City of Greenville v. Ward

• Decision Date: 14 April 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 1021,94 S.C. 321
• Parties: CITY OF GREENVILLE v. WARD.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

77 S.E. 1021

94 S.C. 321

CITY OF GREENVILLE v. WARD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 14, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; J. W De Vore, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Mamie Ward was convicted of vagrancy in the Recorder's Court of the City of Greenville, and, from a judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the conviction on defendant's appeal, the City appeals. Reversed.

McCullough Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, for appellant. Cothran, Dean & Cothran and O. K. Mauldin, all of Greenville, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

The respondent was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Greenville on the charge of vagrancy under an ordinance of which the following is a copy "All persons who may be able to labor and have no apparent lawful means of subsistence and neglect to apply themselves to some honest occupation for the support of themselves and their families, if they have families, who shall be found loitering or without employment in the city; all persons who acquire a livelihood by gambling or horse racing; all keepers of gambling tables, faro banks or other banks or devices for gambling known under any other denomination; all persons who lead idle and disorderly lives; all persons who knowingly harbor thieves and felons; all persons not following some honest trade or occupation or not having some known or visible means of gaining a fair, honest and reputable livelihood; and all persons engaged in any unlawful calling whatsoever shall be deemed vagrants, and upon conviction in the city court, shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days for every such offense. In order to escape conviction hereunder it shall not be sufficient for the accused to have upon his person or in his possession some money or other things of value; nor shall such money or other things of value be deemed or taken as a visible means of gaining a livelihood within the meaning of this section."

The circuit court reversed the judgment of the recorder's court on the ground that the recorder erred in charging his jury in the words of the last sentence of the ordinance which is italicized, because that portion of the ordinance deprived the jury of the right to pass upon the fact whether defendant was, at the time of her arrest, making a fair, honest, and reputable living. In other words, as we understand it, the...