October 26, 1956.Edward D. Buckley, Esq., of Charleston, for Appellant, cites: As to the admission of hearsay testimony over timelyobjection being a violation of the Constitutional rights of theaccused to cross examination and confrontation: 12 S.C. 89; 133 S.C. 491, 131 S.E. 603; 226 S.C. 301, 84 S.E.2d 873; 137 S.C. 145, 134 S.E. 885; 48 S.C. 1, 25 S.E. 43; 83 S.C. 478, 65 S.E. 634; 114 S.C. 389, 103 S.E. 755. As to one accused of driving under the influenceof intoxicating liquor not being compelled to participate in achemical test designed to measure the alcoholic content ofhis blood: 129 S.C. 200, 124 S.E. 817, 35 A.L.R. 1227; 213 S.C. 330, 49 S.E.2d 289, 16 A.L.R.2d 1317. As to the State having no right to introduce evidence concerning,or comment upon, the refusal of an accused to participatein a test when the accused has a constitutional rightto refuse participation: 61 S.C. 22, 39 S.E. 184; 129 S.C. 200, 124 S.E. 817; 213 S.C. 330, 49 S.E.2d 289; 228 S.C. 88, 88 S.E.2d 880; 217 S.C. 105, 59 S.E.2d 853; 227 S.C. 138, 87 S.E.2d 287; 181 S.C. 540, 88 S.E. 192. As to where there is a serious doubt as to theadmissibility of evidence, that doubt should always be resolvedin the defendant's favor: 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803; 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53; 194 S.C. 533, 9 S.E.2d 222; 213 S.C. 330, 49 S.E. 289; 61 S.C. 22, 39 S.E. 184; 221 S.C. 1, 68 S.E.2d 624; 227 S.C. 138, 87 S.E.2d 287. Messrs. Gedney M. Howe, Jr., Solicitor, and Charles JBaker, Jr., Assistant Corporation Counsel, of Charleston, forRespondent.

Messrs. Efird Dreher cite: Contradiction as to fact: Wig. on Ev., secs. 1000, 1025. Contradiction of declarationsto one not known: 79 S.C. 179; 78 S.C. 83. Self-defense: 38 S.C. 346; 76 S.C. 91; 72 S.C. 223; 68 S.C. 133; 72 S.C. 74. Defense of castle: 68 S.C. 133; 79 S.C. 144. Mr. Asbill cites: Cumulative evidence by leading question: 53 S.C. 535; 61 S.C. 22; 62 S.C. 151; 65 S.C. 541. Opinion evidence: McKelvey on Ev., sec. 125; 25 Minn., 85; 63 Conn., 26; 19 S.C. 68; 117 Mass. 122; 49 N.H. 399; 56 N.H. 227; I Whar. Ev., sec. 511; 1 McM., 56; 31 S.C. 232; 57 S.C. 449. Defense of castle: 72 S.C. 202. April 9, 1909.

or negligence of fellow-servant: 45 S.C. 391; 61 Wis. 163; 111 Pa. St., 597; 155 Mass. 200; 91 Va., 668. Negligence of master must beproximate cause of injury: 21 S.C. 468; 45 S.C. 281; 57 S.C. 433. Servant assumes risk of negligence of fellow-servant: 1 McM., 385; 25 S.C. 128; 39 S.C. 507. Masteris not responsible for negligent selection by servant: 46 Am. St. R., 460; 126 Pa., 387; 96 Mich., 464; 160 Mass. 152; 149 N.Y., 142; 148 Mass. 533; 85 F.R., 759. Errorto admit incorrect diagram of pile driver: 75 Am. St. R., 494; 188 Pa. St., 496; 77 Conn., 244; 6 A. E. Ry. Cas., 174; 83 N.Y., 464; 118 N.Y., 77. As to expert evidenceas to appliances: 1 Thomp. on Trials, sec. 588; Rog. on Ex. Tes., secs. 15, 17; 96 N.Y., 408; 49 Mo., 274; 33 Minn., 62; 76 Ga. 532; 126 Pa., 141; 78 Ill., 32; 41 Conn., 252; 66 Wis. 521; 58 Vt., 498; 8 Aden, 408; 121 Mass. 446; 59 S.C. 314. Messrs. Evans Finley, contra, cite: As to diagram asevidence: 57 S.C. 448. Whether question is leading is fortrial Court: 61 S.C. 22. As to duty of master in furnishingappliances: 52 S.C. 445; 60 S.C. 18. April 29, 1904.

June 7, 1954.Thomas A. Wofford, Esq., of Greenville, for Appellant,L.E. Cromer, cites: As to the privilege of a witness not togive testimony which might incriminate him: 187 S.C. 1, 196 S.E. 164; 129 S.C. 200, 124 S.E. 81; 61 S.C. 22. Messrs. Wyche, Burgess Wyche, of Greenville, for Appellant,Margaret M. Cromer, cite: As to Lower Court erringin holding that the issues framed for trial by jury areintended for the enlightenment of the conscience of theCourt and are not conclusive of the same: 190 S.C. 529, 3 S.E.2d 606; 183 S.C. 360; 212 S.C. 542; 207 S.C. 244. Messrs. Mays, Featherstone Bradford, of Greenwood,for Respondents, cite: As to Appellant being restricted inargument to points made by his exception: 205 S.C. 347, 31 S.E.2d 447; 223 S.C. 9, 73 S.E.2d 845; 177 S.C. 148, 181 S.E. 33; 193 S.C. 118, 7 S.E.2d 841. As to Appellant, L.O. Cromer, being premature in pleadingexemptions against self-incrimination: 78 S.C. 286, 58 S.E. 803. As to Lower Court not erring in holding that issuesframed intended for the enlightenment of the conscience ofthe Court: 65 S.C. 455, 43 S.E. 963.

