State v. Blease

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Lewis et al

    141 S.C. 207 (S.C. 1927)   Cited 46 times

    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.

  2. State v. Johnson et al

    14 S.E.2d 24 (S.C. 1941)   Cited 12 times

    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.

  3. Athanas v. City of Spartanburg

    196 S.C. 19 (S.C. 1940)   Cited 13 times

    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.

  4. State v. Shumpert

    11 S.E.2d 523 (S.C. 1940)   Cited 23 times

    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.

  5. Schroeder v. O'Neill et al

    166 S.C. 515 (S.C. 1932)   Cited 5 times

    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.

  6. State v. Jones

    164 S.C. 415 (S.C. 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.

  7. Palmetto Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. et al

    154 S.C. 129 (S.C. 1929)   Cited 26 times
    In Palmetto Lumber Co. v. Souther Ry., 151 S.E. 279, supra, the change by the codifier of the word "act", to the word "article" and the use by the codifier of the word "chapter", when manifestly the word "article" or "section" should have been used, were held to be of no effect.

    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.