State v. Ready

Citation96 S.E. 287,110 S.C. 177
Decision Date27 June 1918
Docket Number10003.
PartiesSTATE v. READY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Aiken County; Thomas S. Sease, Judge.

Gloster Ready was convicted of attempting to poison, and appeals. Affirmed.

John F Williams, of Aiken, for appellant.

R. L Gunter, of Aiken, for the State.

HYDRICK J.

Appellant was convicted, under section 149 of the Criminal Code, of attempting to poison J. C. Holman and his family by putting concentrated lye in their well.

There was evidence, direct and circumstantial, tending to prove that defendant put concentrated lye in the prosecutor's well. Appellant contends, however, that there was no evidence that concentrated lye is a "poison" or "other destructive thing," the attempted administration of which is denounced by the statute, and that whether it is or not, and whether it was present in sufficient quantity to have had such effect, could have been legally proved only by a chemical analysis of the water and expert testimony on the subject, of which there was none. In this, we do not agree with appellant, because it is a matter of common knowledge that, when taken internally, concentrated lye is a dangerous and destructive agent, and that, if taken sufficiently strong and in sufficient quantity, it causes injury to health and even death. No doubt it may be so diluted as to be practically harmless. But there was testimony that there was enough of it in the water to color it, and make it feel slick and froth like soapsuds, and that it was strong enough to burn the skin. Clearly that was enough to make it appear, at least prima facie, that there was enough of it in the water to make it poisonous, or injurious to health; and, if there was, it is of no consequence that there may not have been enough to cause death or serious sickness, since the gravamen of the offense is the felonious intent manifested in an attempt to poison.

In State v. Glover, 27 S.C. 602, 4 S.E. 564, defendant was convicted of an attempt to poison a child by the administration of the tincture of asaf tida. There was no evidence that the drug was a poison, but there was evidence that the defendant had been told that it was. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that defendant could not be convicted, unless she administered the drug in such quantity as to endanger the child's life or do her great bodily harm, and also refused to grant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT