Courtszealous in insuring fair and impartial trial: 91 S.C. 29; 104 S.C. 357; 117 S.C. 76; 120 S.C. 214; 129 S.C. 200; 107 S.C. 448; 128 S.C. 447; 131 S.C. 422; 128 S.C. 411; 15 Fed. (2nd.), 690; 133 S.C. 491. Constructionof Sec. 241, Cr. Code: 25 R.C.L., 1081-1094; 22 S.C. 301; 2 Bail., 335; 67 S.C. 312; 71 S.C. 208; 96 S.C. 5; 90 S.C. 412; 99 S.C. 218; 113 S.C. 99; 36 Cyc., 1186; 128 S.C. 14; 44 Sup. Ct., 69; 68 L.Ed., 48; 138 S.C. 374; 137 S.E., 211; 75 Fed., 781; 92 S.C. 393; 129 S.C. 480; 12 N.W., 12; 51 So., 4; 61 Pac., 612; 16 So., 150; 33 S.W. 41, 44. Officers of a corporationare not agents of each other: 135 S.C. 123; 113 S.C. 522; 101 S.C. 277; 118 S.C. 327.
cke Johnson, Mrs. Lester Wolfe, Alder Mae Hartsell, and Ruth Williams were convicted for violating a statute Code Supp., 1938, Par. 1266 making it a misdemeanor to willfully desecrate any grave or destroy shrubbery of any graveyard, and they appeal. Messrs. R.B. Hildebrand and W.C. McDow, for appellants, cite: Misdemeanor: 60 S.E., 240; 12 Cyc., 183; 18 S.C. 177; 44 Am. Rep., 569; 51 S.C. 284; 28 S.E., 937; 93 S.E., 125; 199 S.E., 906; 14 A.J., 829. Right to questionaccused of other crimes: 177 S.C. 57; 180 S.E., 809; 159 S.C. 369; 157 S.E., 79; 164 S.C. 375; 162 S.E., 466; 52 S.C. 530; 30 S.E., 395; 83 S.C. 34; 64 S.E., 607; 26 S.C. 117; 1 S.E., 443; 79 S.C. 187; 60 S.E., 664; 98 S.C. 114; 82 S.E., 278; 120 S.C. 205; 112 S.E., 921; 128 S.C. 372; 122 S.E., 494; 149 S.C. 445; 147 S.E., 600. Construction of criminal statutes: 96 S.C. 5; 79 S.E., 641; 141 S.C. 207; 139 S.E., 386; 25 R.C.L., 1081; 22 S.C. 301; 67 S.C. 312; 45 S.E., 211; 71 S.C. 208; 50 S.E., 782; 96 S.C. 5; 79 S.E., 641; 90 S.C. 412; 2 S.E.2d 782; 141 S.C. 207; 139 S.E., 386. Mr. W.G. Finley, Solicitor, for respondent.
Carlisle, Brown Carlisle and Johnson Johnson, for appellant, cite: As to construction of enabling statute: 180 S.C. 536; 186 S.C. 535; 174 S.C. 208; 177 S.E., 158; 168 S.C. 126; 167 S.E., 1; 167 S.C. 231; 166 S.E., 120; 155 S.C. 77; 151 S.E., 887; 43 S.C. 398; 21 S.E., 315; 49 A.S.R., 823; 190 S.C. 309; 2 S.E.2d 790; 176 S.C. 518; 180 S.E., 670; 159 S.C. 405; 157 S.E., 136; 182 S.C. 384; 189 S.E., 657. As to complaintmeeting statutory requirements: 188 S.C. 14; 198 S.E., 425; 184 S.C. 316; 192 S.E., 565; 163 S.C. 13; 161 S.E., 195; 21 R.C.L., 441; 154 S.C. 105; 151 S.E., 230; 134 S.C. 398; 132 S.E., 678; 127 S.C. 251; 119 S.E., 869; 66 S.C. 12; 44 S.E., 93. Construction of survivalstatute: 168 S.C. 351; 167 S.E., 555; 170 S.C. 432; 170 S.E., 475; 148 S.C. 4; 185 S.E., 539. LordCampbell's Act: 150 S.C. 302; 148 S.E., 57; 29 S.C. 161; 7 S.E., 58. Rules of statutory construction: 185 S.C. 313; 194 S.E., 139; 113 S.C. 99; 101 S.E., 285; 99 S.C. 218; 82 S.E., 1048; 90 S.C. 412; 73 S.E., 769; 3 S.C. 423; 21 S.C. Eq., 174. Messrs.
