State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 08 June 1899 |
| Citation | 33 S.E. 351 |
| Parties | STATE. v. LEWIS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW—PROSECUTION—JURISDICTION —REPEAL OF STATUTE.
The court has no jurisdiction of a prosecution of one for committing an act after the statute making such act a crime has been repealed.
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Pickens county; James Aldrich, Judge.
R. K. Lewis was convicted of unlawfully taking orders for contraband liquors, and he appeals. Reversed.
J. P. Carey, for appellant.
M. F. Ansel, for the State.
The defendant was tried at the March, 1898, term of the court for Pickens county, on an indictment charging that the defendant on the 3d day of September, 1897, did unlawfully take orders for, and solicit orders and receive money from other persons for the purchase of, contraband alcoholic liquors for such other persons in this state, etc. The evidence was that the defendant took orders for contraband alcoholic liquors for several parties during the months of August and September, 1897. The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced by Judge James Aldrich on March 9, 1898, to pay a fine of $100, or be imprisoneu for three months. From this verdict and sentence the defendant gave due notice of appeal to the supreme court, on the following grounds: (1) Because the court of general sessions had no jurisdiction of the case or of the defendant, as the statute making it a crime to take or solicit orders for contraband alcoholic liquors was repealed before the offense alleged in the indictment was committed, and before the trial and sentence; (2) because the defendant has committed no crime, and the indictment charges no crime.
The question raised by these exceptions Is conclusively stated in accordance with appellant's contention by the case of State v. Mansel, 52 S. C. 468, 30 S. E. 481. It is therefore the judgment of this court that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, and the indictment quashed, for want of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank v. Heyward
...punishment of felonies"—there appears no answer to the proposition. See, also, State v. Moore, 128 S. C. 192, 122 S. E. 672; State v. Lewis (S. C.) 33 S. E. 351. It is conceded that the case of Gilliland v. Phillips, 1 S. C. 152 (Moses, Willard and Hoge, JJ.), is opposed to the conclusion......
-
Citizens' Bank v. Heyward
...and punishment of felonies"-there appears no answer to the proposition. See, also, State v. Moore, 128 S.C. 192, 122 S.E. 672; State v. Lewis (S. C.) 33 S.E. 351. It conceded that the case of Gilliland v. Phillips, 1 S. C. 152 (Moses, Willard and Hoge, JJ.), is opposed to the conclusions re......
-
State v. Moore
...88, 20 L.Ed. 153; U.S. v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 546, 24 L.Ed. 1082; note to 88 Am. St. Rep. 288; State v. Thomas, 14 Rich. 163. In State v. Lewis, 33 S.E. 351 (not reported in Carolina Reports), the court decided that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of a prosecution of one for committing a......
-
State v. Moore
...88, 20 L. Ed. 153; U. S. v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546, 24 L. Ed. 1082; note to 88 Am. St. Rep. 288; State v. Thomas, 14 Rich. 163. In State v. Lewis, 33 S. E. 351 (not reported in South Carolina Reports), the court decided that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of a prosecution of one for c......