State v. Castleman, 16482

Decision Date23 March 1951
Docket NumberNo. 16482,16482
Citation219 S.C. 136,64 S.E.2d 250
PartiesSTATE v. CASTLEMAN.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

A. L. King, Georgetown, for appellant.

Frank A. McLeod, Sol., Sumter, for respondent.

HENDERSON, Acting Associate Justice.

In one count in the indictment the defendant was charged with possession of unstamped alcoholic liquor, and in another count will storing such liquor.

At the conclusion of the evidence the Circuit Judge directed a verdict of not guilty as to the charge of storing, and the trial thereupon proceeded on the other count. The defendant was found guilty of unlawful possession, and was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen days or to pay a fine of $100.

Under the Act of March 27, 1948, 45 St. at Large, page 2194, the penalty for a first conviction of unlawful possession is imprisonment for not more than thirty days or a fine of not more than $100, and for subsequent convictions imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than $1,000. The record shows that this was a first conviction.

We do not think that the Court of General Sessions has jurisdiction to try a person for a first offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Article 5, section 18, of the Constitution provides that the Court of General Sessions shall have jurisdiction in all criminal cases except those in which exclusive jurisdiction shall be given to inferior courts, and in these it shall have appellate jurisdiction. It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with, as well as appellate jurisdiction from, the inferior courts in all cases of riot, assault and battery, and larceny.

In setting out the jurisdiction of magistrate courts the Constitution, in Article 5, section 21, says that they shall have exclusive jurisdiction in such criminal cases as the General Assembly may prescribe, such jurisdiction not to extend to cases where the punishment exceeds a fine of $100, or imprisonment for thirty days.

In providing for those cases in which the magistrates shall have exclusive jurisdiction, the General Assembly has enacted section 3709 of the Code, and it is there stated that they shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the punishment does not exceed a fine of $100 or imprisonment for thirty days, except in cases of riot, assault and battery, and larceny, and the carrying of concealed weapons coupled with an offense in which such weapon is used. This section further says that magistrates shall have concurrent jurisdiction only with the Court of General Sessions in cases of riot, assault and battery, and larceny.

There has been no subsequent act of the Legislature giving the Court of General Sessions jurisdiction in cases of the first offense of unlawful...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Dudley
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 14, 2003
    ...and by appearing to defend his case. See State v. Bethea, 88 S.C. 515, 70 S.E. 11 (1911); see also State v. Castleman, 219 S.C. 136, 138-39, 64 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1951) ("A defendant may, of course, waive his objection to the jurisdiction of the Court over his person...."); Town of Ridgeland ......
  • State v. Adams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 2003
    ...and by appearing to defend his case. See State v. Bethea, 88 S.C. 515, 70 S.E. 11 (1911); see also State v. Castleman, 219 S.C. 136, 138-39, 64 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1951) ("A defendant may, of course, waive his objection to the jurisdiction of the Court over his person...."); Town of Ridgeland ......
  • State v. Wright
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 2003
    ...indictment. Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court. See State v. Castleman, 219 S.C. 136, 139, 64 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1951). The circuit court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to convict a defendant of an offense unless there is......
  • State v. Johnston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 1997
    ...is the duty of the court to assure that it renders no decision in a matter when it has no authority to act. See State v. Castleman, 219 S.C. 136, 139, 64 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1951) ("[B]ut we think that we should raise the question of jurisdiction on our own motion, so as to preserve the orderl......
  • 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