to hold a 
parade upon any of the aforesaid places, unless such 
person, firm or corporation shall have first obtained 
from the City Clerk and Treasurer of the City of Sum­
ter a written permit so to do. Any person violating any 
of the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon convic­
tion, be fined not more than one hundred dollars or im-



Appeal from Sumter County

prisoned not exceeding thirty days, and each separate 
violation of this ordinance shall constitute a separate 
offense.”

And then, of course, a section setting forth that, if 
any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional, 
it shall not affect the validity of the rest.

As I call the defendants’ names, will they please 
rise?

Joshua Prioleau. Joshua Prioleau is charged with 
parading without a permit and resisting arrest. How 
does he plead?

Mr. Finney: Your Honor, may we make our motions 
all at the same time, and then we will plead them to­
gether, if that’s all right?

The Court: All right.
Mr. Finney: Do you want us to make the motions 

now, or do you want to call them and ascertain their 
presence first?

The Court: You can go right on and make your mo­
tions.

Mr. Finney: We respectfully move the Court to dis­
miss the warrant and/or quash the warrant on the 
ground that the facts as set out therein do not consti­
tute the offense of parading without a permit, as de­
fined under the laws of the City of Sumter.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Finney: The defense would move respectfully 

to the Court to dismiss and/or quash the warrant on 
the ground that the statute under which the same is 
brought is unconstitutional on its face, in that it de­
nies to these defendants their rights of peaceful as­
sembly, their rights of freedom of speech, which are 
protected to them under the Constitution of the United 
States and under the Constitution of the State of 
South Carolina.

4 SUPREME COURT_______________



SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

5

We would respectfully call to the Court’s attention 
a long series of cases which have held that a statute 
which gives unfettered discretion to a public offi­
cial to deny or to approve permits for peaceful assem­
bly is unconstitutional, perhaps the most famous be­
ing the Briggs case.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Finney Now, Your Honor, we would move for 

a dismissal and/or to quash the warrant on the ground 
that the statute under which the warrant is brought 
denies to these defendants their rights as guaranteed 
to them under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States; and, oh the same 
ground, that it denies to them their rights as guar­
anteed to them under Article I, Sections 4 and 5, of 
the Constitution of South Carolina.

The Court: Motion denied.
Does that take care of your motions?
Mr. Finney: That takes care of the motions.
The Court: The defendant Joshua Prioleau—please 

stand as I call your names—Clifford Grady Sumners, 
David Rayon, Alma Gregg.

Each of the defendants is charged with parading 
without a permit and, in addition thereto, the defend­
ants Joshua Prioleau and Alma Gregg are charged 
with resisting arrest.

How do they plead to the charges ?
Mr. Finney: Not guilty on all charges, Your Honor.
The Court: Before we start with the City’s testi­

mony, I believe counsel told the Court prior to the 
commencement of this trial—I want to get it in the 
record now—that there will be a stipulation that no 
permit was applied for for a parade. Is that correct; 
is that the stipulation?



6 SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollabd

21 Mr. Edmunds: That no permit was applied for or 
issued.

The Court: Or issued.
Mr. Edmunds: And another stipulation, too, that 

counsel makes no objection to trying all four of these 
at one time to expedite the matter, although there is 
a little variation in time between.

The Court: Is that stipulation approved by both 
counsel!

Mr. Edmunds: Yes, sir.
Mr. Finney: It is agreeable to the defense, Your

22 Honor.
The Court: All right. Then it will be the law of 

this case.
You may proceed, Mr. Edmunds.

L ie u ten an t L eon  D ollabd, ca lled  as a w itn ess b y  the 
City, b ein g  first d u ly  sw orn , w as exam in ed  and te s ti­
fied as fo llo w s :

Direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:

23 Q. Lieutenant, are you connected with law enforce­
ment!

A. I am, sir.
Q. With what enforcement division are you con­

nected!
A. I am with the South Carolina Law Enforcement 

Division.
Q. And how long have you been with SLED!
A. Twenty-one years.
Q. You are a lieutenant with that outfit!
A. I am, sir.
Q. I believe you live in Sumter!
A. I do, sir.

24



City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. On the 15th of February of this year were you 
in Sumter?

A. I was, sir.
Q. Were you on duty as a lieutenant of SLED?
A. I was, sir.
Q. You have heard the defendants plead, Joshua 

Prioleau, Clifford Sumners, David Rayon and Alma 
Gregg, to the charge of participating in a parade with­
out a permit on that occasion, and two of them, Joshua 
Prioleau and Alma Gregg, that they did at the same 
time resist arrest.

Please describe to the Court the circumstances im­
mediately preceding and leading up to the arrests of 
these defendants, what they were doing and where they 
were, and so forth.

A. Well, that morning I was at the Sheriff’s office 
and the Sheriff got a call about the parade and Mr. 
Hall and myself got in his car and went on down Main 
Street. We saw the parade coming on—

Mr. Finney: Objection. He saw a group, not a pa­
rade. That’s a question of fact for this Court.

The Court: I think the point’s well taken. That 
would be a conclusion. You may, of course, Lieutenant, 
describe what you saw.

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. You saw a group coming down North Main Street, 

heading south?
A. Approximately, I imagine, looked like several 

hundred; I don’t know how many.
Q. Where were they walking in reference to the 

street or sidewalk?
A. Walking on the sidewalk, on the right-hand side 

going south, coming south toward uptown.

SUPREME COURT 7



Appeal from Sumter County

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. Where were they in reference to Morris College?
A. They were approximately two blocks from Mor­

ris College; they were almost down to—I think that’s 
Crescent.

Q. How were they lined up?
A. They were in twos, just walking in a line.
Q. Were you in a position to see whether or not 

they were coming out of Morris College or where they 
were coming from?

A. I didn’t see that far down the line; they were 
coming from that direction.

Q. Tell us what you did, sir.
A. I radioed Chief McIntosh, Sheriff Parnell and 

Chief McIntosh. On information I got from them, Dep­
uty Hall pulled his car across the sidewalk into a 
driveway.

Q. Where was that in reference to Charlotte, if you 
remember; was it on the north side of Charlotte or 
the south side of Charlotte?

A. I believe it was on the south side of Charlotte, 
just before you get to Charlotte, I believe. I ’m not 
sure; it was right along there.

Q. It was fairly close to Charlotte Avenue?
A. It was, yes, sir.
Q. All right.
A. He pulled across in front of them and we two 

got out and told them they would have to turn back, 
that they couldn’t parade, and most of them turned 
back. Some didn’t. Prioleau, we told him to turn back.

Q. You told who to turn back?
A. We told all of them they’d have to turn back, 

they couldn’t parade.

8 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

9

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. What did you say about Prioleau!
A. Prioleau, he didn’t turn around, he wouldn’t go 

the other way, and we caught hold of him and told 
him he was under arrest and he grabbed hold of me 
and I shoved him off from me. I put Mm in the auto­
mobile.

Q. You had, prior to that time, you say, told him 
to turn back and that he should not parade!

A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Did he obey your instructions or refuse to obey 

them!
A. He did not.
Q. He did not!
A. No, sir.
Q. And you say he grabbed hold of you!
A. Grabbed hold of me and I shoved him loose from 

me and by that time Deputy Hall was there and we 
put him in the car.

Q. Did you see the defendants when they answered 
to the charge and to the plea!

A. I did.
Q. Do you or not identify them as being members 

of this group!
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And what about Alma Gregg!
A. We was further on next to Morris College, had 

got almost to the other side of the filling stations, 
between them filling stations and Morris College, and 
we were trying to get them to go on back and I no­
ticed this Alma Gregg coming down talking to every­
one as she would come along.

Q. She was coming south or going north!
A. She was coming south. I told her, I said You’re 

going to have to go back.” She said “I ’m going to the



10 SUPREME COURT
Appeal from Sumter County 

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

bank; I ’m going where I want to go.” I grabbed hold 
of her and she said “ Take your damned hand off of 
me.” I said “You are under arrest.” She kept on tell­
ing me, “ Take your hand off of me.” By that time 
Officer Jimmie Dollard and, I think, either Lambert 
or Hall one, was there and we put her in the car. We 
had a struggle with her to get her in the automobile.

Q. You had to struggle with her?
A. I sure did.
Q. What about these other two defendants, David 

Rayon and Summers?
A. I wasn’t along when they picked them up.
Q. Was that in the city of Sumter?
A. It was.
Mr. Edmunds: You may examine him.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Lieutenant, you say these defendants were walk­

ing down the street?
A. They were.
Q. In groups of twos?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you see traffic lined up?
A. Beg your pardon.
Q. Did you see any of the streets that cross North 

Main or run into North Main between Morris College 
and the stoplight where you turned them around; were 
you there so that you could see the traffic stopped 
there ?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Where were you; were you where you could see 

the traffic or were you down where they were stopped ?
A. I was down where we stopped the people.



SUPEEME COUET 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

11

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. Then you couldn’t see the traffic back up the 
street, could you, sir!

A. Which way are you talking about!
Q. North.
A. I saw the traffic lined up all up and down there.
Q. That was on North Main Street. I ’m talking about 

the streets that intersect with North Main.
A. I didn’t notice any—
Q. You didn’t see anything there, did you, sir!
A. I didn’t notice.
Q. Did you notice anyone on the sidewalk being 

bumped off, knocked off the sidewalk or anything, sir!
A. Knocked off by whom!
Q. The people who were walking down the street. 

Did you see it, sir, that’s all, did you see anybody—
A. See what!
Q. Anybody bumped off the street.
A. I didn’t see nobody bumped off the street, no.
Q. How long have you been a member of the South 

Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Mr. Lollard!
A. Twenty-one years.
Q. How long have you been a citizen of the city of 

Sumter!
A. Sixty years—how old I am.
Q. Have you ever on occasion seen the students from 

Edmunds High School when school turns out in the 
afternoon!

A. Have I seen them come out from Edmunds High 
School!

Q. Yes, sir. You have been there approximately at 
that time!

A. Yes, I went to school there.



12 SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. Those students, when they come out, they come 
out in large groups, don’t they, sir?

A. Sometimes in small groups; I don’t ever see them 
in any mass group.

Q. Sometimes in large groups, sir?
A. I don’t see no big mass groups.
Q. Don’t they walk home when they leave the school 

grounds, sir?
A. Some of them walk, some of them ride.
Q. But those that walk home usually go home on 

the sidewalks, don’t they, sir?
A. That’s where they walk, yes.
Q. Who did you say the officers were who helped 

you arrest these defendants?
A. I think it was Officer Hall. I know that Deputy 

Hall and Goods on, I believe, was there.
Q. How long have you known Deputy Hall?
A. I ’ve been knowing him fifteen years.
Q. How long have you been knowing Deputy Hob­

son?
A. Hobson?
Q. Yes, approximately. You said you believed that 

there was—
A. Goodson.
Q. Goodson—how long have you known Mr. Good- 

son, sir?
A. Ten or fifteen years.
Q. Yet you are not sure whether those officers were 

there, but you can positively identify these defendants; 
is that correct?

A. I ’m sure they were there. There was a bunch of 
officers up there. They weren’t the only officers up 
there; there was a bunch of officers up there.



SUPREME COURT 13
Appeal from Sumter County

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. That’s just my point, sir. Of these officers you’ve 
been knowing for a number of years, you are not cer­
tain who was there, but these defendants, who you 
don’t know, you can positively identify—is that cor­
rect, sir?

A. I know there was a bunch of officers up there.
Q. But you don’t know who was there, sir?
A. Yes, I know who was there.
Q. But you do know, despite that fact, you do know 

that these defendants were there and you remember 
each one of them, individually?

A. I know them two.
Q. Now you don’t know how many people were here 

on that particular day, do you sir, how many people 
were coming down the street?

A. I don’t know; there was a big group of them.
Q. How many arrests did you participate in?
A. Them two and one more; I know one more.
Q. Do you know who he was?
A. Yes. I don’t know what his name was. He’s not 

being tried.
Q. Did you arrest him yourself, sir?
A. He’s not being tried.
Q. That’s not my question. If the question is im­

proper the Judge will instruct you, sir, that you don’t 
have to answer.

A. If he will instruct me, I ’ll answer it.
Q. Do you know whether or not he was arrested on 

this day—did you arrest him, sir?
A. I did.
Q. What did you charge him with?
Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I object to that on—
The Court: Objection sustained.



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

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

By Mr. Finney:
Q. Did you notice any loud noises coining from this 

group, sir?
A. Oil, they were making a bunch of noise, singing, 

talking.
Q. They were talking.
A. And singing.
Q. Talking and singing—hut they were walking in 

twos; is that correct, sir?
A. Some of them were in twos.
Q. And they were on the sidewalk?

54 A. Yes. Some of them—
Q. And you don’t know how many were there, do 

you, sir; you said you didn’t know?
A. It was about a block; I imagine there was two or 

three hundred; I don’t know how many.
Q. You don’t know how many there would he, sir?
A. No. There was a hunch of them.
Q. You said that you are with SLED?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know how many SLED men were here 

66 that day, sir?
A. Yes, I know how many I called.
Q. How many did you call, sir?
A. Some come later. Wasn’t none here then except 

me.
Q. There wasn’t anybody here at that time hut you?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, in making the arrest of Prioleau, what did 

you say happened, sir?
A. I told him to turn around and he didn’t—most of 

them turned round, but he didn’t—and I told him he 
was under arrest.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

15

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard 
Q. Then you put him under arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. You put him in the car!
A. He caught hold of me and we put him in the car. 
Q. He, for no reason at all, just grabbed you, sir? 
A. I don’t know what reason he had.
Q. But you didn’t give him any reason, sir?
A. I didn’t give him any reason.
Q. Had you touched him?
A. I put him under arrest and caught him by the 

arm.
Q. You caught him by the arm?
A. Yes.
Q. How much do you weigh, Lieutenant?
A. Two-fifty.
Q. How much does the defendant Prioleau weigh, 

sir, approximately?
A. I haven’t got no idea.
Q. You don’t have any idea? You have been an 

officer for some twenty years?
A. I ’ve been an officer forty years.
Q. When you touched him, is it possible he could 

have stumbled, sir?
A. He didn’t stumble.
Q. Is it possible he could have stumbled, sir?
A. He didn’t stumble.
Q. You touched him before he touched you, sir?
A. I caught him by the arm and told him he was 

under arrest.
Q. You did that first, then; is that correct?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Did you bring them to the jail yourself, sir?
A. I did not.



16 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollabd

Q. Who did you assign to bring them to the jail?
A. We put them in a car, one of the police cars. I 

don’t remember which one brought them to jail.
Q. You don’t remember which police car brought 

them to jail or who was in there, sir?
A. There were several police cars up there and, 

everyone we picked up, we would put them in some 
car.

Q. Did Prioleau drop his hat, sir?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You wouldn’t deny that he may have dropped 

his hat?
A. I don’t know.
Q. These people that you saw walking down the 

street, you said you did not see them block any traffic, 
didn’t you, sir?

A. I don’t think they blocked no traffic, don’t believe 
I saw them block any traffic. A lot of traffic was stop­
ped, though.

Q. But the traffic was on North Main Street, wasn’t 
it, sir?

A. That’s right.
Q. And they were not in a position at that time to 

have blocked traffic on North Main Street, were they, 
sir?

A. No.
Q. So if traffic was slowed down on North Main 

Street, it was more or less a matter of curiosity, rather 
than these defendants stopping it ; is that correct, sir ?

A. Well, they caused it, because they—
Q. The fact is that they did not stop the traffic them­

selves, did they, sir?
A. No, they didn’t stop the traffic.



SUPREME COURT 17
Appeal from Sumter County

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollakd

Q. In making the arrest of Miss Gregg, now, you 
said that you went back up the street and you saw 
her coming down the street?

A. We were going toward Morris College and she 
was coming in the opposite direction the other people 
were going.

Q. How were you traveling sir, walking or riding.
A. Walking.
Q. You were walking behind the group that was 

turned around, going north?
A. Walking on the side of them; I wasn’t right be­

hind them.
Q. So they were going north and she was coming 

south; is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Why did you stop her, sir?
A. I didn’t have no way of knowing she wasn’t one 

of the group.
Q. Did you ask her?
A. She kept—
Q. Did you ask her, sir?
A. She kept stopping and talking to the people along.
Q. Was it prohibited that she stop and talk to them?
A. It wasn’t prohibited, but we was trying to get 

them back over there and I thought she was one of 
the group.

Q. Did she stop and turn around anybody to go with 
her?

A. She kept talking to them.
Q. She was speaking to them, walking past?
A. She was talking to them. I don’t know what she 

said.
Q. They were meeting her?
A. That’s right.



18 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. Now, sir, why did you stop her! That was my 
question.

A. I thought she was one of the group turned around 
and coming back.

Q. You have said the group was headed back north, 
haven’t you!

A. I told you I thought she was one of the group 
that was going north and I thought she was one of 
the group that turned around and was coming back 
south.

Q. I ask you, sir, did you ascertain whether she was
70 —did you try to ascertain whether she was a member 

of that group or not!
A. I told her, I said “You’ll have to go back the 

other way.” That’s exactly what I told her.
Q. And you told her that because you thought she 

was a member of the group!
A. I thought she was a member of the group, yes.
Q. Yet the group was headed north and she was 

headed south!
A. That’s right.

71 Q. And you did not ask her whether or not she was 
a member of the group !

A. No, I didn’t ask her.
Q. So anybody that was walking along that street 

and had been colored, you would have put them under 
arrest!

A. If they’d been white and walking the same way, 
I ’d have done the same thing.

Q. You would have arrested them!
A. The same way, at the same place. We were trying 

to get the people back out there to keep from having 
a disturbance and, anybody coming this way, we’d 
have to stop them and get them off the street.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

1 9

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. So, in effect, you closed off that section of North 
Main Street to all walkers at that time, sir?

A. We didn’t close it off.
Q. You said anybody you saw walking down there—
A. If we had saw anybody on that side coming up, 

there was such a crowd, we would have had to turn 
them around or move them off.

Q. And you would have done that without first ask­
ing them whether or not they were members of the 
group that was walking?

A. I didn’t ask her if she was a member of the group.
Q. Now, in perfecting the arrest of Miss Gregg, 

did you arrest her yourself, sir?
A. I told her she was under arrest.
Q. What else did you tell her?
A. Well, at that time she told me to take my damned 

hand off of her, and I put her in the car.
Q. Did you put her in the car by yourself, sir?
A. No, there was another officer there and we put 

her in the car.
Q. Did she tell you she was going to the bank?
A. She did.
Q. Who was the other officer who put his hands on 

her?
A. City Policeman Dollard.
Q. Is it not true, Lieutenant, that when you arrested 

Miss Gregg she told you she had to make a trip to 
town?

A. She said she was going to the bank; that’s the 
only thing she said.

Q. And you did not ask her any further questions, 
whether or not—to try to ascertain whether or not she 
might have been really going to the bank or not?

A. No, I wasn’t interested in that.



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

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. You weren’t interested. You were just going to 
arrest her because she was there and you thought she 
was a member of that group; is that correct!

A. I thought she was a member of the group and 
we was trying to get them back out there.

Q. And the group was going north and Miss Gregg 
was coming south!

A. That’s right.
Q. And that was the only evidence you had that she 

might have been a member of this group!
A. That’s right.

78 Q. And, in making the arrest, you and another of­
ficer put her in the car. Did a third officer come up 
and help you get her in the car!

A. I ’m not sure of that; a third one might have 
been there.

Mr. Finney: I believe that’s all.
Re-direct Examination

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Lieutenant, when the white schools turn out do

79 they all march in one direction or do they scatter to 
the four points of the compass!

A. Well, they go to different parts of the city.
Q. Where they live; is that right!
A. That’s right. Most of them that live a long ways 

off go in cars; the ones that live nearby walk.
Q. Do you recollect the arrests that were made at 

Lawson’s and at Kress’ on the 14th of February!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that or not the day before this arrest we are 

trying now!
A. It was.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

21

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. About what time was it, approximately; was it 
before dinner or after dinner!

A. It was just before dinner, some time just before 
dinner.

Q. And your estimate is that there were two or three 
hundred in that group!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this girl, Alma, you said that she was walk­

ing down, talking to one and then another!
A. She kept talking to them all along the street.
Q. About how many did you see her talking to, Lieu­

tenant!
A. Probably a half a dozen.
Q. Were you able to notice her expression and her 

manner in talking to them!
A. Well, she’d stop—I mean they’d stop and talk a 

few minutes, and she’d come on up and get one talking 
to her. I thought she was one of the group.

Q. Were you able to tell whether she was just say­
ing “ Good morning” or “What’s the trouble” , or 
whether or not she was trying to get them to turn 
around and march back south!

Mr. Finney: Your Honor, we want to inject here, 
sir, that counsel has been joined by associate counsel 
in this matter, for the record, William W. Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: And I wish to object to the last ques­
tion on the ground that it is leading and it’s trying to 
extract from the witness a judgment.

The Court: I can’t see how it could possibly be lead­
ing. The question, as I understood it, asked whether 
she was trying to do one thing or another. The witness 
has a choice of answers, not limited to any one sug­
gested answer. Objection overruled.



22 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. G-regg et al.

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

A. Well, what we thought, Judge, was that she was 
trying to stop them and turn them around; the way 
she would talk to them, say a few words to them, we 
thought she was trying to make them all go back this 
other way. That was our thought about it.

Q. I believe you say you saw her stop and talk to 
some half a dozen; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did any of these defendants say why they were 

marching downtown at that time, or did anybody else 
say so in their hearing?

A. I didn’t hear them say.
Mr. Edmunds: That’s all.

Re-cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Lieutenant, what made you think that she was 

trying to stop the group and turn them around to go 
back to town?

A. Well, by her talking to them.
Q. You said you couldn’t hear her talk, didn’t you, 

sir?
A. I never did hear what she said.
Q. Did she do something; did you see her do any­

thing?
A. She didn’t do anything but talk to them, stop 

and talk to them.
Q. You did not know at that time that she was a 

member of the Faculty of Morris College, did you, sir?
A. I don’t know it now.
Q. Did you know it at that time?
A. I didn’t know it at that time; I don’t know it now.
Q. You did not know whether she knew these people 

she was meeting or not, did you?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

23

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

A. I thought she was one of the crowd. g9
Q. You did not know whether or not she was merely 

speaking to these people or not, did you, sir!
A. She didn’t holler “ Heigh” at them, or anything 

like that. She spoke to them, would have a short con­
versation with them, and then come on.

Q. Come on down the street. In view of the fact 
that, if you don’t know it, you have perhaps heard that 
she is a member of the Faculty of Morris College—

A. I heard that afterward.
Q. You’ve heard that these people who were in this 

group that was turned around by the police were stu- 90 
dents at Morris College!

A. I did, yes.
Q. You could not say, as a matter of fact, that she 

was a member of this group coming doivntown, could 
you, sir!

A. I couldn’t say; I didn’t know it.
Q. You could not say, as a matter of fact, could you, 

sir, that she was trying to get them to turn around 
and go back to town!

A. I th ou gh t she w as. 91
Q. Could you say it as a matter of fact, sir!
A. I couldn’t say that she was.
Q. Could you say, as a matter of fact, that she did 

any more than spoke and exchanged pleasantries with 
the group that you’ve mentioned!

A. I didn’t hear what she said.
Q. Did you see this young lady’s fur piece come off 

her, sir!
A. I don’t remember no fur piece.
Q. Did you have occasion to grab her by her hair, 

sir!
A. I did not.

92



City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

L ie u te n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Q. Did you see anyone else do that?
33 A. I did not.

Q. Why did you stop this group of people, sir?
A. You mean the first group?
Q. The first group, yes, sir.
A. We stopped them because they—to stop them 

from parading.
Mr. Finney: Sir, I think the Court has already said 

that the question of whether or not they were parad­
ing was a question of fact for—

Mr. Edmunds: He has opened it up now, Your 
94 Honor, with that question. He asked him why.

The Court: I think the answer was responsive. Of 
course, it is still for the Court to determine whether 
or not it was a parade. You asked why they stopped 
them. He says they stopped them because they wanted 
to stop them from parading.

By Mr. Finney:
Q. Have you ever seen two or three hundred people 

walk down the street before, Mr. Dollard?
A. I have never seen no crowd—not no parade of 

as two or three hundred people, not in Sumter.
Q. You have never seen two or three hundred school 

children leave the school at the same time?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. You have never seen a group—
A. Not that big a group.
Q. What made this a parade, in your opinion—the 

size of it?
A. It looked like a parade to me.
Q. What made it a parade, sir—the size of it?
A. Well, it was just a lot of people, my idea of a— 

J6 Q. How about after a football game; do you see 
a number of people coming out of the stadium?

24 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

25

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollakd

A. Yes, but they don’t march up in twos and threes 
and fours together.

Q. Then the fact that these people were walking 
down the street and not blocking the entire sidewalk 
made it a parade?

A. They were blocking the entire sidewalk.
Q. Well, they were two abreast and orderly. Would 

that have made it a parade?
A. They wasn’t orderly. They were singing, talking.
Q. Well, they were two abreast. Does that make it a 

parade ?
A. Some of them was two abreast, some of them 

two or three. My thinking, it was a parade.
Q. I realize that’s your thinking, sir, but what we 

are trying to find out is what made it a parade, in your 
opinion, when there are other large groups of people 
who are on the streets.

