State v. Adams, 18223
| Citation | 244 S.C. 323,137 S.E.2d 100 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18223,18223 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Elbert Leroy ADAMS, Respondent. |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., William L. Pope, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for appellant.
Law, Kirkland & Aaron, Columbia, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the State from an Order of the Honorable John A. Mason, dated April 25, 1963, setting aside the conviction of Respondent and dismissing the charges brought against him.
Respondent was convicted on February 18, 1963, for driving under the influence of intoxicants, first offense, by a jury in Magistrate's Court. In compliance with Section 7-103, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1962, Respondent served notice of intention to appeal upon the Magistrate, together with the grounds thereof, on February 20, 1963. The South Carolina State Highway Department, in accord with Section 46-189 of the Code, extended the revocation of Respondent's license for a period of 60 days.
On April 18, 1963, Respondent served notice on the Magistrate of a motion to be made within 5 days before Judge Mason for an Order setting aside the conviction and dismissing the charges on the grounds that the record of proceedings before the Magistrate trate had not been filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court for Richland County as required by Section 7-104 of the Code. No notice of this motion was served on the State Highway Department, the Solicitor, or the Attorney General.
Neither the Magistrate nor anyone representing the State appeared in opposition to the motion. The hearing Judge held that Section 7-104 is mandatory and that it was incumbent upon the State to comply with the provisions thereof or else the conviction must fail and the charge set aside. Appellant contends that Section 7-104 is directory as opposed to mandatory. However, in our opinion, it is of no consequence whether such language be considered mandatory or directory as the remedy is the same.
It was the duty of Respondent as he was the moving party in the appeal from Magistrate's Court to prosecute it with due diligence and have it promptly disposed of. See Smith et al. v. Southern Railway Co., 109 S.C. 152, 95 S.E. 339. When it became apparent to Respondent that the Magistrate had failed to perform the ministerial duty of transmitting the record of the trial Court to the appellate Court, it became incumbent upon Respondent to proceed by way of mandamus to enforce performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyner v. Glimcher Properties
...280 S.C. 328, 329, 313 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1984); State v. Eaves, 260 S.C. 523, 524-25, 197 S.E.2d 282, 283 (1973); State v. Adams, 244 S.C. 323, 326, 137 S.E.2d 100, 101 (1964). However, in each case cited by the majority as the underpinning for its decision, the party appealing from the magi......
-
Jet Park Intern. v. Thomas
...... The treasurer demurred to the complaint on the ground the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Jet Park failed to show it had exhausted ...423, 188 N.E. 428 (1933); 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 513 at 982 (1954); cf. State v. Adams, 244 S.C. 323, 137 S.E.2d 100 (1964) (appellant[288 S.C. 412] not entitled to have conviction set ......
-
State v. Truesdale, 3357.
...and remanding respondent's magistrate court conviction); State v. Eaves, 260 S.C. 523, 197 S.E.2d 282 (1973) (same); State v. Adams, 244 S.C. 323, 137 S.E.2d 100 (1964) (same). Thus, we have amended the caption to reflect the proper parties and the caption as originally presented in the mag......
-
State v. Eaves, 19640
...the appeals in the circuit court. Under the principles enunciated in State v. Spray, et al., 74 S.C. 443, 54 S.E. 600, and State v. Adams, 244 S.C. 323, 137 S.E.2d 100, it is quite clear that the circuit court was in error. The judgments below are reversed but the respondents are still enti......