State v. Hendrix
Decision Date | 14 May 1910 |
Parties | STATE v. HENDRIX. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Geo W. Gage, Judge.
Frank Hendrix was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Dismissed.
The following are the exceptions:
A. H. Ninestein, for appellant. James F. Byrnes, Sol., for the State.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment containing two separate counts--one for burglary and the other for larceny--growing out of the same transaction. The verdict of the jury was simply "Guilty." The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, on the public works of Barnwell county, and he appealed from said sentence.
The first exception is too general for consideration, as it merely quotes from the charge of his honor the presiding judge, without assigning any specific error. The second exception is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Long
......652; State v. Thompson, 76 S.C. 116, 56 S.E. 789; Snipes v. Railway, 76 S.C. 208, 56 S.E. 959; Morrison v. Association, 78 S.C. 398, 59 S.E. 27; State v. [77 S.E. 66.] . . Boyleston,. 84 S.C. 574, 66 S.E. 1047; State v. Chastain, 85. S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68. S.E. 129; State v. Crosby, 88 S.C. 98, 70 S.E. 440. It will be seen from these cases that this court cannot. reverse the judgment in this case on the ground in question,. ......
-
Bennett v. Columbia Elec. St. Ry. Light & Power Co.
...... instructions should be more specific, they should have been. presented, as requests to charge. State v. Adams, 68. S.C. 421, 47 S.E. 676; Jennings v. Mfg. Co., 72 S.C. 411, 52 S.E. 113; Williams v. Ry., 76 S.C. 1, 56. S.E. 652; State v. Thompson, ...Ass'n, 78 S.C. 398, 59 S.E. 27;. State v. Boyleston, 84 S.C. 574, 66 S.E. 1047;. State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; State. v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68 S.E. 129; State v. Du. Rant, 87 S.C. 532, 70 S.E. 306. . . [92. S.C. 76] The next question for consideration ......
-
State v. Eskew
...... prejudiced by the failure of the Court to charge more fully. the meaning of such simple phrases. Had [211 S.C. 568] . appellant desired the Court to define the phrases it was his. duty to make his wishes known. State v. Wardlaw, 153. S.C. 175, 150 S.E. 614; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68, S.E. 129; State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67. S.E. 6; State v. Harrell et al., 142 S.C. 24, 140. S.E. 258; State v. Craig, 161 S.C. 232, 159 S.E. 559; State v. Roof, 144 S.C. 118, 142 S.E. 238;. State v. Jacobs, 111 S.C. 283, 97 S.E. 835;. State v. Stafford, 193 S.C. 474, 8 ......
-
State v. Rouse
...... appearances. The second is that the defendant's counsel,. by the words and conduct related hereinbefore, waived any. right to have the judge charge the request in the particular. language of that request. State v. Bethune, 86 S.C. 143, 67 S.E. 466; State v. Hendrix, 86 S.C. 64, 68. S.E. 129; State v. Chastain, 85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6;. State v. Adams, 68 S.C. 421, 47 S.E. 676. . . The. judgment of ......