State v. Beckroge

Decision Date01 July 1897
Citation27 S.E. 658,49 S.C. 484
PartiesSTATE v. BECKROGE. SAME v. PERANO. SAME v. BERTUCCI.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Intoxicating Liquors—Indictment — Duplicity.

1. An indictment should not be quashed because it contains three counts, each of which sets out a distinct misdemeanor.

2. An indictment is not bad for duplicity where it contains a count framed under Dispensary Law, § 22, providing that selling alcoholic liquors, or providing a place where alcoholic liquors are drunk, or keeping a place where alcoholic liquors as a beverage are kept, renders one guilty of the offense of a common nuisance, which count charges the commission of the three forms of common nuisance in the conjunctive.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Charleston county; W. O. Benet, Judge.

J. H. Beckroge, E. Perano, and J. A. Bertucci appeal from a conviction of a violation of the dispensary law. Affirmed.

The following is the indictment in each case: "The State of South Carolina, County of ——. At a court of general sessions begun and holden in and for the county of ———, in the state of South Carolina, at —— Court House, in the county and state aforesaid, on the ——Monday of——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety ——, the jurors of and for the county aforesaid, in the state aforesaid, upon their oath present » * * that ——, at——Court House, in the county of——, and state aforesaid, on the ——day of——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety ——, and on divers other days, both before and since that day, up to the taking of this inquisition, willfully and lawfully did sell, barter, exchange, and deliver to one——, and to divers other persons to the jurors afore said unknown, spirituous, malt, and other liquors, containing alcohol and used as a beverage, to wit, * * * against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said——, at——Court House, in the county of;——, and state aforesaid, on the—— day of——, in the year of our Lord one

thousand eight hundred and ninety——, and on divers other days, both before and since that day, up to the taking of this inquisition, did willfully and unlawfully keep and maintain a place where alcoholic liquors were sold, bartered, and given away, and where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors as a beverage, and where alcoholic liquors were kept for sale, barter, and delivery, thereby then and there keeping and maintaining a common nuisance, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid."

In each of these cases a motion to quash the indictment was made upon the grounds contained in the exceptions hereinafter set forth. The said motions were overruled by the presiding judge and exceptions duly entered. In these cases the "findings" and verdicts were: Beckroge: "True bill." Verdict, "Guilty." Perano: "True bill on second count." Verdict, "Guilty." Bertucci: "True bill on second count." Verdict, "Not guilty on first count; guilty on second count"

Exceptions:

"First. That his honor erred in refusing to quash the indictments in the said several causes upon the ground urged, to wit: That the indictment was bad, in that it improperly joined three distinct offenses: (1) Selling intoxicating liquors; (2) keeping a place where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors; (3) storing the same.

"Second. That his honor erred in refusing to quash the second count in the said several indictments upon the ground presented, to wit: Duplicity, in that it charged three separate offenses in the same count: (1) Maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of the act; (2) maintaining a place where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage; (3) for maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, barter or delivery in violation of the act."

Alston & Patton and L. D. Melton, for appellants.

Solicitor Jervey, for the State.

POPE, J. In the above-entitled causes tried in the court of general sessions for Charles-ton county in this state at the June term, 1896 of said court, before Judge Earle and a jury, each defendant was found guilty of maintaining a nuisance under what is known as the "Dispensary Law" of this state, and afterconviction was duly sentenced. Thereupon each one of the three defendants above named, and each in his own cause,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Turner
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1942
    ... ... the nuisance was created, does not render the indictment ... duplicitous where they are not charged as distinct offenses, ... but merely as elements which make up the single offense of a ... nuisance. 18 C.J. § 58, p. 1253; 27 C.J.S., Disorderly ... Houses, § 11; State v. Beckroge, 49 S.C. 484, 27 ... S.E. 658 ...          "As ... a house may be disorderly by reason of its use for bawdry, or ... for common tippling, or for common gaming, or for ... disturbances of the neighborhood through quarreling and loud ... noises; so, a fortiori, it may become so by ... ...
  • State v. Harrell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1927
    ...overruled the motion, holding that the state might proceed on all three. It is only necessary to refer to the cases of State v. Beckroge, 49 S.C. 484, 27 S.E. 658, State v. Woodard, 38 S.C. 353, 17 S.E. 135, to show that the trial judge committed no error in overruling the defendant's motio......
  • Benbow v. Levi
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1897
    ... ... 1st day of January, 1863, John G. King by his deed conveyed ... to P. G. Benbow a tract of land situate in Clarendon county, ... in this state, and containing 500 acres, more or less, in ... trust for his wife and children, in these words: "In ... trust for the sole and separate use of Ann ... ...
  • State v. Stello
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1897
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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