State v. Hays
| Decision Date | 05 July 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10921. |
| Citation | 113 S.E. 362,121 S.C. 163 |
| Parties | STATE v. HAYS ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County Ernest Moore, Judge.
Walter L. Hays and Ed Wilson were convicted of manslaughter, and appeal. Affirmed.
Sullivan & Cooley and Watkins & Prince, all of Anderson, for appellants.
Solicitor L. W. Harris, Leon L. Rice, and Bonham & Allen, all of Anderson, and Bonham & Price, of Greenville, for the State.
Walter L. Hays, Ed Wilson, George Wilson, and Allen Emerson were indicted and tried in September, 1921, for the murder of T F. Ramey. George Wilson and Allen Emerson were found guilty of carrying concealed weapons. Walter L. Hays and Ed Wilson who are the appellants here, were convicted of manslaughter with recommendation to mercy.
The nature of the exceptions upon which the appeal is based warrants a somewhat full outline of the evidentiary facts. The state introduced testimony tending to establish that about 11 o'clock in the morning of the day of the homicide Walter Hays, one of the appellants, and his brother, Tom Hays, drove by the home of Ramey, the deceased, shouted to him an opprobrious epithet and called upon him to "come out and shoot it out"; that Mrs. Ramey, wife of the deceased, ran to the road, begged for peace, and succeeded, as she thought, in making peace; that about 2 p. m. of the same day Walter Hays and Ed Wilson drove in an automobile to a farm where George Wilson worked and had a talk with him; that George Wilson then got his pistol and went with his visitors to a point where they saw and talked with Allen Emerson; that Allen Emerson then went in the house, came out with a pistol in his pocket, and got in the car; that the car containing the four men named was then driven in the direction of Starr; that a car containing Walter Hays, Ed Wilson, and two other men was later seen to arrive from the direction of Starr at the home of Walter Hays, who went in his house, got two guns (a rifle and a shotgun), and put them in the car; that the car was then driven rapidly away in the direction of Ramey's home, some six or eight miles away; that thereafter while Ramey, the deceased, was sitting in a chair in his yard under the shade of an oak tree mending a tire, Walter Hays drove his car into the yard and up to within a few feet of where Ramey was sitting; that with him in the car were his brother, Tom Hays, and Ed Wilson, George Wilson, and Allen Emerson; that Walter Hays and Ed Wilson covered Ramey with pistols, and Walter Hays told his brother Tom to get his club and beat Ramey until he was satisfied; that Tom Hays then struck Ramey with a mattock handle; that at about that juncture Barney Ramey, the 15 year old son of Ramey, appeared on the scene with a rifle; that Walter Hays fired the first shot; that in the mêlée that followed Tom Hays was killed, supposedly by the boy Barney Ramey; that the deceased, Ramey, received five fatal shot wounds; and that the tragedy occurred in the presence of Ramey's wife, who was far advanced in a condition of pregnancy.
The defendants introduced testimony tending to show that previous to the day of the homicide Tom Hays and the deceased, Ramey, were on unfriendly terms; that the defendant Walter Hays, at the solicitation of his brother, had tried to compose the differences; that on the day of the tragedy all of the defendants were on their way by the most direct route to a farm controlled by Walter Hays; that, in passing the home of Ramey, Ramey hailed them, and by signal invited them to enter his premises; that upon entering Tom Hays got out and went toward Ramey who advanced to meet him; that, after a few words had passed between them, Ramey suddenly drew a pistol; that thereupon Tom Hays struck Ramey with a chair; that Ramey's son, Barney, then ran out of the house and shot Tom Hays with a rifle; that thereafter Tom Hays and the deceased, Ramey, began shooting at each other; and that the defendant Walter Hays then interfered in behalf of his brother and struck the deceased, Ramey.
The exceptions, four in number, will be considered in inverse order.
The fourth exception imputes error to the trial judge in charging the state's second request, which was as follows:
"So, if the jury are satisfied by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Francis
...S.E. 61, and State v. Shuler, 116 S.C. 152, 107 S.E. 147. It was conceded by the counsel for the appellant in the case of State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 113 S.E. 362, that declaration of the law as laid down in the Cook Case was the settled law of this jurisdiction, and that it was recognized......
-
Currie v. Davis
... ... arrival and departure of trains. The point raised has not ... been expressly decided in this state, and is one as to which ... there is a conflict of authority in other jurisdictions. We ... think the evidence was admissible. The fundamental ... condemned as a charge on the facts in violation of the ... constitutional inhibition in that regard. See State v ... Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 113 S.E. 362 ... The ... defendant requested the trial court to charge "that it ... is the duty of a passenger, ... ...
-
State v. Hewitt
... ... his wife is coextensive with the right of the wife to defend ... herself. 26 Am.Jur., Sec. 159, Page 266; 40 C.J.S., Homicide, ... § 108, subsec. a, page 968; State v. Francis, 152 ... S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v ... Petit, 144 S.C. 452, 142 S.E. 725; State v ... Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 113 S.E. 362 ... There ... were two encounters. In the first, to which we have referred, ... King was making no attack upon the appellants, John C. Hewitt ... and his son, Geno Hewitt. Although John C. Hewitt relied upon ... his right to defend his wife, Veva ... ...
-
State v. Sales, 22270
...under the law of self-defense, a person may not only take life in his own defense but also in defense of a relative. State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 113 S.E. 362 (1922). He also correctly stated that the right to intervene to protect the relative is subject to the same limitations as the right......