State v. Lloyd

• Decision Date: 23 February 1910
• Citation: 67 S.E. 9,85 S.C. 73
• Parties: STATE v. LLOYD.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

67 S.E. 9

85 S.C. 73

STATE v. LLOYD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 23, 1910

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Greenwood County; J W. De Vose, Judge.

L. A Lloyd was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Gyles & Ouzts, for appellant. R. A. Cooper, Sol., for the State.

JONES C.J.

The defendant was tried upon an indictment for murder, and was convicted of manslaughter, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 10 years.

The testimony is thus stated in the case for appeal: "The evidence shows that the defendant's wife had sold a plantation to the deceased some time in the fall of 1908, and that the deceased was to get possession and the defendant was to surrender possession January 1, 1909. In the meantime the defendant had given the deceased permission to sow grain on the place and do other work which would not interfere with the defendant in gathering his crops and moving off the place. The deceased commenced to build to a house in the yard of the defendant, and to use water from the well in the yard which the defendant used for domestic purposes. The well was used with two buckets, as one descended into the well the other ascended, and the ascending bucket was fastened on the side of the curbing by a contrivance which prevented the descending bucket from muddying the water. When the brick mason commenced to use water from the well, the defendant instructed him how to secure the bucket to prevent muddying the water. He disregarded these instructions, and he was forbidden to use the water at all, and to prevent the use a top was nailed down on the top of the well. When the matter was reported to the deceased, he came from his residence a short distance of a half mile, and tore off the top of the well and proceeded to use the water over the protests of the defendant, and during altercation the defendant testified that the deceased caught hold of him and shoved him back into the opening of the well and threatened to push him in, and in this position he shot deceased with a pistol. There was no one present but the brother of the deceased and his employés. The deceased was a stout man of about 40 years of age; the defendant was a very feeble man of 65 years of age. It was shown that the defendant had been wounded in the War, and had his leg broken in a runaway many years ago; that defendant had contracted the habit of taking morphine and other narcotics to excess; that for several weeks prior to the homicide he had been taking a cure, and he was very feeble and nervous; that on the day of the homicide he had taken the last dose of the cure, and every member of his family had gone to Greenwood, five miles distant, and were to bring morphine to him on their return, but the homicide occurred while they were away. The expert testimony which was introduced by the defendant on the trial tended to show that a person who has been taking morphine continually for a number of years until he has become a habitué, when he was out or the drug had been withdrawn from him, became very nervous, and some testified that a person would be under such conditions a maniac, not responsible for his actions."

The first exception relates to the response of the court to defendant's fifth request to charge and assigns error in so much of the following charge as is inclosed within brackets: (5) "The defendant is presumed by law to be sane. This presumption can be removed by the defendant, and if the evidence of unsoundness of mind preponderates the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. I charge you that, Mr Foreman and gentlemen, and in that connection this, as I have charged you: That [the test is whether a man's mind is so impaired, so much deranged, as to place him in a condition so as not to be able to know right from wrong at the time that the act was committed that he is charged with having committed. If a man is insane,...