A. I couldn’t tell you why it made it a parade. How 
can I answer that?

Q. You were the one who said it was. I ’m trying to 
find out what was the determining factor in your mind.

A. I told you two or three times I thought it was 
a parade; a big bunch of people walking like they was 
looked like a parade to me.

Q. If there had been a big bunch of people leaving 
a football game, would that have been a parade, sir?

A. There wasn’t no football game up there.
Mr. Finney: Your Honor, you see that I am trying 

to elicit from the witness what, in his opinion, was the 
distinguishing factor that these people—

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, he’s gotten his answers.
The Court: I believe he’s answered that there was 

a large crowd of people for apparently no obvious



26 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al. ____

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

reason; he said there was no football game, but a 
large crowd of people.

By Mr. Finney:
Q. Every time you see a large crowd of people, sir, 

do you arrest them for parading without a permit, 
people walking down the street?

A. If they are parading, I do.
Q. That was not my question. If you see a large 

crowd of people walking down the street, do you ar­
rest them for parading?

A. If they are parading, I do.
Mr. Finney: Your Honor, is that responsive?
The Court: I think that’s responsive. That may be 

the best answer he can give.
By Mr. Finney:
Q. What size group of people would you say would 

make a parade, sir?
A. I think two or three hundred would make a pa­

rade.
Q. If it was less than that, it would not be?
Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I think he’s going too 

far afield here and chewing on one point to the extent 
that I move that the Court order him to get on some­
thing else. He could come down from two hundred 
and ninety-nine, all the way down to one person.

The Court: I will ask you to limit your questions 
along this line. I don’t want to cut counsel off without 
full opportunity of cross examination, but I think the 
witness has answered the questions that have been 
propounded as fully as he is able to do.

Mr. Finney: All right, let’s review what the witness 
has said, Your Honor.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

27

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

By Mr. Finney:
Q. In arresting the two defendants that you ar­

rested, Mr. Dollard, at the time you arrested them 
did you tell them what crime they were accused of 
committing !

A. I did not.
Q. You did not take them to the Police Station!
A. I did not.
Q. You do not know what they were charged with 

at that time, do you, sir!
A. I knew what they were going to be charged with.
Q. What were they going to be charged with!
A. Parading without a license.
Q. Did you instruct anybody to charge them that 

way, sir!
A. I did not.
Q. You could not deny, then, sir, that they were 

charged with breach of the peace!
A. I turned them over to the other officers for them 

to book them and they knew what they were doing. 
The Chief-of-Police and the Sheriff were in charge.

Q. And, in arresting Miss Gregg, sir, you said that 
you and one other officer arrested her and you put 
her in the automobile and brought her downtown; is 
that right!

A. They did.
Q. And you did not ascertain—
A. I did not come downtown.
Q. You did not come downtown and—
A. I stayed up there.
Q. You did not ascertain from her, by asking her, 

whether or not she was a member of the group!
A. I did not. I have answered that three times.



28 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

L ie u t e n a n t  L eon  D ollard

Mr. Finney: Your witness.
The Court: Mr. Edmunds, I see it’s reached the noon 

hour. Would you like to take a recess?
Mr. Edmunds: Let’s take a recess.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken until 2:45 of the 

same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION
The Court: The court will come to order.
Are we ready to resume with the cases of City of 

Sumter v. Joshua Prioleau, Ciffond Summers, Freddie 
Rayon and Alma Gregg%

Mr. Edmunds: Yes, sir, 1 will ask Mr. Dollard to 
resume the stand.

The Court: The defendants are still in court, are
they not?

Mr. Finney: Yes, sir, they are.
The Court: Let the record so show.
Lieutenant L eon  D ollard resumed the stand and 

testified further as follows:

Further Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Mr. Dollard, I believe the date of this arrest was 

the 15th of February, 1961; is that correct, sir?
A. It was.
Q. You have already testified that that was the day 

after the arrest at Lawson’s and at Kress’ ?
A. It was.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you had received 

information to the effect that there was going to be 
a demonstration by Morris College downtown there 
on the 15th.

A. I did, sir.
112



SUPREME COURT 29
Appeal from Sumter County

D e p u t y  S h e b if f  L e slie  H obbs 
Mr. Edmunds: You may examine. 
(Witness excused.)

Deputy Sheriff L e slie  H obbs, called as a witness by 
the City, being first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Mr. Hobbs, you are a deputy sheriff of Sumter 

County?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long have you been, sir?
A. Fifteen years.
Q. On the 15tli day of February of 1961 were you 

on duty as a deputy sheriff of Sumter County?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any arrests in connection with the 

cases we are trying here now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which ones did you arrest?
A. That third boy yonder, Rayon, I believe, is his 

name.
Q. The one with the wrist-watch on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please explain to the Court the circumstances of 

that arrest. Let me ask you, first, had you received 
information that there was going to be a demonstration 
from Morris College down street?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was the reason for you being out there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go ahead and tell what you saw by way of a 

group walking or marching, or what not.



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

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

A. I got in the car and rode down North Main, rode 
by the marchers. They were parading and marching up 
and down the street. I counted a hundred and seventy- 
five colored students, and the line was still going, and 
we got the message to—

Q. Did you see where they were coming from?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. Coming out of Morris College. We rode down 

and turned around and came back and we got the 
orders over the radio to turn them around, that they 
didn’t have a permit to parade.

Q. To turn them around?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attempt to do so ?
A. I came back and Lieutenant Dollard and Mr. 

Hall had pulled their car across the street there just 
before you get to Charlotte. Then I got out and told 
them to turn around and we stopped cars on account 
of the jamb going back to Morris College, we stopped 
the traffic and put them back on the other side of the 
street. Then, after we got it thinned down, about half 
on one side and half on the other, we marched them 
back.

When they got there in front of the Morris College, 
on the sidewalk there, this boy here, Rayon, or what­
ever his name is, stopped and wouldn’t go any further. 
I asked him to go ahead, that we wasn’t going to have 
no trouble out here; I asked him at least three times.

Q. What did he say?
A. He didn’t say a word, just stood there.
Q. What did he do?
A. Nothing.



SUPBEME COIJBT 
Appeal from Sumter County

31

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

Q. Would he obey your instructions?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I called a patrol car and I took him and 

put him in the patrol car and sent him to town by Mr. 
Hicks and Mr. Dollard, I believe.

Q. I will ask you whether or not the great majority 
of them did obey orders and turn around and go back?

A. Most all of them. He’s the only man that gave 
me any trouble at all. He didn’t want to do what I 
asked, to go on back, that they weren’t going to take 
over town—that’s the words I used, that he had to go 
on back. So he’s the only one refused to go and stood 
there. He tried to push back against me, and I told 
him not to push like that and I caught him by the arm 
then and took him over to the automoblie.

Q. You told him he was under arrest?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmunds: You may examine.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Bennett:
Q. Mr. Hobbs, you say you received instructions to 

turn these students around?
A. Over the radio, that’s right.
Q. Who gave you those instructions?
A. Chief McIntosh, I believe.
Q. Of the Police Department?
A. Chief-of-Poliee.
Q. As you drove up and down, or as you drove 

down and noticed the students marching, did you no­
tice any disorder of any kind?

A. They were singing, had the whole sidewalk 
blocked, just taking over the whole street.



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

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

Q. They took over the whole street?
A. The whole sidewalk that they was coming down.
Q. When you say they took it over, they prevented 

somebody-—
,A. Prevented anybody, that’s right.
Q. Did you see anyone that they prevented from 

using the sidewalk!
A. If anybody was there, it prevented them. I didn’t 

notice if anybody was there at the time.
Q. If some person had been there, they would have 

prevented them!
126 A. That’s right; they took up the whole street.

Q. In other words, if a person were attempting to 
pass, they couldn’t pass?

A. No, they couldn’t; they would have had to get 
off the sidewalk.

Q. But no one tried to pass that you saw?
A. Well, I was riding up and down the street until 

they got them stopped and then we turned them 
around. I didn’t see, but they had the whole sidewalk 
took up.

127 Q. But you didn’t see anyone who couldn’t get by?
A. I believe I saw some people standing on the side

that couldn’t get by, got out of the way of them; I be­
lieve I saw some people standing on the side.

Q. Well, now, are you changing your testimony?
A. No, I ’m not changing it.
Q. Well, a while ago you said you didn’t see any­

body.
A. I say I thought I saw people standing on the side, 

getting out of the way of them. I say I don’t know, but 
I believe I did.

Q. Well, do you want to testify positively that you 
saw someone who couldn’t get by?

123



SUPREME COURT 33
Appeal from Sumter County

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

A. I say positively I saw some people sitting on the 
side—standing on the side of the sidewalk, yes.

Q. Well, you wouldn’t say that those people couldn’t 
get by because of these people!

A. I say if they tried to go the sidewalk they 
couldn’t have got by, because the whole thing was 
blocked.

Q. Let us understand. What are you trying to say! 
The question is : Did you see anyone who couldn’t get 
by because of these people using the sidewalk!

A. I said I saw some people standing aside the side­
walk.

Mr. Bennett: I believe he can answer that question 
yes or no.

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, the witness has an­
swered every question counsel has asked him. Counsel 
asked him more questions and he said I didn’t see it, 
but I saw people standing off the sidewalk and, had 
they been trying to, there would not have been room for 
them. Now he’s got—

Mr. Bennett: Your Honor, I ’m going to object to 
the objection, because he’s testifying, he’s not—

The Court: No, he’s not. The objection is well taken. 
I think you’ve asked the question two or three times 
and gotten the same answer, so let’s proceed.

By Mr. Bennett:
Q. Mr. Hobbs, when you say “ parading without a 

permit” , are you familiar with the manner in which 
permits are issued for a parade!

A. I know you’re supposed to have a permit, I know 
that.

Mr. Bennett: Was that responsive, Your Honor!
The Court: I believe it was. If you want him to an­

swer why, ask another question.



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

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs 
By Mr. Bennett: Did you question any of these per­

sons as to whether or not they had a permit?
A. I knew they didn’t have a permit. The Chief-of- 

Poliee advised me that they didn’t have a permit, on the 
radio; said “ Turn them around.”

Q. Have you ever had occasion to arrest anyobdy 
else for parading without a permit!

A. We never had nobody parade without a permit. 
Usually they go get a permit before they—

Q. How do you know that no one else has paraded 
without a permit ?

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I object to this line of 
questioning. The question is whether these people are 
guilty or not guilty under the pending charge. However 
lax this office or the police department might have 
been, it’s just like a fellow being stopped for speeding 
and he says, well, I ’ve been following those three cars 
up there for forty miles. Why didn’t you catch them? 
Of course you know the answer you get: I got you. It’s 
not relevant, may it please the Court.

The Court: Do you intend to tie this in in some 
other way, Bennett? I can’t see the relevancy of it at 
this point, either. If I am missing something you in­
tend to tie in, I ’ll listen to you.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that there has been a 
motion presented to the Court to the effect that the 
ordinance, or the code, or the statute law under which 
these defendants are charged and which has been read 
into the record, has been challenged for constitutionali­
ty, and what I am trying to do is establish by this wit­
ness that this arrest was made under the statute and 
his interpretation of the acts as they relate to the 
statute.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

35

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

The Court: I think the interpretation is left to the 
Court, not to the arresting officer. He’s testified he was 
acting under instructions. The objection went to 
whether or not there was any relevancy as to whether 
other arrests had been made under the same ordinance.

Do you have anything in mind that I don’t see, how 
you plan to—

Mr. Bennett: Well, I am trying to establish the me­
chanics. You see, they are charged with violating an 
ordinance. What I want to determine is how would 
he know that they were violating an ordinance and how 
would he treat persons who did have a permit.

The Court: Let me assure you he doesn’t know and 
he’s not supposed to know. All that’s incumbent on an 
officer is to have reason to believe that an ordinance has 
been violated. It’s left to me, or to a jury, in cases 
where a jury is involved, to determine whether or not 
there has been a violation. That’s not a decision that 
the officer has to make.

I sustain the objection.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Your Honor.
By Mr. Bennett:
Q. Did you give any instructions at all to these stu­

dents ?
A. I helped turn them around, I assisted.
Mr. Bennett: Is that responsive, Your Honor? I 

asked him did he give any instructions at all to these 
students.

The Court: He said he turned them around. Those 
would be his instructions, to turn them around. I don’t 
see what could be more responsive than that.



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

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs

By Mr. Bennett:
Q. Did you say anything to them?
[A. I turned them around, just turned them around 

and pushed them on back.
Q. You pushed them on back?
A. I say I turned them around and told them to go 

on back.
Q. How did you go about that, Mr. Hobbs?
A. I walked alongside of them, turned them around, 

told them “ Turn around; let’s go.” I used my hand, 
said “ Turn around; go on back.” That’s it.

