City Of Florence v. Berry

Citation61 S.C. 237,39 S.E. 389
PartiesCITY OF FLORENCE . v. BERRY. SAME. v. ROLLINS.
Decision Date23 July 1901
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

39 S.E. 389
61 S.C. 237

CITY OF FLORENCE .
v.
BERRY.
SAME.
v.
ROLLINS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 23, 1901.


CRIMINAL LAW—OATH TO WARRANT—WAIVER OF IRREGULARITY—VENUE—EVIDENCE — INTOXICATING LIQUORS—ILLEGAL SALE.

1. Where a warrant is sworn to before an officer not authorized to administer oaths for such purpose, and defendant pleads to the indictment, any objection that the court did not acquire jurisdiction of the person is waived.

2. It is not necessary, in a criminal case, that the venue should be proved affirmatively, if there is sufficient evidence from which it can be inferred.

3. Where an indictment alleges sales of spirituous, malt, alcoholic, vinous, or other intoxicating liquors, evidence of a sale of any such liquor, by whatever name it may be called, is not a fatal variance.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Florence county; Gary, Judge.

Indictment by city of Florence against W. H. Berry and R. J. Rollins, in separate cases, for violating city ordinances. From affirmance in circuit court of judgment against defendants in mayor's court, defendants appeal on the following exceptions: "(1) Because the circuit judge erred in holding that the mayor had jurisdiction to try defendant, although it appeared upon the face of the proceedings that the prosecution against defendant was not based upon an oath or affidavit, as required by law. (2) Because the circuit judge erred in holding that while the city clerk was without authority to administer an oath, and that although the prosecution in this case was based upon a statement purporting to have been sworn to before said clerk, yet that, by appearing, the defendant waived the jurisdictional defect, and that the same was cured by verdict or sentence. (3) Because the circuit judge erred in holding that defendant, having voluntarily appeared before the mayor and having gone to trial without making objection to the warrant or the affirmation on which it was based, was then in the position after verdict as though he had voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and that in such case it would not be necessary for such clerk to be authorized to take the affirmation. (4) Because, in the case of the city of Florence against W. H. Berry, there being no proof as to the sale of whisky to James N. Purvis, his honor erred in not holding that there was no venue proven as to the sale of whisky to J. S. Dale, the sale to J. S. Dale being the only count in the warrant upon which there was any proof as to the sale of whisky. (5) Because, in the case of the city of Florence against W. H. Berry, while the defendant was charged with selling to J. S. Dale on the 15th day of...

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