From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hall

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 25, 1919
112 S.C. 421 (S.C. 1919)

Opinion

10254

August 25, 1919.

Before TOWNSEND, J., Kershaw, Summer term, 1918. Affirmed.

Oliver Hall was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.

W.B. deLoach, for appellant.

W. Hampton Cobb and A.F. Spigner, Solicitors, for the State.


August 25, 1919. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him in one count, with making, causing, and procuring to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited a certain note of the said Oliver Hall, in the sum of $450, payable at the Bank of Camden, S.C. by then and there writing and indorsing thereon the name of W.T. Hall, and in the second count, with uttering and passing said note, which he then and there knew to be a forgery.

The only exception upon which he appealed is as follows:

"For error in his Honor, the presiding Judge, in passing the sentence upon the defendant that he did; the verdict of the jury being inconsistent with the evidence, as the said jury found the defendant guilty on both counts in the indictment, one count charging the defendant with procuring the name of W.T. Hall to be written upon the said note, and the other count charging the said defendant with writing the name of W.T. Hall upon the said note."

The question presented by the exception was not raised in the Circuit Court, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court for consideration.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

State v. Hall

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 25, 1919
112 S.C. 421 (S.C. 1919)
Case details for

State v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. HALL

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 25, 1919

Citations

112 S.C. 421 (S.C. 1919)
100 S.E. 143

Citing Cases

The State v. Nicholson

Assuming, without deciding, that the verdict of guilty on both counts in the indictment constituted an…

The State v. Alexander

This Court has, in numerous cases, held that it will not consider a question on appeal which was not…