State v. Jones

• Citation: 54 S.E. 1017,74 S.C. 456
• Parties: STATE v. JONES.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 1017

74 S.C. 456

STATE v. JONES.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 30, 1906

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County Prince, Judge.

Walter Jones was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. R Richey, for appellant. R. A. Cooper, for the State.

GARY A. J.

The record contains the following statement of facts: "The defendant, Walter Jones, was indicted at the January, 1906 term of the court of general sessions for Laurens county, for assault and battery with intent to kill one Will Pitts, on September 27, 1905, with a loaded gun. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before his honor, Judge Prince, and a jury at said term, and convicted. The defendant moved the presiding judge upon the minutes of the court for a new trial, which motion was refused; and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for 2 1/2 years.

"The testimony on the part of the prosecution was to the effect that Will Pitts, the prosecutor, and Walter Jones, Jr., the defendant, met about dark on the evening of the difficulty, had a quarrel about mowing some hay, parted, and went to their homes. (They lived about one mile from each other.) The defendant appeared at the prosecutor's house after dark, called him out of the house, and shot him. The testimony on the part of the defense was to the effect that defendant was about 17 years old, lived with his parents, and that Will Pitts, the prosecutor, was about 30 years old, and had a wife and family. That Will Pitts had made several efforts to seduce Marie Jones, sister of defendant, and had tried to get her to elope with him. That on the evening of the difficulty defendant met up with Will Pitts about dark and had a quarrel about Pitts' conduct towards defendant's sister. That Pitts cursed defendant and told him, yes, he (Pitts) had been to the room of defendant's sister, and that there was no d____d help for it. Defendant went home, got his gun and went to Pitts' house and called him out, and told him he was ready to settle the matter with him. Will Pitts came out of the house with his pistol in his hand, and defendant shot him. Will Pitts denied that the trouble was about defendant's sister."

1. Defendant appealed upon exceptions, the first of which is as follows: "(1) Because his honor, the presiding judge, erred in holding that the question as to whether or not Will Pitts, the prosecutor, was the father of his niece's child, was an immaterial matter, and in holding that the prosecutor could not be contradicted on that point, when it appeared that the defendant shot Will Pitts for attempting to seduce defendant's sister, and had denied that that was the cause of the shooting. We submit that the question was material." We fail to discover wherein the testimony was material in any view of the case, and this exception is overruled.

2. The second and third exceptions are as follows: "(2) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'In no event could you find simple assault and battery where a man shoots another with a gun." D' The error being that the presiding judge invaded the province of the jury. "(3) Because his honor erred in...