State v. Farris

• Decision Date: 03 December 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 308,51 S.C. 176
• Parties: STATE v. FARRIS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E. 308

51 S.C. 176

STATE

v.FARRIS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 3, 1897.

Habeas Corpus—Jurisdiction—Bail in Criminal Cases—Right to Bail.

1. Under Const, art. 4, § 4, declaring that "the supreme court shall have power to issue writs or orders of * * * habeas corpus, " etc., it may grant any relief for which writs are an appropriate remedy; and hence it may issue a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of determining whether a person in custody may be admitted to bail.

2. 2 Rev. St. p. 283, § 75, providing that it shall not be lawful for "any justice of the supreme court, " pending an appeal to such court, to grant bail to any person convicted of any offense the punishment whereof is imprisonment "for any term exceeding ten years, " does not prevent the supreme court from granting bail in such cases but inferentially shows an intent by the legislature to continue such power in said court.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Beaufort county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Application by W. D. Farris for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of obtaining his discharge on bail from the custody of the sheriff of Beaufort county, pending an appeal by him from a judgment of conviction for obstructing the track of a railroad company. Writ granted, and applicant admitted to bail.

W. S. Tillinghast, for appellant

Solicitor Bellinger, for the State.

PER CURIAM. The defendant in this case, having been convicted in the court of general sessions for Beaufort county of the offense of obstructing the track of the Charleston & Savannah Railway Company, in violation of the provisions of section 123 of the Criminal Statutes (2 Rev. St. p. 305), was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the term of ten years and one month, and was committed to the jail of Beaufort county pending his appeal from said judgment, where he now is. The prisoner applied for, and obtained, a writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of procuring bail pending his appeal; so that the question presented for the decision of this court is whether the prisoner is entitled to bail under the circumstances of this case, as shown by the affidavits and other papers submitted at the hearing. The application for bail was resisted by the solicitor mainly upon the grounds that no authority was conferred upon this court, or any other tribunal, to grant bail, after conviction, where, as in this case, the punishment imposed exceeded imprisonment for a term of 10 years. Section 4 of article 4 of...