State v. Charles

• Decision Date: 06 May 1917
• Docket Number: 9736.
• Citation: 93 S.E. 134,107 S.C. 413
• Parties: STATE v. CHARLES ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

93 S.E. 134

107 S.C. 413

STATE v. CHARLES ET AL.

No. 9736.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 6, 1917

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; J. E Peurifoy, Judge.

L. M Charles and W. J. Estes pleaded guilty to a violation of the Dispensary Law, and the sentence imposed was suspended on terms. Subsequently a rule to show cause why the suspended sentence should not be enforced for violation of its conditions was made absolute, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

J. C Otts, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

I. C Blackwood, Sol., of Spartanburg, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The record shows:

"This appeal involves the jurisdiction of the court of sessions for Union county at the August term of 1916 to enforce a sentence which had been suspended on terms by a former presiding judge at the May, 1916, term of said court. The defendants pleaded guilty to violation of the Dispensary Law at the May, 1916, term of the court of general sessions, and were sentenced each to pay a fine of five hundred ($500) dollars, and be confined to hard labor for a period of six months. This sentence to stand suspended during good behavior on payment of two hundred ($200) dollars. Thereafter the defendant L. M. Charles was convicted of disorderly conduct by the town council of Union; the defendants were also indicted for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and bound over to the court of sessions by the magistrate. Upon these facts, as shown by affidavits, a rule was issued and served requiring each of the defendants to show cause why the suspended sentence as against each of them should not be enforced."

It may be well to add that, pending the hearing of rule, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellants in the case of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The presiding judge made the following order:

"The above cause came before me on a 'rule to show cause' as to why the terms of a suspended sentence imposed upon the defendant above named at the May term of court, 1916, for Union county, by the presiding judge, Hon. Thos. S. Sease, should not now be enforced. The term of said sentence of six months and $500 having been suspended 'during good behavior' on payment of $200 or six months at hard labor upon the public works of Union county in lieu thereof. After hearing the affidavits attached to said rule, and testimony taken in open court, and the return of the defendant and arguments of the solicitor and counsel for the defendant, I find that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of said suspended sentence heretofore pronounced upon him by the presiding judge. Therefore it is hereby ordered that that part of the sentence which was heretofore suspended by the presiding judge be, and the same is hereby, placed into effect, and that the defendant be committed to the public works of Union county for a term of six months, or for a like period in the state penitentiary, and pay a fine of $300 as in and by said sentence heretofore imposed."

The record shows:

"Mr. Otts then said: 'As I stated in the beginning I shall not appear further in this proceeding. I am here questioning the jurisdiction of this court, and I don't care to appear to take testimony of witnesses, nor shall I argue the

...