Q. Is that the same way you did this boy you ar­
rested?

A. I took him to the car.
Q. I mean did you put your hands on him?
A. I told him to let’s go on back.
Q. Where was this, at what place on the street ?
A. Just beyond McLeod’s Grocery, on North Main.
Q. And the only arrest you made was of this man?
A. That’s the only one I arrested.
Q. And the only reason you arrested him was be­

cause he was parading?
A. They was blocking the road, parading, and he got 

back there in front of that place and he stopped and 
would not get off the sidewalk, and I asked him two or 
three times, asked him to keep on going, and he refused 
to go. I pushed to get him to go on back and he pushed 
back at me.

Q. But the only reason you did that was because he 
was parading, to begin with?

A. Well, he wouldn’t do what I told him after I got 
the parade crowd back.

Q. He’s been charged with parading. Is that the rea­
son you arrested him?



SUPREME COURT 37
Appeal from Sumter County

D e p u t y  S h e r if f  L e slie  H obbs 
B. H . G oodsow

A. Arrested him, that’s right.
Mr. Bennett: No further questions.
Mr. Edmunds: Come down.
(Witness excused.)

Mr. B. H. G oodson, called as a witness by the City, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Mr. Goodson, you are a deputy sheriff of Sumter 

County, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were on February 15, 1961?
A. That’s right.
Q. On that date were you on duty?
,A. Yes, sir.
Q. On that day did you have occasion to go out 

North Main Street about dinner time?
A. I did.
Q. And what did you see?
A. Officer Hicks and I were in my car and we rode 

out to Weldon Station. We saw the crowd marching 
down the west side sidewalk of North Main Street.

Q. This crowd, were they colored or white ?
A. They were colored.
Q. Could you see where they were coming from?
A. As far as we could see the line—we didn’t go to 

the end of the line, but, as far as we could see the line, 
they were coming out of Morris College.

Q. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
A. They had already crossed Charlotte, East Char­

lotte, and we went down there and turned around. They



38 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

B. H . G oodson

were marching in twos and, in some instances, there 
would be three abreast. They were singing. There 
would be little gaps of twenty to thirty feet every now 
and then. We went and turned around and came back.

Q. About how many would you estimate were in the 
crowd?

A. I would say between two hundred and fifty and 
three hundred.

Q. I will ask you: whether or not they were taking 
up a portion, half, three-quarters, or all of the side­
walk.

150 A. They were taking all of the sidewalk. When we 
came back we were just driving along slow, right along­
side of them there, and, when we got back to about the 
third or fourth house south of Charlotte, Officer Hall 
and Lieutenant Dollard turned into Mrs. Martin’s 
driveway, as well as I remember, right in front of the 
crowd, after hearing the order to turn them around 
and march them back to the college. When he pulled up 
in front of them I was right behind and I just pulled 
my car right up to the curb and parked it and Officer 

i6i Hicks and I got out.
We got about the first fifty to sixty, I would 

say, and we stopped the traffic in the street and 
marched them across to the other side. After we got 
them across, where we broke off that fifty or sixty, 
that bunch just stopped right there until we got back 
across the street. When we went back to where we cut 
them off there to turn them around and start them on 
back, this Josh Prioleau refused to turn around.

Q. He was on what side of the street?
A. He was on the west side, in the long line. He 

refused to turn around and Lieutenant Dollard put 
him under arrest and he kind of bucked back against



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

39

B . H . GrOODSON
the Lieutenant and Lieutenant grabbed one arm and 
I grabbed the other arm and put it behind his back and 
I marched him to the patrol car that Officer Jimmie 
Dollard was driving—he was riding along there—and 
we put him in the car. He didn’t want to get in, he kind 
of balked when we got the door open, didn’t want to 
get in, so we helped him in.

Lieutenant Dollard said “You’d better go with him; 
looks like you’re going to have trouble with him.” So I 
jumped in the back seat with him and I grabbed him in 
the belt in the back of his trousers there and I kept 
a firm grip on him the whole time. He resented it, I 
could see.

We were in a big hurry—things were looking bad 
out there and we were in a big hurry—we got him back 
up here right quick and brought him in here and I took 
him to the desk there and the Desk Sergeant booked 
him.

We put him over in the cell after we booked him and 
drove immediately back out to the scene. When I got 
back to the scene Officer Hicks had taken my car and 
was riding along as they were marching back slow to 
the college, and he had another one of these boys in 
the back seat with him. I got in the front seat with 
him and we just followed them on back.

After we got them all back to the college, somebody 
came up in another car with one of these other three 
boys that were standing up here and asked us to take 
him with this other back to the Jail.

Mr. Bennett: Your Honor, of course, he’s turned him 
loose and he’s just narrating, but he’s testifying to 
hearsay and I think a lot of what he’s saying is ir­
relevant.



40 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

B. H. G oodson

The Court: Interpose your objection at any stage 
you are not satisfied with what his testimony is. What 
is your objection to, specifically, now?

Mr. Bennett: Well, he was saying what somebody 
else said. I think he’s quoting somebody now.

The Court: Was this statement made in the presence 
of the defendants, or any one of them?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: I think it’s competent.
Mr. Bennett: Now which defendant? He’d already 

put the man he arrested in jail.
The Court: Which defendant was it in the presence 

of?
The Witness: It. was this boy here, on the end here, 

and the one on the other side of the girl with glasses 
on. Josh Prioleau was already in jail.

The Court: Of course, I will consider it as to those 
two defendants only.

The Witness: Then another officer got in the car and 
rode back up here with us and we booked the others, 
and that was it.

Mr. Edmunds: You may examine.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Officer, did this defendant you referred to, Prio­

leau, do anything in your presence except, according to 
you. refuse to go back or get off the street, when you 
asked him to go back?

A. He refused to move.
Q. That’s what I am asking you. that he refused 

to eo back. Hid you observe him doing anything other 
than that, sir?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

41

B. H. G oodson

Q. What kind of car do you drive, sir!
A. I drive a ’60 white Galaxy Ford.
Q. Is that the type of car you were driving that you 

put this young man in?
A. No.
Q. What type of car were you driving that you put 

him in?
A. It was a ’60 Ford, green, I believe, or blue.
Q. What kind of Ford—Falcon?
A. No, it was the same size as mine; it wasn’t a 

Galaxy.
Q. Was it the property of the County?
A. It was the property of the City
Q. The property of the City, sir?
A. That’s right.
Q. And, as you have said, as you observed, the only 

thing he did was refuse to turn around and go back 
when you told him to ?

A. Until I grabbed him by the arm.
Q. Now, as to Prioleau. Now you’ve testified, I 

believe, sir, that there were gaps between the various 
groups coming down the street?

A. That’s right.
Q. Actually, there were some in twos and some in 

threes, then a gap, and then some more of them coming 
down the street like that?

A. No, that’s not exactly a true picture of it.
Q. All right, sir, what was the true picture?
A. There were three to five blocks of them. In that 

three to five blocks, I would say there were two to 
three gaps of about twenty to thirty feet.

Q. When you say “blocks” , are you talking about—
A. City blocks.



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

B. H. G oodson

i65 Q- Well, now, three to five blocks, they would be 
spread out from the stoplight to Morris College almost, 
wouldn’t they, sir?

A. From East Charlotte to Morris College.
Q. I ’m relatively new. Is East Charlotte Street the 

first stoplight coming into town from Morris College?
A. That’s right.
Q. So they were spread out a distance of from East 

Charlotte to Morris College; is that correct?
jA. That’s right.

m Q. And you said that there were, in your opinion, 
an estimated two to three hundred of them?

A. I said from two-fifty to three hundred.
Q. And they were from East Charlotte all the way 

back to Morris College?
A. That’s right.
Q. Then, of course, if that was the case, you could 

not say that they occupied the entire sidewalk, could 
you?

A. Yes, I can, the entire sidewalk.
i67 Q. They took the space from East Charlotte to the 

gates of Morris College for two or three hundred peo­
ple, sir?

A. Well, to where you turn into Morris College.
Q. Well, even to where you turn in, sir?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Finney: I believe that’s all.
Mr. Edmunds: You Can come down.
(Witness excused.)

168



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

43

W il l ie  H a l l

Mr. W il l ie  H a l l , called as a witness by the City, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Mr. Hall, are you a deputy sheriff of Sumter 

County ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been, sir?
A. Oh, about eight or nine years.
Q. How long were you with the Highway Depart­

ment before then ?
A. Oh, about the same length of time.
Q. As a highway patrolman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So some sixteen or eighteen years with the High­

way Department and the Sheriff’s office in Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the 15th day of February were you on duty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you have occasion to go out North Main 

Street?
A. I did.
Q. Had you received information that there was 

going to be some sort of march or demonstration ?
(A. Previously to it started?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I had.
Q. You were ordered out there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you got out there what did you see?
A. Well, I saw a line, in my estimation, of between 

two hundred and fifty and three hundred people, 
marching toward town on North Main.



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

W il l ie  H a l l

Q. And that was between what points?
A. I wouldn’t say exactly, but the end of that line 

was somewhere near Charlotte Avenue.
Q. How about the northern end of it?
A. Well, I couldn’t see the end of it.
Q. Did you have occasion to arrest one of these de­

fendants here?
A. I wras with Lieutenant Dollard at the time he ar­

rested Prioleau.
Q. How about Sumner?
A. No, sir.
Q. You participated in only one arrest?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Edmunds: No further questions.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Officer, you observed Prioleau coming down the 

street, the defendant Prioleau?
A. I did.
Q. Did you observe anything that he did other than 

that he did not go back when you told him to ?
A. At the time I drove my car across the line and 

Lieutenant Dollard and I got out and told them they’d 
have to turn around and, like’s already been testified 
to, most of them did, except this one boy. He bowed 
up and he grabbed Lieutenant Dollard by the arm, and 
that’s when we arrested him.

Q. Sir.
A. He grabbed Lieutenant Dollard somewhere about 

the body, his arm or—
Q. Did you hear Lieutenant Dollard testify this 

morning, sir?
A. I did.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

45

W il l ie  H a l l

Q. And did Lieutenant Dollard say that he touched 
the boy first?

A. He—
Q. Did you hear him testify to that effect?
,A. I did.
Mr. Finney: That’s all.

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. What did Prioleau do? You say he grabbed Dol­

lard around—what did you say?
A. Somewhere around the body, the shoulder.
Mr. Edmunds: That’s all.

Re-cross Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. You told me wrist, and then you said body and 

shoulder—
The Court: How’s that?
Mr. Finney: He told me wrist, and then I—
The Court: I didn’t hear him say that.
Mr. Finney: He didn’t say wrist, sir?
The Court: Arm or body.
Mr. Finney: I ’m sorry, sir, it was a mistake.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Edmunds: We will have to wait a few minutes 

for a witness now. As far as I can recollect, I haven’t 
got Sumner arrested yet.

The Court: Any objection to proceeding with wit­
nesses out of line? Would you like to start putting up 
the defense case, without any waiver of right to make 
motions ?

Mr. Edmunds: Judge, they’ll have him right here, 
I think.



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

The Court: We’ll take a three-minute recess while 
he’s getting here.

(Brief recess taken.)
The Court: The court will come to order.
During the brief recess counsel for the City and 

the defense have reached a stipulation, as follows: 
That if Officer Scarborough, of the City Police Depart­
ment, were present, he would testify that Clifford 
Grady Sumner was in the crowd which has been de­
scribed ; that he was asked to turn around and go back 
and that he failed to turn around and go back when so 
instructed by the officer.

Is that the stipulation?
Mr. Finney: That’s right.
Mr. Edmunds: One thing further, that, in view of 

that, his presence is waived and—
The Court: His presence is waived and that would 

be his testimony, were he present to testify.
Mr. Edmunds: That is the City’s case.
Mr. Finney: Your Honor, the defense would now 

like to make some motions.
We would first address to the attention of the Court 

the resisting-arrest charge against Miss Alma Gregg. 
We believe that there has been no evidence introduced 
in this case which would substantiate, by the greater 
weight—or beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe, is 
the test—any such criminal charge being maintained 
against this lady.

I believe the testimony of Lieutenant Dollard was 
to the effect that she said something to him, and that 
was the extent of it.

The Court: In view of the fact that resisting ar­
rest is the offense of obstructing, opposing or endea­
voring to prevent, with or without actual force, a 
peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duty, while



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

4 7

making an arrest, the Court feels that the testimony 
is sufficient to pass the case on at this time.

The motion for dismissal of the charge of resisting 
arrest is overruled; motion denied.

Mr. Finney: Your Honor, we would also like to make 
the same motion as to Prioleau, in view of the fact that 
the officer testified that he had touched the young man 
first and had pushed him, and there has been no evi­
dence here introduced, in our opinion, which would 
support the resisting-arrest charge.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Finney: We would at this point like to make 

motions, which I address both to the resisting-arrest 
and to the parading-without-a-permit charges in all 
the cases, if  we may, Your Honor—unless, of course, 
the City Attorney would stipulate. I think the motions 
are going to be—

The Court: On the same grounds as made in the 
initial case?

