State v. Ameker
Decision Date | 26 February 1906 |
Citation | 53 S.E. 484,73 S.C. 330 |
Parties | STATE v. AMEKER. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Orangeburg County Dantzler, Judge.
Abe Ameker and others were convicted of conspiracy, and appeal. Affirmed.
W. H Sharpe, Wolfe & Berry, and Jas. F. Izlar, for appellants. P F. Hildebrand, for the State.
The defendants were tried under the following indictment "The jurors of and for the county aforesaid, in the state aforesaid, upon their oath, present, that Abe Ameker, B. Lee Jeffcoat, J. B. Ameker, Cleveland Hooker, William Jamison, James McLeod, late of the county aforesaid, on the twenty-second day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred and five, with force and arms, at Orangeburg, in the county and state aforesaid, then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and willfully conspired together, and banded themselves together at a certain public place in the county and state aforesaid, to wit, at Laurel Bay, for the purpose of hindering, preventing, and obstructing certain citizens of the United States and of this state of and from the free exercise of their rights and privileges, accorded them under the laws of the United States and the laws of this state, by then and there obstructing, hindering, and preventing, L. P. Wisenhunt, T. A. Salley, E. J. Salley, Robert Salley, R. J. Salley, Charlie Hall, S. B. Hall, M. S. Williams, Mike Fanning, Arthur Robinson, Dan Davis, Mrs. Tom Salley, Mrs. R. E. Fanning, Mrs. S. B. Hall, Mrs. G. S. Davis, Willis Williams and divers other persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, who, being then and there assembled for the purpose of engaging in social intercourse and peaceable pastimes, such as are commonly enjoyed at picnics, and were so engaged; they, the said Abe Ameker, B. Lee Jeffcoat, J. B. Ameker, Cleveland Hooker, William Jamison and James McLeod, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, then and there unlawfully, violently, riotously, tumultuously, with pistols and other weapons, and threats, routing and putting to flight the said L. P. Wisenhunt, T. A. Salley, E. J. Salley, Robert Salley, R. J. Salley, Charlie Hall, S. B. Hall, M. S. Williams, Mike Fanning, Arthur Robinson, Dan Davis, Mrs. Tom Salley, Mrs. R. E. Fanning, Mrs. S. B. Hall, Mrs. G. S. Davis, Willis Williams and divers other persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." After the introduction of testimony for the state and the charge of his honor, Judge C. C. Dantzler, the jury found the verdict of guilty, and the defendants, Abe Ameker, J. B. Ameker and Cleveland Hooker, were each sentenced to be imprisoned in the county jail of Orangeburg county at hard labor upon the public works of said county, for the term of two years, or be confined in the State Penitentiary at hard labor for a like period. The two defendants, William Williamson and James McLeod, were each sentenced to be imprisoned in the county jail of Orangeburg county at hard labor upon the public works of said county for a period of 18 months, or be confined in the State Penitentiary at hard labor for a like period.
From this judgment the defendants appealed to this court upon the following grounds: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Crawford
...combination. The crime is then complete, even though nothing further is done." Ferguson at 303, 70 S.E.2d at 356 (citing State v. Ameker, 73 S.C. 330, 53 S.E. 484 (1906)). A formal or express agreement need not be established. Horne at 381, 478 S.E.2d at 293. "A tacit, mutual understanding,......
-
State v. Gordon
...or unlawful object, or of achieving by criminal or unlawful means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful. State v. Ameker, 73 S.C. 330, 53 S.E. 484 (1906). The gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is the agreement or combination. State v. Dasher, 7. Gordon's reliance on State v. A......
-
State v. Hammitt
...313 S.C. 124, 133-34, 437 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1993),cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1115, 114 S.Ct. 1063, 127 L.Ed.2d 383 (citing State v. Ameker, 73 S.C. 330, 53 S.E. 484 (1906)); see also S.C.Code Ann. § 16-17-410 (Supp.1999); State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 433 S.E.2d 864 (1993). The gravamen of conspi......
-
State v. Williams
... ... [199 S.E. 909.] ... the law of conspiracy was correctly charged, although not ... elaborated upon, nor was a fuller charge requested at the ... conclusion of it. The instruction is in substantial agreement ... with that approved by the court in the State v ... Ameker, 73 S.C. 330, 53 S.E. 484. The instruction ... complained of is a plain statement of the law, and carried ... with it no suggestion, direct or indirect, of the trial ... Judge's opinion of the facts. Nor, under the ... circumstances, do we find error in the course he followed in ... recalling ... ...