State v. Grant

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMcGowan
Citation12 S.E. 1070,34 S.C. 109
Decision Date19 March 1891
PartiesState v. Grant et al.

12 S.E. 1070
34 S.C. 109

State
v.
Grant et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 19, 1891.


Assault—Jurisdiction—Indictment.

An indictment for assault and battery, in order to give the court of general sessions in South Carolina jurisdiction, must charge an assault of a high and aggravated character; and one simply charging that defendant, " with force and arms, " "did make an assault, " and "in the dwelling-house" of the assaulted person "did beat, wound, and ill treat" him, is insufficient to give the court jurisdiction.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Beaufort county; Aldrich, Judge.

W. J. Whipper and S. J. Lee, for appellants.

W. P. Murphy, for the State.

McGowan, J. This was an indictment for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and came on to be tried at the September term, A. D. 1890, of the court of general sessions for Beaufortcounty, before Mr. Justice Aldrich and a jury. The indicment charged as follows: "That Paul Grant and Aaron Middleton, on the 2d day of August, in the year of otirLord one thousand eight hundred and ninety, with force and arms, at Beaufort, in the county and state aforesaid, in and upon one Dick Heyward, with * * * did make an assault, and him, the said Dick Heyward, with the said * * * then and there, in the dwelling-house of him, the said Dick Heyward, and in the presence of the family of the said Dick Heyward, then and there did beat, wound, and ill treat, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid. Murphy, Solicitor." After a jury had been impaneled and a witness sworn the defendants demurred to the indictment on the grounds stated in their exceptions. The demurrer was overruled, and, after the evidence was taken, and argument and charge of his honor, the defendants were convicted, and sentenced each to pay a fine of $250, or be imprisoned for a term of one year in the state penitentiary. The defendants, on the 6th day of September, 1890. served the following notice of appeal and excep tions: "Please take notice that the defendants herein appeal to the supreme court of South Carolina from the judgment and sentence of his honor Judge James Aldrich, made in the above-stated case at the September term, 1890, of the court of general sessions for Beaufort county, and will move the said supreme court at the next term thereof to reverse the same upon the following grounds, to-wit: (1) Because his honor erred...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Simms, Appellate Case No. 2013–001219.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 10, 2015
    ...circuit court and magistrates' court for criminal breaches of the peace, a division created by 1870 Act No. 288. E.g., State v. Grant, 34 S.C. 109, 12 S.E. 1070 (1891).That our law retains the principle that persons whose criminal offense breaches the peace in a “high and aggravated” manner......
  • Mccown v. Rucker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 17, 1911
    ...or-[70 S.E. 456]der denying the parties the mode of trial to which they are entitled. Such an order is appealable. Ferguson v. Harrison, 34 S. C. 109, 13 S. E. 332; McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991; Alston v. Lime-house, 61 S. C. 1, 39 S. E. 192. We wish to say, however, that ......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...lower Court, objection to the jurisdiction of the subject matter may be taken advantage of at any stage of the proceeding. State v. Grant, 34 S.C. 109, 12 S.E. [243 S.C. 192] The original record filed in this Court did not contain a copy of the indictment. Upon motion of the appellant we pe......
3 cases
  • State v. Simms, Appellate Case No. 2013–001219.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 10, 2015
    ...circuit court and magistrates' court for criminal breaches of the peace, a division created by 1870 Act No. 288. E.g., State v. Grant, 34 S.C. 109, 12 S.E. 1070 (1891).That our law retains the principle that persons whose criminal offense breaches the peace in a “high and aggravated” manner......
  • Mccown v. Rucker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 17, 1911
    ...or-[70 S.E. 456]der denying the parties the mode of trial to which they are entitled. Such an order is appealable. Ferguson v. Harrison, 34 S. C. 109, 13 S. E. 332; McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991; Alston v. Lime-house, 61 S. C. 1, 39 S. E. 192. We wish to say, however, that ......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...lower Court, objection to the jurisdiction of the subject matter may be taken advantage of at any stage of the proceeding. State v. Grant, 34 S.C. 109, 12 S.E. [243 S.C. 192] The original record filed in this Court did not contain a copy of the indictment. Upon motion of the appellant we pe......

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