Mr. Finney: On the same grounds initially made, 
and some grounds in addition to those.

We, first of all, are challenging the factual situation, 
that it is not sufficient. Next we are challenging the 
constitutionality of the statute, under the First Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States, and of 
the Fourteenth. We are next challenging the establish­
ment of a corpus delicti and the establishment of a 
prima facie case.

If you wish, we can make all those motions. I am 
pretty certain that the City Attorney and I are aware 
of what they are going to be, but, if you wish, we will 
be happy to make them.

The Court,: Mr. Edmunds, will you stipulate the 
same motions, plus these additional grounds?



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

Mr. Edmunds: Yes, sir.
The Court: Each of the motions will be denied. 

MOTIONS
The defendants move to dismiss or, in the alterna­

tive, for a directed verdict on the ground that the evi­
dence shows conclusively that the arresting officers 
acted for the purpose of preventing these defendants, 
all Negroes, from exercising their constitutionally 
guaranteed rights solely on the basis of race or color, 
such conduct on the part of such police officials, agents 
of the State, being prohibited by the guarantees safe­
guarded to the defendants under the Due-Process and 
Equal-Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the United States Constitution, and denies 
these defendants their right of freedom of speech and 
of assembly, as guaranteed by the First Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.

Motion denied.
The defendants move to dismiss or, in the alterna­

tive, for a directed verdict on the ground that the evi­
dence shows that by this prosecution this Court is 
being used for the purpose of preventing these defend­
ants, all Negroes, from exercising their constitutionally 
guaranteed rights solely on the basis of race or color, 
any such activity on the part of this Court, an in­
strumentality of the State, being prohibited by the 
Due-Process and Equal-Protection Clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu­
tion, and denies these defendants their right of free­
dom of speech and of assembly, as guaranteed by the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Motion denied.
The defendants move to dismiss or, in the alterna­

tive, for a directed verdict upon the ground that the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

4 9

J o sh u a  P rioleau

City of Sumter has failed to establish by competent 
evidence, the corpus delicti.

Motion denied.
The defendants move to dismiss or, in the alterna­

tive, for a directed verdict on the ground that the City 
of Sumter has failed to establish, by competent evi­
dence, a prima facie case.

Motion denied.
Mr. Finney: The defense 'will call Joshua Prioleau.

Mr. J o sh u a  P rio leau , one of the defendants, being 
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

Direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. What is your name?
A. Joshua Prioleau.
Q. What do you do?
A- I am a student at Morris College.
Q. On or about February 15, 1961, were you ar­

rested?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were you doing immediately prior to the 

time of your arrest?
A. I was standing on the corner of North Main and 

College Street, underneath a vacant-store lot, on a va­
cant-store lot.

Q. This vacant store, does it have an overhanging?
A. There is an overhanging shed there.
Q. Were you standing on the street immediately 

before your arrest, on the sidewalk?
A. No, I was standing back on the pavement.



5 0 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J o sh u a  P rio leau

Q. Could you tell whether that was a part of the 
city street or sidewalk?

A. It’s not a part of the city street.
Q. What were you standing over there for?
A. One of my friends called me and said something 

to me and I had stopped to see what he said.
Q. And you were talking with him ?
A. I attempted to talk to him.
Q. What happened?
A. The officer came up behind me and asked me 

“ Boy, do you want to go to jail?” He told us not to 
stop. Before I could say anything he called a police car 
that was coming by and told me that I was under ar­
rest.

Q. How far down North Main did you walk before 
you turned around and came back?

A. About a hundred yards from Charlotte Street.
Q. You were almost to Charlotte Street when you 

were turned around by the officers and told to go back?
A. That’s correct.
Q. How far was it from the point where you turned 

around to the store that you were talking about ?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. How far was it from the point where you stopped 

going south and turned around and were going back 
north ?

A. I don’t know exactly.
Q. Was it a block, or a mile, or—
A. I ’d say about two blacks.
Q. So you started to town?
A- That’s right.
Q. The officers instructed you to turn around and 

go back?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

51

J o sh u a  P bioleau

Q. You turned around and went back?
A. That’s right.
Q. On your way back a friend of yours called you 

and you stopped and talked to him?
A. That’s right.
Q. And the officer then did what?
A. He came up behind and asked me did I want to 

go to jail and, before I could answer, he took my arm 
and called a police car that was coming.

Q. When he took your arm, what did he do with 
your arm?

A. He held my arm. He shoved me to the car and, 
as I was getting intothe car, I must have touched him. 
He told me to take my hands off him and called me a 
bastard.

Q. He called you a bastard?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did he say anything else to you?
A. No.
Q. Did he ever place you under arrest?
A. He didn’t tell me.
Q. When they brought you to the Police Station, 

what did they do?
A. Well, there was another student in the same car 

that I was in and when we got to the Police Station 
he allowed one to get out and, as I attempted to get out, 
he closed the door on my foot, told me one at a time, 
and I waited there for approximately fifteen or twenty 
minutes.

Q. You sat in the car for fifteen or twenty minutes?
A. That’s right.
Q. When you came inside what happened?



52 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J o sh u a  P rio leau

A. Well, as I attempted to come on the inside, I was 
allowed to come in first. As soon as I was in the hall 
he struck me—

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I object.
The Court: What’s the relevancy of this?
Mr. Bennett: The officer had not yet put this young 

man under arrest and, at the police desk, I think any­
thing prior to his arrest would be admissible, Your 
Honor. And at the desk, of course, he was charged 
with breach of the peace and, of course, the warrant 
now reads parading without a permit.

The Court: Of course, you realize that the City At­
torney, who prosecutes cases for the City, has a right 
to designate the charge.

Mr. Bennett: Of course, this fact that there was 
a difference of opinion gives weight or momentum to 
the idea that there may not have been even a parade, 
from the factual situation. That was the position of the 
defense, Your Honor. We realize that the City At­
torney has the right to select under what charge he 
will draw the warrant, but the evidence of the—

The Court: Mr. Edmunds, I ’m going to permit the 
questions along this line.

Mr. Edmunds: All right, sir.
By Mr. Finney:
Q. What happened?
A. As I said before, as I attempted to enter the 

building there was about seven or eight policemen at 
the entry. I was allowed to go in first and, as soon as 
I got in the door, say two yards, I was struck on the 
side of the face.

Mr. Edmunds: I object to that.
The Court: I didn’t even get the—



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

53

J o sh u a  P bio leau

Mr. Edmunds: He was saying there were seven or 
eight policemen and they struck him on the side of the 
face. What’s that got to do—

The Court: Objection sustained. This has nothing 
to do with the charge of parading without a permit. 
I assumed that you were going to use this questioning 
merely for the purpose of showing a difference of opin­
ion as to breach of peace or parading without a permit. 
Beyond that latitude, the objection will be sustained.

Mr. Edmunds: I move that it be stricken, Your 
Honor.

The Court: I so order, that it be stricken.
Mr. Finney: I will ask him individual questions, 

rather than asking him to narrate.
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Did they tell you at the desk what you were 

charged with?
A. They did not tell me what I was charged with.
Q. Did any officer ever tell you what you were 

charged with?
A. No.
Q. No officer ever told you what you were charged 

with?
A. No.
Mr. Finney: That’s all.
The Court: Let me ask you this question: When did 

you first know you were under arrest?
The Witness: Well, the policeman asked me did I 

want to go to jail and I refused to answer, so he called 
a police car and took me by my arm and I wasn’t 
going to resist arrest.

The Court: You knew out there, then, that you were 
under arrest?



54 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J o sh u a  P rio leau

The Witness: He didn’t tell me. He asked me did I 
want to go to jail.

The Court: But you knew then that you were under 
arrest, from his actions?

The Witness: I had no other choice.
The Court: You knew he was placing you under ar­

rest?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: I ’m going to order that all of the testi­

mony along these lines, as to what transpired after he 
came in, be stricken.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Prioleau, where did you come from?
A. You mean my home town?
Q. Yes.
A. Marion, South Carolina, is my home town.
Q. And what year are you out at Morris?
A. This is my first year at Morris College.
Q. You finished Lincoln High School here?
A. I finished Marion High School, Marion, South 

Carolina.
Q. Do you know what day of the week the 15th was 

on?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Did you have classes on Wednesdays?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who gave you permission to cut classes on Wed­

nesday—
Mr. Finney: Objection. Your Honor, he hasn’t estab­

lished that he cut, in the first place.
The Court: It’s cross examination. I think it’s a 

proper question on cross examination.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

5 5

J o sh u a  P rioleau

Mr. Finney: And we fail to see where it’s related 
to the charge, and it would be irrelevant and imma­
terial.

The Court: I overrule the objection.
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Did anybody give you permission to cut classes 

on Wednesday morning?
A. I didn’t cut classes.
Q. What time were you arrested?
A. Approximately one o’clock.
Q. Did you meet any classes that morning?
A. Yes, I did; I met three classes that morning.
Q. How many of you all were in the group together, 

marching or walking downtown?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Three hundred?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Four hundred?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Two hundred?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Did every student in the school take part in the 

marching ?
A. That I can’t answer; I don’t know.
Q. How many students are in the school?
A. That I don’t know.
Q. How many are in your class?
A. I have five classes.
Mr. Bennett: Your Honor, we want to raise another 

objection on that. I can’t rightfully see the relevance 
of this.

The Court: I think I see the relevancy. I am going 
to overrule the objection, subject to being tied up.



56 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J o sh u a  P rio leau

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Would you say that three-fourths of the students 

at Morris College were in this group walking or march­
ing downtown?

A. I can’t answer, because I don’t know how many 
students attend Morris College.

Q. Who told you how to march?
A. Nobody told me how to march.
Q. Who told you to march?
A. Nobody told me to march.
Q. How did you know to get in the group and march?
A. I didn’t know to get in the group and march. I 

got in the group because I wanted to.
Q. Because you wanted to?
A. That’s right.
Q. What were you doing, coming downtown?
A. We were in sympathy with the three students who 

were arrested on the day before and I was coming 
downtown—

Q. That’s right, you were all coming downtown, 
marching down the sidewalk, in protest of the arrests 
that happened the day before, weren’t you?

A. I can’t speak for the rest; I ’m speaking for my­
self.

Q. Well, how about yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s what you were doing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you got somewhere close to Charlotte Ave­

nue before the group which you were in was turned 
back by the police and told to go back to the college; 
is that right?

A. That’s right.



SUPREME COURT 5 7

Appeal from Sumter County___________

J o sh u a  P rio leau

Q. And you say you were on store property and 
not on the City’s. Of course, you don’t know where the 
line comes there, do you, the property-line?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. And this man who was talking to you, had he 

been in the group, too, marching toward town?
A. No, he hadn’t, I don’t think. I didn’t see him in 

the group.
Q. Didn’t the police come up to you and say “Keep 

going; don’t stop, unless you want to go to jail” , or 
words to that effect?

A. He didn’t tell me, personally. I heard him tell 
those students.

Q. Didn’t he tell you that?
A. He asked me did I want to go to jail.
Q. Didn’t he tell you to keep going toward Morris 

College?
A. He didn’t give me a chance to.
Q. And, had you gone on after you heard him, he 

wouldn’t have arrested you, would he?
A. That I don’t know.
Q. Well, they didn’t arrest anybody else around you 

that was marching toward the school, did they?
A. I don’t know.
Q. But you did not answer him, did you?
A. I did not.
Q. And you didn’t move, did you?
A. He didn’t give me a chance to move.
Q. Would you have moved if he had given you a 

chance ?
A. I attempted to.
Q. Where were you going downtown?
A. I was just going downtown.



58 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J oshtja P rioleatt

Q. When you were marching down the street were 
you singing?

A. I wasn’t singing.
Q. Were the people around you singing?
A. I didn’t hear anybody singing.
Q. Were they chanting?
A. I didn’t hear anybody chanting.
Q. Did you have a Bible under your arm?
A. No.
Q. What did you have under your arm?
A. I didn’t have anything under my arm.
Q. No books?
A. I had no class at that time.
Q. How long did it take the group to form up there 

on the campus after you became a member of the 
group—thirty minutes?

A. That I don’t know. I don’t know how long.
Q. Why don’t you know?
A. Because I wasn’t out there.
Mr. Bennett: Your Honor, he’s asking a question 

he doesn’t know.
The Court: I think this is something that’s proper 

on cross examination. He said he was there. The an­
swer would be he didn’t know because he wasn’t there 
the whole time, or he didn’t have his watch.

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I didn’t ask him how 
long it took the group to form. I asked him how long 
it took the group to form after he, himself, became a 
part of the group.

