State v. Matheny

• Decision Date: 22 December 1919
• Docket Number: 10301.
• Parties: STATE v. MATHENY ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

101 S.E. 661

122 S.C. 459

STATE v. MATHENY ET AL.

No. 10301.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 22, 1919

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Barnwell County; H. F Rice, Judge.

John N Matheny and others were convicted for the disturbance of religious worship and carrying concealed weapons, and they except and appeal. Exceptions overruled, and judgment affirmed.

J. O Patterson, Jr., of Barnwell, for appellants.

Solicitor R. L. Gunter, of Aiken, and James E. Davis, of Barnwell, for the State.

WATTS J.

The appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted before Judge Rice and a jury for violating section 703 of Criminal Code for "disturbance of religious worship" and carrying concealed weapons. After sentence appellants appeal and impute error on the part of his honor in not directing a verdict of not guilty as to all of the defendants, as asked for by them, at the close of the evidence in the case, on the ground there was not sufficient testimony to sustain a conviction, as the evidence showed that the religious services had been dismissed when the disturbance occurred and complain of error on the part of his honor in his charge to the jury, and in not charging certain requests, submitted on the part of the defendants.

The evidence shows that immediately after the congregation had been dismissed by the pastor a difficulty occurred on the church ground, wherein several shots were fired, one man shot, loud talking and cursing indulged in, which caused the congregation on the ground to run, and scatter in various directions, and alarmed and frightened them. The difficulty took place at the well which was on the church property 20 or 25 yards from the church, while the congregation, or a part of it, was in the churchyard.

There is no doubt that the congregation had convened in the first instance for religious worship, the pastor had dismissed the congregation, with the announcement that the baptism of the converts would take place later at Willis Pond, about 1 1/4 of a mile from the church, after the afternoon service.

The section of the Code under which the appellants were convicted is sufficient to sustain the conviction. It does not contemplate that the disturbance shall occur while the congregation shall be actually engaged in religious worship. They have the right to convene on the church ground for that purpose, to enter the church, and engage in religious worship, and,...