State v. Cooper.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1885 |
| Citation | 26 W.Va. 338 |
| Parties | State v. Cooper. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
error in this Court from judgments of the circuit courts in revenue cases, is constitutional and valid.
V new trial ought to be granted, on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence or the facts proved, only in cases of plain deviation from right and justice, not in a doubtful case merely because the court, if it had been on the jury, would have gived a different verdict.
3. If in such case, the question depends upon the weight of testimony, or inferences and deductions from facts proven, the jury and not the court, are exclusively and uncontrollably the judges.
4. A case, in which the judgment of the circuit court setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial, is reversed, because the facts proved were, in themselves, equivocal and inconclusive and the verdict, necessarily, dependent upon inferences to be drawn from these facts.
The facts of the case will be found in the opinion of the Court.
R. C. McClaugherty for plaintiff in error.
Alfred Caldwell, Attorney-G-eneral, for the State.
I submit to the court that the writ of error in this case was improvidently awarded, for the reason that no final judgment had been rendered. The Code, ch. 135, § 1, ch. 157, Acts 3 882, provides that a writ of error or supersedeas may be granted by the Supreme Court of Appeals: &c. This is a criminal case, and there has been no conviction in it. It is only in civil cases that an appeal may be taken from an order granting a new trial. (Code, ch. 135, § 1, as amended ch. 157, Acts 1882.)
The statute authorizing writs of error by the State in revenue cases is constitutional. (State v. Allen, 8 W. Va. 680; State v. Fitzpatrick, Id. 707;" State v. Kyle, Id. 711.)
The Constitution of 1863 contains a similar provision to the one invoked in this case; yet in State v. Church (4 W. Va. 745,) no question seemed to arise in the minds of the court as to the constitutionality of the law.
The Constitution simply prohibits the re-examination of the facts tried by a jury otherwise than by the setting aside of the verdict and the granting of a new trial or by proceedings in error in an appellate court. (Barlow v. Daniels & Co., 25 W. Va. 512; Parsons v. Bedford et al., 3 Pet, 447.)
If the State has the right to a writ of error in a revenue case, it necessarily follows that the appellate court may order the verdict to be set aside and a new trial to be had; and in view of our statute-law relative to writs of error in such cases the trial-court may set aside the verdict for any error, which would justify the court above in doing so.
The second assignment of error is that the evidence sustained the verdict,
It seems incredible that small sums of money amounting in the aggregate to $1.20 could from time to time be cast upon the seat, where the defendant was sitting, without his knowdedge, and yet he get the money.
William A. Cooper was tried by jury at the November term 1882, of the circuit court of Mercer county, upon an indictment for selling spirituous liquors without a State license therefor. A verdict was found for the defendant which the court on the motion ot the State set aside and ordered a new trial. The defendant excepted to this action of the court and obtained this writ of error.
The only question presented to this Court is, did the circuit court err in setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial? The plaintiff in error insists that this action of the court was erroneous because the evidence sustained the verdict of the jury.
The bill of exceptions certifies that the following are all the facts proved on the trial:
"The State proved by one Stovall that within twelve months next preceding the finding of the indictment, in the county of Mercer, the witness and two other persons met the defendant near Princeton and had some conversation with him; witness stated to him that he wished he had known he (defendant,) was coming down from Tazewell, Va. as he would have gotten him to bring him some whisky; thereupon defendant told witness that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cirullo, 10763
...138 W.Va. 30, 76 S.E.2d 906; State v. Mayle, 136 W.Va. 936, 69 S.E.2d 212; State v. Sullivan, 55 W.Va. 597, 47 S.E. 267; State v. Cooper, 26 W.Va. 338. The evidence is sufficient to lead the jury to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the unlawful sale of th......
-
State v. Carduff, 10766
...138 W.Va. 30, 76 S.E.2d 906; State v. Mayle, 136 W.Va. 936, 69 S.E.2d 212; State v. Sullivan, 55 W.Va. 597, 47 S.E. 267; State v. Cooper, 26 W.Va. 338. The evidence is sufficient to lead the jury to believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the unlawful sale of the ......
-
State v. Clifford.
...judges of the evidence, the credibility of all admissible testimony, and the inferences from the facts and circumstances proved." State v. Cooper, 26 W. Va. 338; State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. p. 335. And this rule has been often said to apply with stronger force in this Court than in a circuit ......
-
Carrico v. West Virginia Cent. & P. Ry. Co.
... ... case, and perhaps obiter as to a criminal case as to a dead ... witnes [39 W.Va. 90] s, as the witness was one out of the ... state. In Brogy's Case, 10 Grat. 733, that case is ... recognized as deciding that such evidence is not admissible ... in criminal cases, and evidence of ... correctness of the verdict. Black's Adm'r v ... Thomas, 21 W.Va. 709; State v. Cooper, 26 W.Va ... 338; Martin v. Thayer, 37 W.Va. 38, 16 S.E. 489; ... Hatfield v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 578, 14 S.E. 153. But ... we do not see that ... ...