Perry A. Shumpert was convicted of having unlawful possession of alcoholic liquors in his place of business other than a licensed liquor store and he appeals. Messrs. R.B. Hildebrand and John T. Roddey, for appellant, cite: Construction of penal statutes: 141 S.C. 207; 139 S.E., 386; 25 R.C.L., 1081; 22 S.C. 301; 2 Bailey, 335; 67 S.C. 312; 45 S.E., 211; 71 S.E., 208; 50 S.E., 782; 96 S.C. 5; 79 S.E., 641; 90 S.C. 412; 73 S.E., 769; 99 S.C. 218; 82 S.E., 1048; 13 S.C. 46; 113 S.C. 99; 101 S.E., 285; 36 Cyc., 1186; 190 S.C. 282; 2 S.E.2d 782; 286 F., 833; 33 A.L.R., 315; 63 A.L.R., 292; 62 S.E., 574; 61 S.E., 917; 60 S.E., 1082; 30 S.E., 992; 48 C.J., 1213. Admissibility of evidence of formerviolations: 151 S.E., 233; 128 S.E., 709; 98 S.C. 117; 82 S.E., 278; 120 S.C. 207; 112 S.E., 921; 128 S.C. 411; 123 S.E., 260; 180 S.E., 809. Mr. W.G. Finley, Solicitor, for the State, cites: "Placeof business" defined: 48 C.J., 12; 90 S.E., 989; 115 A., 609; 149 S.C. 84; 146 S.E., 695. Admissible evidence: 153 S.E., 341. Indictment: 64 S.C. 350; 42 S.E., 175.
Messrs. Hagood, Rivers Young, for respondent, cite: As to legal license for lot of less than one-half acre: Secs. 2246-2249, Code 1932; 82 S.C. 352; 129 S.C. 480; 118 S.C. 498; 114 S.C. 511; 116 S.C. 466. When terms ofstatute are plain, not for Court to find reason for enactment: 112 S.C. 528; 90 S.C. 412; 166 U.S. 290; 17 S. Ct., 540; 22 N.E., 798; 8 L.R.A., 497; 83 N.W., 932; 83 A.L.R., 545; 3 S.W. 808. August 5, 1932.
Ira B. Jones, Jr., was convicted of unlawfully borrowing money from a bank of which he was a director, and he appeals. Messrs. C.N. Sapp, C.T. Graydon and J.P. Richards, for appellant, cite: Records to be offered in evidence must bemade, or directed by defendant: 143 S.C. 63; 149 S.C. 195. Not for Court to find reason for enactment of statute: 141 S.C. 207; 90 S.C. 412; 73 S.E., 769; 99 S.C. 218; 82 S.E., 1048. Must hold ten shares to be director of bank: Vol. 3, Code of 1922, Sec. 4322, 158 S.C. 212; 7 R.C.L., 434. Mr. Randolph Murdaugh, Solicitor, for respondent, cites: Not on point at issue: 143 S.C. 63; 141 S.E., 165; 149 S.C. 195; 146 S.E., 657. De jure director may become defacto: 118 S.C. 171; 110 S.E., 128; 86 S.C. 503; 68 S.E., 766; 15 S.C. 153; 27 S.C. 444; 3 S.E., 849.
ff appeals. Messrs. R.E. Whiting, Brown Bush, J. Wesley Crum, and B.D. Carter, for appellant, cite: Cause of action: Sec. 4910, 4917, Code; 19 S.C. 117; 20 S.C. 201; 51 S.C. 305; 84 S.C. 558; 75 S.C. 560; 96 S.C. 313; 148 S.C. 118; 25 R.C.L., 1065; 110 U.S. 508; 101 U.S. 34; 115 U.S. 392; 157 U.S. 1; 56 S.C. 173; 68 S.C. 554; 33 S.C. 543; 113 S.C. 99. As to contract exempting fromliability imposed by statute: 6 R.C.L., 727; 11 R.C.L., 978; 77 S.C. 471; 85 S.C. 165; 75 S.C. 455; 103 S.C. 494; 108 S.C. 131; 128 S.C. 102; 131 S.C. 159; 175 U.S. 1061; 24 L.R.A., 647; 56 L.R.A., 477 29 L.R.A., 751; 97 N.W., 721; 70 L.R.A. 93p; 77 S.C. 472; 51 A.L.R., 628; 81 S.E., 335; 175 U.S. 91; 165 U.S. 17; 180 N.W., 649; 80 S.C. 151. Secondcause of action: 128 S.C. 106; 6 R.C.L., 727; 15 F.2d 802; 170 U.S. 133. Proviso of statutes cannotbe resorted to for purpose of creating an ambiguity: 24 F.2d 784; 10 L.Ed., 689. Prior Acts may be resortedto, to solve, but not to create an ambiguity: 8 L.Ed., 337; 90 S.C. 412; 175 U.S. 421; 115 U.S. 402; 157 U.S. 33; 110 S.C. 739. Messrs. S.G. Mayfield, and Harley Blatt, for respondents, cite: Contract valid to avoid liability: 128 S.C. 102; Secs. 4910 and 4917, Code, have no connection with eachother: 85 S.C. 165; 103 S.C. 494; 108 S.C. 131; 128 S.C. 102. Purpose of proviso: 10 L.Ed., 79; 131 S.C. 144; 102 U.S. 1; 100 U.S. 508; 104 U.S. 498. Constructionof Code and revisions: 36 Cyc., 1166; 84 S.C. 552; 101 S.C. 48; 110 S.C. 435; 118 S.C. 498; 148 S.C. 118; 96 S.E., 315; 134 U.S. 624; 110 U.S. 619; Id., 729; 225 U.S. 187; 254 U.S. 20; 140 Mass. 147; 56 W., 453; 109 S.W. 769; 119 S.C. 565. Willfulnessand negligence: 20 R.C.L., 20; 7 A. E. Eng. Enc. L. 2d 443; 91 U.S. 489; 145 U.S. 41; 69 S.C. 434; 108 S.C. 131.