67 S.E. 246 (S.C. 1910), City of Spartanburg v. Parris

Citation:67 S.E. 246, 85 S.C. 227
Opinion Judge:WOODS, J.
Party Name:CITY OF SPARTANBURG v. PARRIS.
Attorney:C. P. Sims, for appellant. J. C. Otts, Sol., for respondent.
Case Date:March 14, 1910
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 246

67 S.E. 246 (S.C. 1910)

85 S.C. 227

CITY OF SPARTANBURG

v.

PARRIS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 14, 1910

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

J. R. Parris was convicted of selling whisky, in violation of an ordinance of the City of Spartanburg, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. P. Sims, for appellant. J. C. Otts, Sol., for respondent.

WOODS, J.

[85 S.C. 228] The appellant was convicted before the mayor of Spartanburg of selling whisky in violation of the city ordinances and duly sentenced. On appeal to the circuit court the judgment was affirmed.

By his first exception the appellant submits that the mayor, having participated as a legislator in the making of the ordinances, was prohibited by the Constitution from acting in a judicial capacity in the trial of persons accused of violating them. The Constitution provides: "In the government of this state the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other, and no person or persons exercising the functions of one of said departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other." This requirement clearly refers to the government of the state and to state officers, and not to the government of municipal corporations and the officers of such corporations. The courts have so held whenever the question has been made. Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 165, 63 Am. Dec. 487; Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Whiting, 161 Ind. 228, 68 N.E. 267.

There is, of course, nothing in the objection that the defendant could not be convicted under the ordinance because the selling of whisky is an offense against the state. State v. Sanders, 68 S.C. 192, 47 S.E. 55; Anderson v. Seligman (recently filed) 67 S.E. 13.

The objection that a witness was allowed to testify whose name had not been furnished to the defendant is not well taken. The record shows that the defendant waived any right to a written warrant or charge, but the city authorities furnished defendant's attorney with the names of witnesses. One witness whose name was not on this list was sworn, and testified that he had bought whisky from the defendant. A defendant, even on an indictment for felony, is not entitled to the names of the witnesses. State v. Robison, 61 S.C. 106, 39 S.E. 247. It is

Page 247

true, as stated by...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP