State v. Easterlin

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtJONES
Citation39 S.E. 250,61 S.C. 71
Decision Date10 July 1901
PartiesSTATE. v. EASTERLIN.

39 S.E. 250
61 S.C. 71

STATE.
v.
EASTERLIN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 10, 1901.


CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—PRESUMPTIONS—EVIDENCE — REVIEW — VIOLATION OF LABOR CONTRACT—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. Where a conviction by a magistrate has been affirmed by the circuit court, the supreme court, on appeal, where there is evidence of the locality in which the crime was committed, will assume that the trial court was satisfied that the designated place was within the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate.

2. Where there was some evidence to sustain conviction by a magistrate, it was not error of law for the circuit court to affirm the judgment so as to authorize a review by the supreme court.

[39 S.E. 251]

3. In a prosecution under 22 St. at Large, p. 457, for violation of a farm-labor contract verbally made, either party may testify to the terms of the contract.

4. In a prosecution under 22 St. at Large, p. 457, for violation of a farm-labor contract, a brother of one of the contracting parties is a "disinterested witness, " within the terms of the statute, so as to be competent to testify as to the terms of the contract.

5. 22 St. at Large, p. 457, providing for prosecution for breach of farm-labor contracts, held not to violate provision of constitution against imprisonment for debt.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Orangeburg county.

Easter Easterlin was convicted of violating a verbal farm-labor contract. From a judgment of the general sessions circuit court, affirming that of magistrate's court, he appeals. Affirmed.

W. C. Wolfe, for appellant.

James Evans, for the State.

JONES, J. The defendant was prosecuted before Magistrate Pou, in Orangeburg county, for violation of a verbal farm-labor contract, under the act of 1897, and was found guilty by the jury and sentenced. On appeal to the circuit court, the judgment of the magistrate was affirmed. The exceptions to this court are as follows: "(1) It was error to allow the prosecuting witnesses and the contractee to testify as to the terms of the alleged contract because the statute provides a mode for proof of such contracts. (2) It was error to allow the contract to be proven by one disinterested witness, and the brother of the contractee, because such brother is not a competent witness to prove such contract under the act of 1897. It was also error to refuse defendant's requests, as each one embodied a correct principle of law. (3) There was absolutely no evidence to show that the alleged contract was violated. (4) There was absolutely...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Ex Parte Hollman.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1908
    ...(State v. Williams, 32 S. C. 124, 10 S. E. 876; State v. Chapman, 56 S. C. 420, 34 S. E. 961, 76 Am. St. Rep. 557; State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 S. E. 250), then this act must be upheld. In the first case such legislation was held constitutional, the court saying: "If the General Asse......
  • Brown v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co, (No. 12040.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 1926
    ...S. C. 277, 37 S. E. 834. "It is not error to affirm a magistrate judgment where there is any evidence to support it." State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 8. E. 250. "Where a finding by the circuit court on appeal from magistrate [court] is supported by any evidence, it is final." Saunders v......
  • City Council Of Abbeville v. Leopard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 12, 1901
    ...all of its inhabitants, and those offenses which consist in a breach of the laws governing the inhabitants of a city or town in this state[39 S.E. 250]within the corporate limits of such city or town. This distinction was recognized and enforced as early as the year 1787, as will be seen in......
  • Denevan v. Belter, No. 43.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 22, 1925
    ...testimony has been quoted. An interested witness is one who has a pecuniary interest, having prospect of gain or loss. State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 S. E. 250; 3 Words and Phrases, 2104. Of course, the relation of the witness to the parties is to be considered as regards credibility. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Ex Parte Hollman.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1908
    ...(State v. Williams, 32 S. C. 124, 10 S. E. 876; State v. Chapman, 56 S. C. 420, 34 S. E. 961, 76 Am. St. Rep. 557; State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 S. E. 250), then this act must be upheld. In the first case such legislation was held constitutional, the court saying: "If the General Asse......
  • Brown v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co, (No. 12040.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 1926
    ...S. C. 277, 37 S. E. 834. "It is not error to affirm a magistrate judgment where there is any evidence to support it." State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 8. E. 250. "Where a finding by the circuit court on appeal from magistrate [court] is supported by any evidence, it is final." Saunders v......
  • City Council Of Abbeville v. Leopard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 12, 1901
    ...all of its inhabitants, and those offenses which consist in a breach of the laws governing the inhabitants of a city or town in this state[39 S.E. 250]within the corporate limits of such city or town. This distinction was recognized and enforced as early as the year 1787, as will be seen in......
  • Denevan v. Belter, No. 43.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 22, 1925
    ...testimony has been quoted. An interested witness is one who has a pecuniary interest, having prospect of gain or loss. State v. Easterlin, 61 S. C. 71, 39 S. E. 250; 3 Words and Phrases, 2104. Of course, the relation of the witness to the parties is to be considered as regards credibility. ......
  • 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