State v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 01 January 1919
• Docket Number: 10103.
• Parties: STATE v. JACOBS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

97 S.E. 835

111 S.C. 283

STATE v. JACOBS.

No. 10103.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 1, 1919

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Richland County; Frank B. Gary, Judge.

Charlie Jacobs was convicted of having in his possession and storing alcoholic liquors for unlawful purposes, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John Hughes Cooper, of Columbia, for appellant.

W. H Cobb, Sol., of Columbia, for the State.

GARY C.J.

The defendant was convicted of having in his possession and storing certain alcoholic liquors for unlawful purposes.

The defendant testified as a witness, and the record shows that the following took place during his cross-examination by the solicitor:

"Q. You have a good many whisky traps about your house? A. No, sir.

Q. We had you up here last week on a charge like this, didn't we?

Mr. Cooper: We object to that.

The Court: I think that is proper to show the surrounding conditions, with a view of enabling the jury to determine, if they find that he had whisky there, whether or not it was there for an unlawful purpose. And all the surrounding conditions, I think, may be testified to.

Mr. Cooper: I would be glad to admit that if this liquor was there in Charlie Jacobs' charge, and he had it stored that he had it for an unlawful purpose. I believe whoever had that liquor there had it for an unlawful purpose, and I would go on record as admitting that, if the jury believes that Charlie had it there and stored it, it was for an unlawful purpose.

The Solicitor: And for that purpose we want to prove a few facts about the house.

By the Solicitor: Q. You had a trap under the dining table didn't you? A. No, sir.

Mr. Cooper: I object, and I want to call attention to the fact that this testimony which Mr. Cobb is bringing out now what happened way after this alleged thing for which he is being tried.

The Solicitor: That doesn't necessarily mean it was afterwards.

The Court: Proceed.

Being questioned by the solicitor, the defendant then said: I did not have a trap under my dining table. The police did not find a quart under my dining table to my knowledge. The first time that I heard of their finding a quart under the dining table was last week at the mayor's court. I did not have a friend to fix a place under my dining table. I did not know that any place was there. The only place where whisky could be hid under the dining table is on one piece which goes across the dining table. The piece is a little wider than my hand. It is a place where the leg sets to hold the table up. I did not know anything about any whisky being found there. I don't know about any trap in my wife's room. There is a door in one of the closets in my wife's room which was left there by the carpenters, but it is not a trap. There are no boards loose in there.

Redirect examination by Mr. Cooper:

I was acquitted last week when I was tried for storing whisky in the dining room."

The defendant appealed upon the following exceptions.

1. That his honor erred in allowing the solicitor to ask the defendant, when he was on the stand as a witness, the following questions: "Q. You have a good many whisky traps about your house? Q. We had you up here last week on a charge like this, didn't we?"--and in requiring the defendant to answer said questions and to go into the details of a former trial of...