Opinion
10923
July 5, 1922.
Before TOWNSEND, J., Anderson. Affirmed.
M. Frank Andrews indicted for violation of the prohibition laws and upon conviction appeals.
Messrs. H.C. Miller and M.L. Bonham, for appellant cite: Against public policy to encourage citizen to violate the law so he can be caught: 103 S.C. 331; 51 P. 1015; 58 P. 796; 67 P. 373; 223 Fed. 415; 6 Tex. App. 665 [ 6 Tex.Crim. 665][ 6 Tex.Crim. 665] [ 6 Tex.Crim. 665] [ 6 Tex.Crim. 665][ 6 Tex.Crim. 665]; 193 Fed. 968; 202 Fed. 349; 80 Fed. 513; 80 Fed. 674.
Mr. L.W. Harris, Solicitor, for respondent, cites: Exceptions cannot be considered where they were not raised on trial: Rule S.C. 9 Sec. 2; 80 S.E. 710; 89 S.E. 472 85 S.E. 720; 91 S.E. 314. As to hired witnesses: 92 S.E. 1033.
July 5, 1922. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Indictment for violation of the Prohibition Law. From verdict of guilty and judgment, defendant appeals.
The first five exceptions charge error in the refusal of the defendant's motion for a new trial upon various grounds. As the record for appeal does not show that the motion for a new trial was made upon any of the grounds set forth in the exceptions, it does not appear that said grounds were passed upon by the Circuit Judge; the exceptions cannot therefore be considered.
The sixth exception charges error in allowing the sheriff to testify that the detectives turned over to him a quart of whiskey, the night of the arrest. The testimony was introduced in corroboration of the testimony of the detectives that they had secured a bottle of whiskey from the defendant and was admitted for that purpose.
The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.