State v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 11 February 1908
• Citation: 60 S.E. 241,79 S.C. 84
• Parties: STATE v. HUNTER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 241

79 S.C. 84

STATE v. HUNTER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 11, 1908

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

R. Lee Hunter was convicted of a violation of the liquor law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Richey & Richey, for appellant.

R. A Cooper, for respondent.

WOODS J.

The defendant was convicted on an indictment containing four counts, charging separately: (1) Selling liquor; (2) unlawfully keeping and maintaining a place where alcoholic liquors were sold, bartered, and given away; (3) willfully and unlawfully maintaining and keeping a place where alcoholic liquors were kept for sale, barter, and delivery (4) willfully and unlawfully storing, keeping in possession contraband spirituous liquors. The sentence of the court was that "the defendant pay on each count in the indictment upon which he has been convicted the sum of $200 or in default thereof he serve on each of said counts a term of three months upon the public works of said county."

Messrs O. L. Schumpert and Richey & Richey were retained by defendant as his counsel. On the call of the case for trial a motion was made for continuance on the ground that Mr. Schumpert, the leading counsel, could not be present on account of a death in his family. The circuit judge refused to continue the cause, and on the trial the defense was conducted by Messrs. Richey & Richey. Requiring the defendant to go to trial in the absence of his leading counsel is alleged to have been an abuse of discretion by the circuit judge. Granting or refusing a continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge, and an appellate court will not disturb his decision except in a clear case of abuse of discretion. Latimer v. Murphy, 42 S.C. 209, 20 S.E. 159; State v. Murphy, 48 S.C. 5, 25 S.E. 43. In Varn v. Green, 50 S.C. 403, 27 S.E. 862, forcing a party to trial when both his counsel were sick and unable to conduct the case was held an abuse of discretion. But this case is quite different from that. It was unfortunate Mr. Schumpert could not be present; but the case was simple, involving only questions of fact, and it was certainly not an unreasonable conclusion of the circuit judge that the defendant would have a fair trial with his defense in the hands of able and zealous counsel who were present.

There was no reversible error in excluding the question asked the witness Littleton with respect to...