The Court: That’s something he should know and 
be able to estimate the time. He’s not asking for an 
accurate answer to the tenth of a second.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

5 9

J o sh u a  P rio leau

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Was it thirty minutes or an hour?
A. That I don’t know; I can’t answer that.
Q. But you were out there in a number that you 

can’t give any estimate of for some considerable time; 
is that right?

A. That’s right.
The Court: Let me ask you could it have been as long 

as two hours ?
The Witness: No, it couldn’t have been as long as 

two hours.
The Court: Could it have been as long as an hour 

and a half ?
The Witness: No, sir, because I was in class before.
The Court: It couldn’t have been as long as an hour 

and a half ?
The Witness: I don’t know the time.
The Court: Could it have been that long?
The Witness: Yes, it could have been, but I don’t 

know whether it was or not.
The Court: It could have been an hour and a half?
The Witness: It could have been.
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. When was it that you knew that a considerable 

number—if you will go that far with me—were going 
to march down street in protest of the arrests of the 
previous day; when did you first know that?

A. About ten minutes before they left the campus.
Q. Then I take it that you weren’t out there in the 

group for over ten minutes ?
A. I told you I wasn’t.
Q. What?
A. I was not.



60 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J o sh u a  P bio leau

Q. Your recollection is just coming back to you? A 
while ago you couldn’t tell me how long you had been 
out there?

A. You asked me how long—
Q. Now you say it’s less than ten minutes?
A. You asked me how long was it the group had 

formed.
The Court: The question he asked you twice was 

how long were you there while the group was forming. 
You obviously misunderstood the question.

Mr. Edmunds: I think that’s all.
The Court: Let me ask you one or two questions. 

Do you know Alma Gregg, who teaches out there?
The Witness: I know Miss Gregg.
The Court: Did you see her on that day?
The Witness: Yes, I saw her on that day.
The Court: Where was she?
The Witness: She was going toward town.
The Court: Was she there for the ten minutes prior 

to the formation of the group, while you were there?
The Witness: That was the first time that day that 

I had seen Miss Gregg.
The Court: When she was going toward town?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: When you were going toward town?
The Witness: I was going back then, Your Honor, 

We were turned around and I was going back toward 
the campus and I met Miss Gregg as she was going 
on to town.

The Court: You had not seen her prior to that time 
in the group at all?

The Witness: Not that day.
The Court: That’s all.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

61

J o sh u a  P rioleau  
B e t t y  R ichardson

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. I ask you did you witness the arrest of Miss 

Gregg?
A. No, I didn’t see her arrest.
Q. Where were you in the group; were you in the 

front of the group, near the front of the group as they 
came down, or were you near the hack?

A. I was near the back.
The Court: Let me ask one question. Did Alma 

Gregg say anything to you that day as she was going 
toward town and you were going hack to the college?

The Witness: No, she didn’t.
The Court: Did you hear her say anything to any­

body else?
The Witness: No, I didn’t.
(Witness excused.)

B e t t y  R ich ar d so n , ca lled  as a  w itn ess b y  the de­
fen d an ts, b ein g  first  d u ly  sw orn, w as exam in ed and  
testified  as fo l lo w s :

Direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Your name is Betty Richardson?
A. Betty Jean.
Q. Do you go to Morris College?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you in the group that was coming into the 

city of Sumter on or about February 15, 1961?
A. Yes, I was.



62 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

B e t t y  R ich ardson

Q. What was your approximate position; were you 
in the front of the group or were you in the back of 
the group?

A. I was at the rear.
Q. Do you know Miss Alma Gregg, who teaches at 

Morris College?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Miss Gregg on this day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you see Miss Gregg?
A. I saw her—I went to the ladies’ dorm after 

chapel, and then I came back and came up to the line, 
and when I was coming back after we had turned 
around I saw Miss Gregg. She was meeting me as I 
was going hack.

Q. After you had been turned around?
A. Yes.
Q. When you were on your way into town did you 

see Miss Gregg?
A. I only saw her after I left campus. I left her on 

campus, because I was at the rear of the line.
Q. You were in the rear of the line and you left her 

on the campus?
A. Yes.
Q. On your way to town did you see her again, be­

fore you were turned around?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. The only time you saw her was when you were 

on your way back?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Miss Gregg speak to you or say anything to 

you when you passed her?
A. Well, I don’t think she knows me personally.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

63

B e t t y  R ich ardson  
J a m es  W est

Q. She did not say anything to you!
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear her say anything to anybody else! 
A. I think she spoke—
Q. Don’t tell me what you think. If you heard her— 
A. No, I didn’t.
Mr. Finney: Your witness.
Mr. Edmunds: No questions.
(Witness excused.)

250

J a m es  W e st , called as a witness by the defendants, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Do you go to school at Morris College!
A. I do.
Q. Were you a member of the group that was on its 

way into the city of Sumter on February 15, 1961!
A. I was.
Q. Were you in the front, hack, middle, or where 

were you!
A. I was near the front.
Q. Do you know Miss Alma Gregg?
A. I do.
Q. Did you witness Miss Gregg’s arrest?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you see?
A. I saw two officers handling her, carrying her to 

the right-hand side of the automobile.
Q. How were they carrying her?

262



64 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

2C3

254

255

266

J a m es  W est

A. One had her in her hair and the other had her by 
the arm.

Q. Did you see any other officers come up?
A. Yes, after she got around on the right-hand side 

of the car a heavy-set officer pushed her in the car.
Q. Where did he push her?
Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I object to this. The 

defendant’s being tried for resisting arrest. The wit­
ness could, if he was in a position to see it and did see 
it from the very inception, could testify as to the lack 
of any visible movements of resistance, but he’s not 
so testifying; he’s testifying when they were taking 
her to the car. That’s subsequent to the initial arrest. 
I mean we’re not trying a case here for—

The Court: No, sir. I realize that, but I believe it’s 
all tied in with the arrest and it’s already in the rec­
ord, Lieutenant Dollard’s testimony as to how she was 
placed in the car, and I ’m going to permit the question.

Mr. Edmunds: All right, sir.
By Mr. Finney:
Q. You say a third officer came up, sir?
A. Yes, sir, a plainclothesman, or officer.
Q. What did you see him do!
A. He pressed up against the middle section of her 

body and pushed her in the car.
Q. What type of car was that; do you know?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Did you see Miss Gregg as you were coming to­

ward town?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you see the officer approaching Miss Gregg 

or immediately before he got to Miss Gregg?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

65

J am es  W est

Q. Did you see Miss Gregg going down with the 
group of you?

A. No.
Q. And you were in the front of that group?
A. I was near the front.
Mr. Finney: That’s all.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Do I understand that you don’t know whether 

the defendant—I believe her name is Alma Gregg; 
you can call her Miss Gregg, if you choose; that’s your 
privilege—was marching with the group or not—you 
don’t know; you didn’t see her and you can’t tell 
whether she was or not, can you ?

A. No.
Q. And, when you saw the officers putting her in the 

car, approximately how far were you away from her 
-—half a block?

A. I ’d say I was about ten yards from the car.
Q. Were you able to hear any conversation between 

any of the officers and Alma Gregg?
A. No, sir.
Q. So you don’t know what transpired as to conver­

sation ?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Edmunds: I think that’s all.

Re-direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. Did you see Miss Gregg do anything?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see anything fall on the ground?
A. No. I saw a young man go out into the street and 

pick up an object; I didn’t know what it was.



66 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

J am es  W est  
E va  A l l e n

Q. You didn’t know what it was or where it came 
from?

A. No, sir.
Mr. Finney: That’s all.

Re-cross Examination 
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Where are you from?
A. Morris College.
Q. Where were you before that?
A. I ’m from Cornelius, Georgia.
Mr. Edmunds: All right.
(Witness excused.)

E va  A l l e n , ca lled  as a  w itn ess  b y  the defen dan ts, 
bein g first d u ly  sw orn , w as exam in ed  and testified  as 
fo llo w s :

Direct Examination 
By Mr. Finney:
Q. What is your name?
A. My name is Eva Allen.
Q. Do you go to Morris College?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Were you with the group of students that were 

coming into town on or about February 16, 1961?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Where were you?
A. I was, I ’ll say, in the middle.
Q. You were approximately in the middle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Miss Alma Gregg?
A. YTes, I do.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

67

E va  A l l e n

Q. Did you see Miss Gregg when she was taken into 
custody by the officers'?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you see Miss Gregg doing immediately 

before—tell the Court exactly what happened, or you 
saw happen ?

A. Well, after being turned around and going back 
toward the campus, I saw Miss Gregg coming in the 
opposite direction, going south toward town, and I 
saw two officers go up to her on the sidewalk and say 
something to her and then she turned around and 
started back toward the campus. Then they left the 
sidewalk and went down on the curbing and they had 
sort of a conversation between each other. Then they 
went back on the sidewalk where she was and then they 
grabbed her. Then I was being shoved and I couldn’t 
see any more.

Q. When they grabbed her, where did they grab her!
A. By the arm.
Q. One on each side, by the arm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Miss Gregg do anything!
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. And the first thing you saw was the officers grab 

Miss Gregg very roughly?
A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Finney: That’s all.
Mr. Edmunds: I move that the words “very roughly” 

be stricken, Your Honor. Counsel is testifying, which 
he is not allowed to do.

The Court: It was a leading question.



68 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

E va  A l l e n

3sa Mr. Finney: Your Honor, I believe the witness had 
already testified that the officers grabbed her very 
roughly.

The Court: Motion granted.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Were you near enough to hear any conversa­

tion?
A. I was too far to hear any conversation, but I was 

close enough to see.
m Q. You don’t know what Alma Gregg was doing 

prior to the time you saw her?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You don’t know whether or not she had been in 

the group?
A. If she had been in the group she would have been 

going back toward the college, and she was going to­
ward town.

Q. Suppose she had been marching with the crowd 
and then refused to turn around and go back?

Mr. Bennett: I object to that.
The Court: It’s cross examination. I think the ques­

tion is proper. Proceed.
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. You say you don’t know what she was doing, but 

then you draw a conclusion that, since she was walk­
ing that way, she must not have been. My question to 
you was could not she have been walking with the 
crowd and then refused to turn around and kept walk- 

„„ ing south toward downtown ?
A. I don’t understand you.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

69

E va  A l l e n  
A l m a  G regg

Q. You are supposing, aren’t you, that she wasn’t 
in the crowd; you don’t know whether she was or not, 
do you?

A. I don’t know whether—I will say this: She 
couldn’t have been in the group and going toward 
town; if she was in the group, I believe she would have 
been going the other way.

The Court: Don’t make your answers based on what 
you believe, but on what you know. Answer on that 
basis.

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, I think she’s got me. 
I ’m going to give up.

(Witness excused.)

A l m a  G regg, one o f  the defen dan ts, b ein g  first duly 
sw orn , w as exam in ed  an d  testified  as fo llo w s :

Direct Examination
By Mr. Finney:
Q. State your name, please?
A. Miss Alma Gregg.
Q. Do you work in the city of Sumter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What do you do?
A. Instructor of Music, Morris College.
Q. On or about February 15, 1961, were you walking 

south on North Main Street in the city of Sumter?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Was there a group of students from Morris Col­

lege walking on the same street, in front of you?
A. There were a group of students meeting me as 

I was going south.



7 0 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

A l m a  G regg

Q. They were going north?
277 A. Yes.

Q. You have heard the testimony here today, have 
you not?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. These students have testified to the effect that 

they were coming downtown, some of them, because 
they were in sympathy with some students that were 
arrested. You heard their testimony?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you coming into the city of Sumter as a

278 part of that group?
A. No.
Q. Were you coming into town with the group of 

students from Morris College?
A. No, I wasn’t.
Q. Were you coming into town on private business 

of your own?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you taking part in any sympathy-walk; 

were you coming in town for any part in the demon-
2,9 stration at all?

A. No. I had business at the bank.
Q. What happened to you while you were walking 

down the street?
A. As I was walking down the street, one policeman 

in a car said to me “Where are you going?” I said “ I 
have to go downtown to the bank.” He said “Well, 
then, all right, go on, but don’t obstruct traffic.”

Q. One policeman stopped you?
A. Yes, sir, riding in a car.
Q. Do you know who that policeman was?
A. No, sir, I don’t.

280



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

71

A l m a  G regg

Q. You told him you had to go into town on busi­
ness?

A. Yes. He said “Well, go ahead, but don’t obstruct 
the sidewalk.”

Q. All right, what happened then?
A. I walked on, and then another policeman, a plain- 

clothesman, stopped me, and he said “Where are you 
going?” I told him I had to go downtown to the bank. 
He said “ Turn around and go on back.” I told him I 
had to make a trip to the bank and, as I began to make 
a turn, he called a Ford car and then, all of a sudden— 
it happened so suddenly—this plainclothesman—I be­
lieve it was Lieutenant Dollard—grabbed me by my 
hair and twisted my neck and another policeman came 
to my side, so there must have been three. They had 
me jerked in the air and all I could feel was this pull­
ing of my hair, and then they took me over to the squad 
car and threw me in.