Affirmed. Messrs. Eugene Pollard, L.E. Wooten and J.A. Henry, of Greenville, for Appellant, cite: As to the right of the accusedto have a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, andduty on arresting officer to take accused before magistrate: 195 S.C. 101, 10 S.E.2d 145; 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608; 63 S.Ct. 599, 318 U.S. 350. As to the State nothaving the power to convict a defendant on evidence that hewas compelled to give against himself: 309 U.S. 227, 60 Sup. Ct. 472; 61 S.C. 22, 39 S.E. 184; 177 S.C. 1, 180 S.E. 681. As to when evidence of corpus delicti is lacking, extra-judicial confessions are not admissible in evidence: 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21; 173 S.C. 161, 175 S.E. 277; 205 S.C. 303, 31 S.E.2d 908. As to error on part oftrial judge in allowing an unqualified juror to serve: 34 S.C. 49, 12 S.E. 657. Mr. Robert T. Ashmore, Solicitor, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Mr. C.Y. Brown and Mr. D.W. Galloway, Both of Spartanburg, S.C. Counsel for Appellant, cite: As to Errorof Trial Judge in permitting Sheriff to testify to an entireconversation had with an Accessory while Appellant was incustody: 137 S.C. 145, 134 S.E., 885, p. 897, and p. 911. As to Prejudice to Appellant in continuing court after announcedhour of adjournment was reached, and towardwhich Defense had planned, and requiring Defense to putup Defendants out of planned order and against their will: Const. S.C. Art. 1, Sec. 17; Const. U.S., Amendments 5 and 6; Code of S.C. 1942, Sec. 1011; 61 S.C. 22, 39 S.E., 184; 35 S.C. 203, 14 S.E., 481. Mr. Samuel R. Watt, Solicitor, of Spartanburg, S.C. appeared for the State, Respondent.

Messrs. Dunlap Dunlap. for appellant, cite: Prosecutionmust show possession by defendant as an individual: 124 S.E., 337: 40 S.E., 99. Court must determinewhether evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction: 43 S.E., 533; 106 S.E., 813; 92 S.E., 871; 88 S.E., 706; 120 S.E., 557. Mr. J. Lyles Glenn. Jr., Solicitor, for the State, cites: Weight of evidence: 123 S.E., 258; 120 S.E., 359; 123 S.E., 765; 122 S.C. 493; 62 S.C. 378; 61 S.C. 22. " Storing" defined: 68 S.C. 169; 63 S.C. 102. Evidenceof unlawful purpose: 120 S.C. 400.

Appeal dismissed, and order staying execution of sentence revoked. Mr. Solicitor Stoney, for motion to dismiss appeal, cites: As to the constitutionality of the Court of General Sessionsfor Charleston county: Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (4th Ed.), pp. 194-198-199; Constitution of South Carolina (1895), art. VI, sec. 2; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (4th Ed.), pp. 227, 220; Constitution of South Carolina (1895), art. V, sec. 13. As to an order makingthe terms of a suspended sentence operative not beingappealable: 87 S.C. 466, 473; 1 Strob. 347; 32 S.C. 14; 61 S.C. 22; 58 S.C. 564. Messrs. Logan Grace, contra.

Indictment should allege valueof shares of stock: 2 McC. 527; 87 S.C. 535. Motion todirect verdict at close of State's evidence is proper proceeding: 82 S.C. 368; 75 S.C. 201; 2 Ido. 148; 185 Fed. 102; 138 U.S. 361; 164 U.S. 676; 106 U.S. 700; 46 At. 339; 112 Fed. 918; 107 Fed. 360; 151 U.S. 50; 205 U.S. 86; 15 Or. 256; 41 How. Pr. 179; 68 S.C. 184; 36 Mo. 203; 61 S.C. 22. A stockholder cannot defraud a corporation byan act approved and ratified by it: 19 L.R.A., N.S. 115; 40 N.E. 364; 78 S.C. 404; 28 S.C. 142; 66 S.C. 510; 129 Fed. 397; Thomp. on Corp., sec. 2049; 87 S.W. 29.

Indictment against Nannie Lee Suber for murder of Hattie Suber. Defendant appeals. Mr. Frank G. Tomkins, for appellant, cites: Code 1902, 2950; 79 S.C. 175; 61 S.C. 22; 1 Green. 33-4; 12 Cyc. 537; 28 L.R.A. 40; 74 Cal. 570; 78 Ky. 643; 58 Miss. 386; 84 Wis. 188-9; 134 Mass. 503; 10 Ind. 561; 123 Ill. 195; 24 La. Ann. 46-7; 5 L.R.A. 776; 3 Parker, Cr. L. 25. Solicitor W. Hampton Cobb, contra, cites: 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc. 965; 79 S.C. 174; 83 S.C. 82.