State v. Gibson

• Citation: 64 S.E. 607,83 S. C. 34
• Parties: STATE. v. GIBSON.
• Decision Date: 11 May 1909
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

64 S.E. 607
(83 S. C. 34)

STATE.
v.
GIBSON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 11, 1909.

1. Criminal Law (§ 450^*) — Opinion Evidence—Admissibility.

On a trial for receiving stolen bonds, objection to a question asked a witness by defendant as to whether cancellation marks on a bond would affect its negotiability, was properly sustained; the construction of a written instrument being for the court, and not the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1036; Dec. Dig. § 450.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 1028*)—Appeal—Presentation or Questions Below.

A conviction for receiving stolen bonds will not be reversed because the court failed to construe the bonds, where it was not requested to do so.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2619; Dec. Dig. § 1028.*]

3. Criminal Law (§ 1165*)—Appeal—Harmless Error.

A conviction for receiving stolen bonds will not be reversed because the court failed to construe the bonds, where it is not made to appear that such failure was prejudicial.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3085; Dec. Dig. § 1165.*]

4. Criminal Law (§ 1170*)—Appeal—Harmless Error—Exclusion or Evidence.

Where on a criminal trial accused was allowed to introduce evidence, which was uncontradicted, that his reputation for honesty and integrity was good, a refusal to permit such witnesses to state whether from his reputation they would believe him under oath was not prejudicial to accused; for, if he was a man of integrity, that reasonably tended to show that he was worthy of belief under oath.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3145; Dec. Dig. § 1170.*]

5. Criminal Law (§ 1038*)—Appeal—Presentation of Grounds op Review—Request for Instructions.

An assignment that the court erred in failing to give an instruction cannot be sustained, where there was no request therefor.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2646; Dec. Dig. § 1038.*]

6. Criminal Law (§ 756*) — Instructions — Charge on Facts.

A statement by the court, in response to an inquiry by the jury on a trial for receiving stolen bonds, that "My recollection is—but the jury must go by their own recollection of the testimony—my recollection of the testimony is (if I state it wrongly you gentlemen can correct me; and if there is any dispute I will have it read) that Z. said that [accused] handled all those $12,000 bonds, except one $500, which was sent to Washington, and he did not say when he took that $500...