State v. Graham

Decision Date15 November 1960
Docket NumberNo. 17714,17714
Citation117 S.E.2d 147,237 S.C. 278
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. W. H. GRAHAM and James Holland, Appellants.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

P. H. McEachin, Florence, J. Reuben Long, Conway, for appellants.

Sol. Richard G. Dusenbury, Florence, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

Appellants, W. H. Graham and James Holland, were convicted on a charge of wilfully and feloniously setting fire to the Florence Hotel and its contents, the property of W. H. Graham, and of aiding, counseling and procuring the burning of said hotel and contents, with the intent to injure and defraud certain named insurance companies which had insured said property against loss or damage by fire. Graham was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of eighteen months and Holland for a term of twelve months.

We shall first discuss the exceptions relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It is contended that the Court erred in refusing a motion by appellants for a directed verdict made when the State rested and again at the conclusion of all the testimony.

It may be well at the outset to state certain facts that seem to be undisputed. The Florence Hotel, a four-story building with about 80 rooms, is located in the main business district of the City of Florence. The Sanborn Hotel is immediately across the street. A fire station is only two blocks away. A policeman is regularly on duty in this area. The fire was discovered between 8:00 and 8:30 on the night of Tuesday, December 23, 1958. Some of the business places were still open.

This hotel was purchased in 1955 by Graham for $100,000. He says that he said $20,000 cash, assumed a first mortgage of $50,000 and gave the purchaser a second note and mortgage for $30,000, and that at the time of the fire this mortgage indebtedness had been reduced to approximately $55,000. The building was insured against fire for $90,000 and the contents for $20,000. The hotel had been operated by Graham since he acquired it in 1955. Previously he had operated hotels at Marion, Conway and Myrtle Beach. He and his wife had an apartment on the first floor. The employees consisted of a night clerk, two Negro maids and four Negro bellboys, one of whom was appellant James Holland. He had worked at hotels for Graham for a period of fourteen or fifteen years. Holland was the only colored employee who lived at the Florence Hotel. He had a room on the first floor near the rear of the building. On the night of the fire there were about seven permanent guests, all of whom had rooms on the second floor. There is some testimony, although it is not definite, that there was also a transient guest in the hotel that night. No one was occupying a room on either the third or the fourth floor. The hotel was equipped with a sprinkler system. When the heat reached a certain point, it would start operating which would cause the alarm bell to ring. This system was in good working order on the night of the fire.

The testimony offered by the State to establish the incendiary nature of the fire and appellants' connection with it may be briefly summarized as follows:

Although the alarm bell attached to the sprinkler system started ringing not later than 8:15 on the night of the fire, the Fire Department did not receive a call until approximately 8:25. The bell was heard by a fireman who was off duty and about a third of a block away. He immediately went to the hotel and found water seeping through the ceiling. Mrs. Graham was behind the desk and Graham was standing nearby. After this fireman talked to Mrs. Graham, she called the Fire Department. He then went up on the second floor where water was running from the ceilings and there was considerable smoke and saw appellant Holland 'coming off the steps from the third floor.' Holland told him that there was a man, Sam Wilson, in room 208 who was drunk and would not unlock the door. This fireman then knocked the door open with his shoulders, and found Wilson heavily intoxicated, standing in the middle of the room. He was reluctant to leave, stating that he had not done anything. Finally, he was taken to the lobby by this fireman and Holland. The alarm was also heard by a policeman standing in front of the Sanborn Hotel. He immediately went across the street to the Florence Hotel where he saw smoke coming from a window. He went back to the Sanborn Hotel and after calling the Police Department, returned to the Florence Hotel where he saw Mrs. Graham working at the desk.

The fire trucks arrived within a minute or a minute and a half after receiving the call at 8:25. The fireman found one room on fire on the fourth floor and eleven or twelve rooms on fire on the third floor. All of these fires were disconnected. There was a definite odor of some petroleum product. The fire was brought under control in about an hour and a half. After that a careful examination was made of the building. It was found that holes about an inch in diameter had been bored with a brace and bit in the baseboard of the rooms and also a few holes were bored in the walls. Under these holes there were burned shavings. Burned matches were around the various places where the fires started. There were stained places on the rugs. These spots had burned. A pair of gloves, similar to those worn at times by Holland, were found near the rear basement door about ten feet from his room. These gloves were wet and had 'an oily smell'. One of them was in a trash can and another outside of the trash can. Holland was the only bellboy who used gloves around the hotel. A cap from an oil can was found in a room on the fourth floor in which there had been no fire.

