State v. Browning

• Decision Date: 14 February 1905
• Citation: 50 S.E. 185,70 S.C. 466
• Parties: STATE v. BROWNING.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E. 185

70 S.C. 466

STATE v. BROWNING.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 14, 1905

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Oconee County; J. A McCullough, Special Judge.

W. B Browning was convicted of cruelty to animals, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. R Earle, for appellant. Julius E. Boggs, for the State.

GARY A. J.

The appellant was convicted before a magistrate for violating the provisions of section 624 of the Criminal Code of 1902. On appeal to the circuit court the sentence imposed by the magistrate was affirmed. Thereupon the defendant appealed to this court on the following exceptions "(1) That the judge erred in dismissing the appeal from the magistrate's court, but should have held the first and second grounds therein sufficient to reverse the magistrate. (2) That the judge erred in not holding that the act complained of as constituting the crime must be that of the accused, or some one in his employ, or under his direction or control. (3) It was error for the judge to hold that the 'mere fact of being the owner of the mule would make the defendant responsible,' but should have held that the act relied on as constituting the crime must be under such circumstances as to make it the act of the defendant."

The first ground of appeal from the magistrate sentence was as follows: "The magistrate erred in finding the defendant guilty, as there is no evidence that the defendant inflicted any cruelty upon the mule, or ordered any cruel or unusual work." Section 624 of the Criminal Code of 1902 is as follows: "Every owner or person having the possession, charge or custody of any animal, who cruelly drives or works when unfit for labor, or cruelly abandons the same, or who carries, or causes the same to be carried, in or upon any vehicle or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner, or knowingly or wilfully authorizes or permits the same to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind, shall be punished for every such offense in the manner provided in preceding section." Without undertaking to review the testimony, this court is satisfied that there were facts in evidence from which it might properly have been inferred that the mule was cruelly worked when it was unfit for labor, with the knowledge and permission of the defendant, who was owner thereof.

The second ground of appeal from the magistrate sentence was as follows: ""There is no...