Q. Did Lieutenant Dollard or any other policeman 
that made the arrest ask you were you a part of the 
group that they had just turned around?

A. No.
Q. They made no effort to ascertain why you were 

going to town?
A. No.
Q. Did you in any way resist or try to prevent them 

from putting you in the automobile freely?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. If there was any shifting of weight on your part, 

what caused it?
A. Being pulled by the hair, having my neck twisted.
Q. Were you in balance, or was your equilibrium 

up?



72
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

SUPREME COURT

A l m a  G regg

A. It couldn’t have been, because I was up in the 
air.

Q. I show you this collar. Does this belong to you?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Did you have it on the day of February 15, 1961?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Examine it. You are sure this is yours?
A. This is mine.
Mr. Finney: The defense would like to offer it in 

evidence, Your Honor.
286 The Court: Any objection?

Mr. Edmunds: No objection.
The Court: I assume you want permission to with­

draw it ?
Mr. Finney: Yes, sir, at the conclusion.
(The article referred to was received in evidence as 

an exhibit for the defense.)
By Mr. Finney:
Q. What happened to this collar?
A. When I came down to the Jail, I discovered—I 

187 was in the cell and I felt for my collar. Of course, no­
body likes to lose a mink collar, and I got very, very 
upset because the collar was gone, had been knocked 
off. Also, on the way down to the Jail I felt that my 
pearl earring had been knocked off, too, my pearl ear­
ring that had been my mother’s.

Q. How was this collar attached to whatever else 
you were wearing?

A. Sewed onto my coat.
Mr. Finney: You may examine her.

288



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

73

A l m a  G regg 

Cross Examination
By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. Did you tell one or more of the officers, when 

they asked you to turn around and go back toward the 
college, that you would go where you damned pleased?

A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Had you been marching with that group?
A. No, sir.
Q. I gather you must at least have been bringing 

up the rear of the group, to have been where you were; 
is that right?

A. That might be.
Q. I mean, if you weren’t walking with them, in 

spirit, so to speak, you were right behind them, in 
point of time?

A. Well, they were meeting me while I was going 
downtown; I met them as I walked downtown.

Q. You were going to the bank?
A. Yes, sir. I had to make a trip to the bank because 

my father was coming to Sumter and I needed to get 
the money for him, so it was an emergency trip.

Q. Had you called the bank, by any chance, to have 
special service?

A. No, sir, that wasn’t necessary.
Q. This was on a Wednesday, was it not?
A. That’s right.
Q. What bank were you going to ?
A. Central National Bank.
Q. Where is that?
A. On North Main Street.
Q. Central National Bank?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Weren’t you arrested at 1:40 p. m.?



7 4 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

A l m a  G regg

A. No, sir.
293 "Q. When were you—

A. It was 12:40.
Q. Who was that testified for you a while ago; who 

was the last witness on the stand who testified for you?
Mr. Bennett: Your Honor, I object to that. I think 

the record will show that.
The Court: I think he would be entitled to ask who 

it was.
Mr. Edmunds: Who was it?
Mr. Finney: I think that was Rayon.

W4 By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. If I ’m not mistaken, didn’t you hear him testify 

that he was arrested at 1:30—you have been here all 
day, haven’t you?

A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. I don’t know anything about that.
Q. Did you tell any of the officers before they ar­

rested you that they’d better have plenty of ammuni­
tion?

295 A. No.
Q. This bank you were going to, is it down on South 

Main or is it on North Main?
A. The National, Sumter National Bank, the mod­

ern structure.
The Court: Do you do banking business there at the 

bank all the time?
The Witness Yes, I do.
The Court: Well, is it Central National Bank, or 

what?
296 The Witness: Well, just a minute, I have my check 

book here. The National Bank of South Carolina.



SUPREME COURT 75
Appeal from Sumter County 

A l m a  G regg

By Mr. Edmunds:
Q. How long does it take you to walk from Morris 

College down to that bank?
A. Usually I can do it in about eighteen minutes, 

walking at a fast pace.
Q. Did you stop and talk to a lot of people in this 

crowd who were marching back toward Morris Col­
lege?

A. I know most of the students and, in passing, just 
greeting, that’s all.

Q. Did you stop and talk with them?
A. No, I did not.
Q. None of them?
A. No.
Q. What time does the bank close on Wednesday?
A. One o’clock.
Q. Did you have any classes that morning?
A. Yes, I had some classes that morning.
Q. What time?
A. Well, from eleven until twelve, from ten to eleven 

and eleven to twelve, and I had to make the trip down 
between that time.

Q. You mean after twelve?
A. That’s right.
Q. But, according to your recollection, you weren’t 

arrested until 12:40, instead of 1:40?
A. That’s right, it was 12:40, not 1 :40.
Q. When they told you to turn around and go the 

other way, what did you tell them?
A. I told the policeman I had to go downtown to the 

bank.
Q. And what did he say?
A. He said “Turn around and go on back.”
Q. And what did you say?

MO



76 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

A l m a  G regg

A. I made a turn towards going back and the next 
tiling I knew a policeman’s car was called there.

Mr. Edmunds: I don’t think there’s anything else.
The Court: You say you walked all the way through 

that crowd?
The Witness: I was in the process of going.
The Court: How large would you estimate the crowd 

to have been?
The Witness: I couldn’t tell, because I didn’t see all 

the crowd.
The Court: How much of the crowd did you walk

80J through; did you walk through as much as half of it?
The Witness: No.
The Court: What part of it did you walk through— 

a third of it?
The Witness: It might have been. I don’t know. I 

didn’t have a chance to think about it, because I was 
in such a hurry.

The Court: How many people did you walk through, 
approximately?

The Witness: I can’t state that.
»3 The Court: How many students are enrolled in Mor­

ris College—you are on the Faculty, I believe?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: How many students are enrolled there?
The Witness: From three hundred and fifty to four 

hundred students.
The Court: Would you say there was as much as 

three-fourths of the student body?
The Witness: No, I couldn’t say that.
The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)

104 Mr. Finney: That’s the defense case, Your Honor.
The Court: Anything in reply?



Appeal from Sumter County

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, that is the City’s case. 
No reply.

The Court: Any motions?
Mr. Finney: Yes, sir. We, of course, renew our mo­

tions now, with impetus, that the Court has had the 
opportunity to view the witnesses.

Let us point out that, in the instance of Miss Gregg, 
who, of course, is a faculty member, there has been no 
evidence introduced in this court by which I think the 
Court could find beyond a reasonable doubt that she 
was a part of any group. The officers themselves tes­
tified that they didn’t know; that she was coming to­
ward town and the group was going back; that she 
spoke to the group but they didn’t know why she spoke 
or what she said.

Your Honor, we urge you to kindly consider that in 
your deliberation on that.

The Court: As I understand it, it is stipulated that 
all previous motions which have been made are now—

Mr. Finney: Now made, that is correct, sir, the First 
Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, South Carolina 
Constitution.

The Court: The motions are all denied.
However, I am of the opinion that, as far as parad­

ing without a permit relates to Alma Gregg, there is 
insufficient evidence for a conviction, though there cer­
tainly is sufficient evidence in the matter to have gone 
this far. I must, of course, be convinced beyond a rea­
sonable doubt that she was actually parading with the 
students without a permit, and I intend to see that 
everybody who comes into this court gets a fair trial 
and, at the present time, my feeling is that I am not 
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on this score.

SUPREME COURT 77



78 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.___________

Mr. Edmunds: Your Honor, is that just for the pa­
rading, or for the resisting arrest?

*°* The Court: For the parading only. I intend to have 
a few words to say about resisting arrest in a moment.

Mr. Edmunds: Of course, I ’m not unmindful of the 
fact that it was almost a physical impossibility for her 
to get to the bank, even under her testimony, but, at 
the same time, I am wondering, if a jury was sitting 
here, under the testimony of the City’s and hers, 
whether Your Honor would not have to grant the mo­
tion for a directed verdict, as to the parading, sir.

The Court: I think, were a jury sitting here, in all 
110 probability, there is sufficient testimony for me to sub­

mit it to a jury, but, since I become the jury, I can’t 
say that I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, as 
far as the parading is concerned.

Here is what I will do :
In the case of City of Sumter v. Clifford Sumner, I 

find him guilty of parading without a permit and im­
pose a fine of one hundred dollars or thirty days-.

In the case of the City of Sumter v. David Rayon, 
Jr., I find him guilty of parading without a permit and 

an impose a fine of one hundred dollars or thirty days.
In the ease of the City of Sumter v. Joshua Prioleau, 

I find him guilty of parading without a permit and of 
resisting arrest and impose a fine of two hundred dol­
lars or sixty days.

In the case of City v. Alma Gregg, as I understand 
the case law in this state, an officer, to make an arrest, 
need only have reasonable belief, need only have rea­
sonable knowledge or belief that a law has been vio­
lated to entitle him to make the arrest. The officers 
were quite right and proper and acting within their 

812 authority in making the arrest. They had a prima facie 
case, in my opinion, when this defendant refused to go



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

79

back when they told her to go back, when she was 
coming forward. She was in the group and they pre­
sumed that she was parading with the group.

When we get to court, the officers quite fearlessly 
and truthfully testify only to the facts as they found 
them at the scene of the event. They testified that she 
was coming forward, they didn’t know, couldn’t say 
for certain, that she was with the group. They testi­
fied that she told them she wanted to go to the bank.

In view of this, I cannot say that I am convinced 
beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty of parad­
ing without a permit, but, once an officer has a prima 
facie case made out for him, once he is reasonably con­
vinced that a misdemeanor has been committed in his 
presence, as it would have been in this case, as he 
thought it was in this case, he then has the right to 
arrest.

A defendant, even though he is ultimately found not 
guilty, has no right to resist this arrest. The arrest is 
lawful as long as reasonable grounds to believe the 
ordinance has been violated were prevalent. I find that 
they were prevalent in this case. The ordinance, in my 
opinion, cannot be said to have been violated, by tes­
timony that convinces me of its violation beyond a 
reasonable doubt, as I have said several times, and so, 
for this reason, I find her not guilty of parading with­
out a permit, but guilty of resisting the lawful arrest 
after she had been informed that she was to turn back 
and failed and refused to do so. I fine her one hun­
dred dollars or thirty days.

Mr. Finney: Your Honor, we renew our motions for 
arrest of judgment, or in the alternative, for a new 
trial. I think the City Attorney has stipulated that 
those motions are made.



80 SUPREME COURT
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

We would like to make the additional motion. We 
realize that there is case law to the effect of Your 
Honor’s ruling, hut we would like to note an exception 
here, that we feel that a motion to the effect that if 
the arrest, itself, were illegal, or proved later to be 
illegal, then, on the resisting arrest charge, there 
should be also a directed verdict of acquittal.

The Court: That is not the law in South Carolina. 
The motion is denied.

I meant to get this statement in the record, too:
The Court takes notice of the fact that there were 

31g at least scores, if not hundreds, of people participat­
ing in this parade, as I have found it to be. It is the 
opinion of this Court that the violation occurred by 
those participating and the officers had the right to 
arrest everyone participating, but they exercised 
sound judgment in trying to turn it around and keep 
it from causing any further disturbance, and they ar­
rested only those who apparently violated the orders 
to turn back, but the Court announces that they had 
the right to arrest everyone they could identify as 
having participated, whether they refused to turn 

,ls around when ordered or not.

MOTIONS
As stipulated, the defendants, and each of them, 

move for arrest of judgment or, in the alternative, for 
a new trial upon each and all of the grounds set forth 
in each and all of the motions heretofore made and 
set out in the record, prior to the entering of the plea, 
at the ihse of the City's evidence, and at the close of 
all the evidence.

S3
The motions axe each and all denied.



SUPREME COURT 81
Appeal from Sumter County

The defendants, and each of them, give oral notice 
of appeal.

(Thereupon, the trial was concluded.)

ORDER
The defendants were convicted in the municipal 

court of the City of Sumter, South Carolina, for “pa­
rading without a permit” in violation of the following 
ordinance:

“ It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or 
corporation to solicit or to distribute literature 
of any kind or to use a loud-speaker upon any 
public way, walkway, alley or street in the City of 
Sumter or to hold a parade upon any of the afore­
said places, unless such person, firm or corpora­
tion shall have first obtained from the City Clerk 
and Treasurer of the City of Sumter a written 
permit so to do. Any person violating any of the 
provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, 
be fined not more than one hundred dollars or im­
prisoned not exceeding thirty days, and each sep­
arate violation of this ordinance shall constitute 
separate offense.”

