State v. Harreld, 17081

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR; STUKES, OXNER and LEGGE, JJ., and J. WOODROW LEWIS
Citation228 S.C. 311,89 S.E.2d 879
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. W. E. HARRELD, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 17081,17081
Decision Date03 November 1955

Page 879

89 S.E.2d 879
228 S.C. 311
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
W. E. HARRELD, Appellant.
No. 17081.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 3, 1955.

[228 S.C. 312] R. E. Hanna, Cheraw, for appellant.

Atty. Gen., T. C. Callison, Pope & Greene, Newberry, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

Appellant, W. E. Harreld, was convicted of violating Section 28-551 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1952, while fishing in Lake Murray in Newberry County. Trial was had before Magistrate Claude Wilson who found appellant guilty, but this conviction was set aside by Judge Steve C. Griffith, Judge of the Eighth Circuit upon the ground that the Magistrate had failed to make a proper record of the trial. Thereafter, appellant moved for a change of venue which was granted, and the case was transferred to Magistrate Harold Wise at Little Mountain, South Carolina, where trial was held on July 28, 1954. Appellant, being convicted for the second time, again appealed, and this appeal was heard by the Honorable J. Frank Eatmon, presiding Judge, who dismissed all exceptions; and he now appeals to this Court contending: (1) That the jury panel was improperly selected, and (2) that it was error to deny appellant's request that he be permitted to move for a new trial on after discovered evidence.

Page 880

[228 S.C. 313] The pertinent portion of Section 28-551, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1952, entitled 'Unlawful to fish with certain equipment without angler's license', provides:

'Except as otherwise expressly provided it shall be unlawful for any person to fish in fresh water of this State by use of a fly rod, casting rod, artifical bait or any manufactured tackle or equipment, other than ordinary hook and line, unless he has at first obtained an angler's license.'

The record brfore us does not include the testimony and the sufficient of such is apparently not questioned. From the Order of the hearing Judge, it is apparent that no objection as to the qualifications of any of the jurors was interposed prior to the jurors being empaneled as required by Section 38-203 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1952; neither was there any objection made before the returning of the verdict nor any showing made that appellant was in anywise injured thereby as required by Section 38-214 of the Code. Appellant will not be permitted to take his chances upon a favorable verdict, and in case of disappointment, have the verdict set aside upon a technicality, State v. Johnson, 66...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State v. Mayfield, 17557
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 20, 1959
    ...1019, 18 Ann.Cas. 569; State v. Knotts, 129 S.C. 357, 123 S.E. 828; Brown v. Singletary, 226 S.C. 482, 85 S.E.2d 738; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Rayfield, 232 S.C. 230, 101 S.E.2d Also without merit is appellant's contention that his counsel was not permitted to......
  • Sherer v. James, 0437
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 1985
    ...by James [ Spencer v. Kirby, 234 S.C. 59, 106 S.E.2d 883 (1959); State v. Rayfield, 232 S.C. 230, 101 S.E.2d 505 (1958); State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879 (1955); Brown v. Singletary, 226 S.C. 482, 85 S.E.2d. 738 (1955); Sellars v. Collins, 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176 (1948); Bro......
  • Spencer v. Kirby, 17493
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 26, 1959
    ...and upon disappointment have the verdict set aside upon a technicality; State v. Johnson, 66 S.C. 23, 44 S.E. 58; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Rayfield, supra. Of interest on this question are State v. Robertson, 54 S.C. 147, 31 S.E. 868; Mew v. Charleston & S. Ry......
  • State v. Davis, 17848
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 1961
    ...the venire, absent a showing of prejudice. State v. Smith, 200 S.C. 188, 20 S.E.2d 726; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. [239 S.C. 285] 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Livingston, 233 S.C. 400, 105 S.E.2d The remaining questions we shall discuss briefly in order that our view of them may serve as a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State v. Mayfield, 17557
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 20, 1959
    ...1019, 18 Ann.Cas. 569; State v. Knotts, 129 S.C. 357, 123 S.E. 828; Brown v. Singletary, 226 S.C. 482, 85 S.E.2d 738; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Rayfield, 232 S.C. 230, 101 S.E.2d Also without merit is appellant's contention that his counsel was not permitted to......
  • Sherer v. James, 0437
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 1985
    ...by James [ Spencer v. Kirby, 234 S.C. 59, 106 S.E.2d 883 (1959); State v. Rayfield, 232 S.C. 230, 101 S.E.2d 505 (1958); State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879 (1955); Brown v. Singletary, 226 S.C. 482, 85 S.E.2d. 738 (1955); Sellars v. Collins, 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176 (1948); Bro......
  • Spencer v. Kirby, 17493
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 26, 1959
    ...and upon disappointment have the verdict set aside upon a technicality; State v. Johnson, 66 S.C. 23, 44 S.E. 58; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Rayfield, supra. Of interest on this question are State v. Robertson, 54 S.C. 147, 31 S.E. 868; Mew v. Charleston & S. Ry......
  • State v. Davis, 17848
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 14, 1961
    ...the venire, absent a showing of prejudice. State v. Smith, 200 S.C. 188, 20 S.E.2d 726; State v. Harreld, 228 S.C. [239 S.C. 285] 311, 89 S.E.2d 879; State v. Livingston, 233 S.C. 400, 105 S.E.2d The remaining questions we shall discuss briefly in order that our view of them may serve as a ......
  • 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