There had been guests in the rooms on the third and fourth floors on the previous Saturday night but none since. The two colored maids testified that the rooms on these floors were cleaned by them on Monday, the day before the fire, and that at that time there were no holes in the walls or shavings or matches on the floor. No odor was noted. The maids said after cleaning these rooms on Monday the doors were locked, as was usually done, and that they never had occasion to go back on either the third or the fourth floor. On the day of the fire they only cleaned the rooms on the second floor and finished their work about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

There were three keys on a string which the maids used in unlocking the hotel rooms. They got them from the linen room when they went to work and at the end of each day, returned them to the linen room and put the nightlatch on. Other than these and the regular keys used by the guests, the only means of unlocking the doors was by a passkey which was kept on a brass ring at the desk. It would unlock any of the rooms as well as the linen closet. An examination on the night of the fire disclosed that this passkey had been removed from the ring.

Graham seems to have had considerable trust in Holland who, as heretofore stated, had been in his employ for a number of years. Holland was the only one who had a key to his apartment. Several days after the fire Holland, who continued to work for Graham, was seen alone with him and his wife in the lobby of the hotel and when taken into custody about three weeks after the fire, was working for Graham's son-in-law in Horry County.

Holland and another bellboy worked at the hotel on the day shift. Their hours were from 8:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night. Quite frequently Holland stayed overtime. The bellboy who worked with him testified that they were together in the lobby during the afternoon before the fire but that Holland disappeared from the lobby about 7:00 o'clock that night and had not returned by 8:05 when this bellboy said he got off from work. About midnight after the fire the officers questioned Holland. He said that he was in the room asleep when the fire started and was awakened by water coming from the ceiling. He first stated that he had not been on the third floor in ninety days but later said that about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the day of the fire, he went to the third floor to get some linen. Subsequently he said 'he went up on the third floor to pick up some linen and the fire run him out.'

Two of the bellboys worked at night, starting about 8:00 o'clock. One of them testified that when he came to work on the night of the fire, Graham instructed him: 'You boys keep a close eye, front, because I am expecting a pretty good crowd to come in tonight.' The State's testimony discloses no basis for this expectation.

Apparently Graham was in the lobby continuously for several hours before the fire was discovered. At least, there is no testimony to the contrary. However, it may be fairly inferred from the State's testimony that upon discovery of the fire, he was unconcerned and indifferent, making no effort to rescue any of his property or that of his guests. He remained calmly in the lobby.

On August 11, 1958, Graham offered to sell the hotel and furnishings to a business man in Marion for $77,000. About six months before the fire a Mr. Pate, who operated the Sanborn Hotel, contacted Graham about buying the Florence Hotel. Graham wanted $125,000 but later stated that he would take $100,000. These negotiations continued off and on, sometimes at the instigation of Graham and at other times at the instigation of Pate, until the day of the fire. On that day Pate offered Graham $90,000, $5,000 of which was to be paid in cash and the balance represented by mortgages. Graham declined the offer, stating that he though he would wait until Pate secured more cash. During these negotiations, Graham indicated to Pate that he needed a substantial amount of cash to buy a motor court at Myrtle Beach. It appears that the monthly installment on the first mortgage on the hotel, due December 17, 1958, was not paid until December 29th, after the fire.

On August 20, 1958, a fire insurance agent in Florence discussed with Graham...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1968
    ...said: Westphal v. Rhay, 375 U.S. 947, 84 S.Ct. 358, 11 L.Ed.2d 277; Alejandro v. Texas (Tex.Cr.App.), 394 S.W.2d 523; State v. Graham, 237 S.C. 278, 117 S.E.2d 147; Moreno v. Colorado, 156 Colo. 503, 400 P.2d 899; Commonwealth v. Parrotta, 316 Mass. 307, 55 N.E.2d 'Prejudice is asserted fro......
  • State v. Quillien
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1974
    ...his position in this State. It is well established that the connecting evidence can either be direct or circumstantial. State v. Graham, 237 S.C. 278 117 S.E.2d 147. Furthermore the rule is that definite or certain evidence is not required. All that is required is that evidence be sufficien......
  • State v. Bellue, 19520
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1972
    ...direct evidence as to the pistol being the murder weapon. The case is based on a chain of circumstantial evidence. In State v. Graham, 237 S.C. 278, 117 S.E.2d 147 (1960), the Court 'It is said that the cap was not connected in any way with either appellant and that the evidence was not suf......
  • State v. Atkins, 18208
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1964
    ...to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.' 89 S.E.2d 926. See also State v. Graham, 237 S.C. 278, 117 S.E.2d 147. TAYLOR, C. J., and MOSS, LEWIS and BUSSEY, JJ., concur. * The case against the defendant Maw has been dismissed by an order......

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