Each of the defendants was sentenced to pay a fine of 
one hundred dollars ($100.00) or imprisonment for 
thirty days except the defendant, Alma Gregg, who 
was also convicted of resisting arrest and fined an ad­
ditional one hundred dollars ($100.00) or thirty days 
imprisonment. They appealed to this Court.

It is admitted that none of the defendants made any 
attempt to obtain a permit; however the constitution­
ality of the ordinance is properly challenged. (Lovell 
v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444.) The numerous exceptions 
raise several issues, the first being whether there was



82 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

error in not granting the motion to dismiss and/or 
quash the warrant upon the grounds that the ordinance 
is unconstitutional on its face in that it denies these 
defendants their rights of freedom of speech and as­
sembly guaranteed by section four of Article One of 
the Constitution of South Carolina, and the right of 
freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the 
first amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States which is protected by the due process clause of 
the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States against invasion by state or municipal 
action and that it is unconstitutional and invalid and 
that it fixes no standard or guide for the granting or 
denial of a permit and leaves the matter to the abso­
lute unregulated and undefined discretion of an ad­
ministrative or public body.

In construing this ordinance it will be presumed that 
the city of Sumter had in mind a constitutional rather 
than an unconstitutional purpose. (City of Darlington 
v. Stanley et al., 239 S. C. 139, 122 S. E. (2d) 207.)

The right to parade upon a street or other highway 
in a peaceable manner and for a lawful purpose is re­
garded as among the fundamental rights of citizens. 
(25 Am. Jur. 489, 40 A. L. R. 945.) However, the right 
to parade is not an absolute one, but is one subject to 
regulation and limitation.

Our Courts have held that:
“ The principle of the first amendment is not to 

be treated as a promise that everyone with opin­
ions or beliefs to express may gather around him 
at any public place and at any time a group for 
discussion or instruction.” (30 A. L. R. (2d) 987.)

“ Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitu­
tion, imply the existence of an organized society 
maintaining public order without which liberty it-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

83

self would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained 
abuses. The authority of a municipality to impose 
regulations in order to assure the safety and con­
venience of the people in the use of public high­
ways has never been regarded as inconsistent with 
civil liberties but rather as one of the means of 
safeguarding the good order upon which they ulti­
mately depend. The control of travel on the streets 
of cities is the most familiar illustration of this 
recognition of social need. Where a restriction of 
the use of highways in that relation is designed 
to promote the public convenience in the interest 
of all, it cannot be disregarded by the attempted 380 
exercise of some civil right which in other circum­
stances would be entitled to protection. * * * As 
regulation of the use of the streets for parades 
and processions is a traditional exercise of con­
trol by local government, the question in a partic­
ular case is whether that control is exerted so as 
not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of 
assembly and the opportunities for the communi­
cation of thought and the discussion of public 
questions immemorially associated with resort to 33! 
public places.” (City of Darlington v. Sta/nley,
Cox v. State of N. H.r 312 U. S. 569, 85 L. Ed. 
1049.)

Our Courts have held, however, that a statute or 
ordinance which in effect reposes absolute, unregu­
lated and undefined discretion in an administrative or 
public body, is unconstitutional and void. The Court 
held void an ordinance prohibiting all parades or pro- 
ceessions upon the streets of a city until a permit 
should be obtained from the superintendent of police m 
specifying the route, etc., inasmuch as it left the whole 
matter to the discretion or caprice of the superintend-



8 4 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

ent of police who thereby had power to prohibit all 
processions, the Court said:

“It is subservient of the liberty of a citizen and 
outside of the domain of the law that authority so 
arbitrary should be lodged in one individual.” 
(Chicago v. Rotter, 136 111. 430, 26 N. E. 359.)

The Court held that an ordinance vesting the power 
arbitrarily in the Mayor to grant or refuse permission 
to any association or person combined for legal and 
meritorious purposes to parade the streets with music 
was unreasonable and void. (Anderson v. Wellington, 
40 Kan. 173.)

An ordinance prohibiting parades upon the streets 
of a city with music, instruments, banners and flags 
while singing and shouting, without first having ob­
tained the consent of the Mayor or common council, 
was held unreasonable because it suppressed what was, 
in general, perfectly lawful, and because it left the 
power of permitting or restraining processions and 
their courses to the unregulated official discretion; 
when the whole matter, if regulated at all, must be by 
permanent legal provisions operating generally and 
impartially. (In Re Frazee, 63 Mich. 396, 30 N. W. 
728.)

An ordinance prohibiting parades unless permission 
was obtained from city officials was held invalid as 
conferring power on a city official arbitrary to sur­
passing lawful action. The Court said:

“ The people do not hold rights as important and 
well settled as the right to assemble and have pub­
lic parades and processions with music and ban­
ners and shouting and songs in support of any 
laudable or lawful cause, subject to the power of 
any public official to interdict or prevent them.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

85

Our government is a government of laws and not 
of men, and these principles well established by 
the courts under the fourteenth amendments of 
the constitution of the United States, have become 
a part of the supreme law of the land so that no 
officer, body or lawful authority can deny to any 
person the equal protection of the laws.” (State 
ex rel Garrabad v. Derring, 84 Wise. 585, 54 N. 
W. 1104.)

Our Supreme Court relying upon this case in Schloss 
Poster Advertising Company v. City of Rock Hill, 190 
S. C. 92, 2 S. E. (2d) 392, stated the rule of law in these 
words:

“ It seems to us clear upon authority and reason 
that if an ordinance is passed by a municipal cor­
poration, which upon its face restricts the right or 
dominion which the individual might otherwise 
exercise over his property without question, not 
according to any general or uniform rule, but so 
as to make the due enjoyment of his own depend 
upon the arbitrary will of the governing authori­
ties of the town or city, it is unconstitutional and 
void, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of 
action and leaves the right of property subject to 
the despotic will of the city authorities who may 
exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privi­
leges to particular persons.”

While the Court is speaking here of guaranteed prop­
erty rights under the Constitution, there is no sound 
or valid reason why the same rule should not apply to 
constitutional guaranteed personal freedom of a citi­
zen of South Carolina and the United States.

Our Supreme Court held in Anderson v. City of 
Greenwood, 172 S. C. 16, 172 S. C. 16, 172 S. E. 689,



City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

that an ordinance, which required a building permit 
for all buildings within two hundred feet of any rail-

841 road crossing be obtained from the city, was uncon­
stitutional and void as being unreasonable.

Recently in the case of S. C. State Highway Depart­
ment v. Harbin, 226 S. C. 585, 86 S. E. (2d) 466, our 
Court held that a statute of the state legislature au­
thorizing the Highway Department to suspend or re­
voke a motor vehicle driver’s license for cause satis­
factory to it, was unconstitutional delegation of legis­
lative power, and stated that the right to drive an au­
tomobile may not be left to the arbitrary and uncon-

842 stitutional discretion of the Highway Department, 
discretion of the Highway Department, quoting with 
approval Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S. E. 
579. So the rule as adopted in this state as elsewhere 
is that a statute or ordinance which in effect reposes 
an absolute, unregulated and undefined discretion in 
an administrative or public body, will not be upheld. 
(City of Darlington v. Stanley et al., supra.)

The City of Sumter to sustain the constitutionality 
of this ordinance relies upon the above cited case of

343 City of Darlington v. Stanley and Cox et al. v. State 
of Neiv Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 85 L. Ed. 1045; how­
ever in the Darlington ordinance there was a provision 
that the application should contain the time of the pro­
posed parade, the streets to be used, the number of 
persons or vehicles to be engaged and the purpose of 
such parade or procession and that the mayor or city 
should in its discretion issue such permit subject to 
the public convenience and public welfare. Likewise 
the New Hampshire ordinance provided that the ap­
plication should be in writing and should specify the

344 day and the hour of the permit to perform or exhibit 
of such parade, procession or open-air public meeting.

86 SUPREME COURT _____________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

87

The Supreme Court of the United States in approving 
the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision stated 
that the delegated duty to the licensed authority was 
only “with regard to a consideration of time, place and 
manner so as to conserve the public convenience”. Fur­
ther the Court adopted the New Hampshire Supreme 
Court’s decision as limiting the extent of the act “ to 
organized formations of persons using the highways” , 
and also adopted the New Hampshire finding that the 
licensing board was not vested with arbitrary power 
or an unfettered discretion, that its discretion must be 
exercised with “uniformity of method of treatment 
upon the facts of each application, free from improper 
and inappropriate consideration and from unfair dis­
crimination.” The Court adopted further that a “ sys­
tematic, consistent and just order of treatment with 
reference to the convenience of public use of the High­
way is the statutory mandate” ; further that these de­
fendants “had a right under the act to a license to 
march when, where and as they would, if after a re­
quired investigation it was found that the convenience 
of the public in the use of the streets would not there­
by be unduly disturbed upon such condition on which 
in time, place and manner as would avoid disturbance.” 

The Court in the crucial finding of validity through 
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes stated the finding as fol­
lows: “We find it impossible to see that the limited 
authority conferred by the licensing provisions of the 
statute in question as thus construed by the state there­
of contravened any constitution right.”

This detailed information in both the Darlington 
and New Hampshire ordinance would negative the 
power of the body to exercise arbitrarily or for some 
capricious reason of its own the right of the people 
for a public demonstration or parade. No such stand-



SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

ards, guides or limitations of power and authority for 
the granting or denial of a permit is found in the ordi­
nance of the City of Sumter. It reposes an absolute, 
unregulated and undefined discretion solely in the city 
clerk and treasurer of the City of Sumter.

It, therefore, follows that this Court is of the opin­
ion that the ordinance deprives the defendants of their 
right of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed 
by section four of article one of the constitution of 
South Carolina, and the right of freedom of speech 
and assembly guaranteed by the first amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States which is pro- 

360 tected by Art. 1, Sec. 5 of S. C. and the fourteenth 
amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 
The motion to dismiss the warrant upon this constitu­
tional grounds should have been granted. It is, there­
fore,

Ordered and adjudged that this cause be remanded 
to the Court below for entry of judgment of not guilty 
as to each of the defendants for parading without a 
permit.

I have carefully considered the record with refer- 
SB1 ence to the resisting of arrest of Alma Gregg and have 

concluded that the exceptions thereto are without merit 
and that the finding and sentence against Alma Gregg 
for resisting should be affirmed and

It is so ordered.
J am es  H u g h  M c F addin, 

Judge of Third Judicial Circuit.

S52

Manning, S. C., 
March 1, 1962.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

89

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 
All of the defendants above were convicted in the 

municipal court in Sumter, South Carolina, for parad­
ing without a permit and the defendants, Alma Gregg 
and Joshua Prioleau, were also convicted of resisting 
arrest. Each was fined and sentenced and appealed to 
this Court. I have heretofore issued an order setting 
aside the convictions of all of the defendants for parad­
ing without a permit and it is called to my attention 
that I did not specifically pass upon exceptions of the 
appeal with reference to the defendant, Joshua Prio­
leau, or at least with reference to exceptions for resist­
ing arrest.

I have again carefully read the record and consid­
ered the arguments of the attorneys in this regard, 
together with exceptions which raise the question of 
whether or not the acts of the defendant, Joshua Prio­
leau constitute resisting arrest and I have concluded 
that the exceptions are without merit and the findings 
and sentence of the court below as to Joshua Prioleau 
for resisting arrest is affirmed, and 

It is so ordered.
J am es H u g h  M cF addin ,

Judge of Third Judicial Cir­
cuit.

Manning, S. C., 
April 14, 1962.



9 0 SUPREME COURT 
City of Sumter v. Gregg et al.

EXCEPTIONS
1. The Court erred in refusing to quash the infor­

mation and dismiss the warrant on the ground that 
same was vague, indefinite and uncertain and did not 
plainly, substantially and fully set forth the offense 
charged in violation of appellants right to due process 
of law, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.

2. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the re­
corder was without jurisdiction to try the offense of 
resisting arrest.

3. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the State 
failed to establish the corpus delicti and prove a prima 
facie case, in that:

a. It was not shown that appellants interferred 
with the officers in any way.

b. It was not shown that appellants obstructed 
the officers in any way.

c. It was not shown that appellants in any way 
hendered the officers.

d. It was not shown that appellants prohibited 
the officers in any way.

e. It was not shown that appellants offered the 
officers any resistance.

f. It was not shown that appellants impeded the 
officers in any way.

4. The Court erred in refusing to hold that appel­
lants were convicted upon a record devoid of any es­
sential element of the offense charged, in violation of 
their right to due process of law, protected by the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States States 
Constitution.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Sumter County

91

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 there­
of may be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and shall constitute the Return herein.

C. M. E d m u n d s,
Sumter, S. C.,

Attorney for Respondent.

E r n est  A. F in n e y , Jr.,
Sumter, S. C.,

W il l ia m  W . B e n n e t t ,
Florence, S. C.,

J e n k in s  & P err y ,
Columbia, S. C.,

Attorneys for Appellants.

368

364