70 S.E. 447 (S.C. 1911), State v. Milam
|Citation:||70 S.E. 447, 88 S.C. 127|
|Opinion Judge:||HYDRICK, J.|
|Party Name:||STATE v. MILAM.|
|Attorney:||Richey & Richey, for appellant. Solicitor R. A. Cooper, for the State.|
|Case Date:||March 14, 1911|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County; Chas. G. Dantzler, Judge.
Parrott Milam was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill W. M. Irby, and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment at hard labor. He admitted shooting the prosecutor with a shotgun, and pleaded self-defense. Will Nelson, a witness for the state, was asked by defendant's attorney on cross-examination, if he had not told Mrs. Milam, defendant's mother, that Irby, the prosecutor, had told him to keep his daughter away from Milam's house, that Parrott Milam was ruining her, and that Milam's house was no fit place for his daughter. The witness was allowed to answer the question, and his answer was "No." Mrs. Milam, a witness for the defense, was asked if Nelson had not told her so--the purpose being to contradict Nelson. The court excluded the answer. The court also refused to allow the defendant to testify that, previous to the difficulty, he had heard that Irby had been talking about him and Nelson's daughter[88 S.C. 129].
In State v. Sullivan, 43 S.C. 205, 21 S.E. 4, it was held that the testimony of a witness that deceased had said to him, a short time before the killing, that the prisoner was not fit to live in a civilized community, was properly excluded, because it did not amount to a threat, or necessarily show ill feeling on the part of the deceased toward the accused. In State v. Thraikill, 71 S.C. 136, 50 S.E. 551, it was held proper to exclude the testimony of a witness that deceased had told him, the day before the killing, that he (deceased) had taken a pistol from one of defendant's servants, that defendant had repeatedly sent for it, but that he did not intend that he should have it, because the declaration did not amount to a threat or necessarily show ill will. In State v. Gallman, 79 S.C. 229, 60 S.E. 682, it was held that evidence that deceased had, a short time before the killing, accused the prisoner of burning his (deceased's) barn was properly excluded, the accusation being unaccompanied by threats. It is clear that the declaration of
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP