State v. Mellette
| Decision Date | 26 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 9568. |
| Citation | 91 S.E. 4,106 S.C. 224 |
| Parties | STATE v. MELLETTE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Clarendon County; John S. Wilson, Judge.
R. B Mellette, Sr, was convicted in a magistrate's court for obstructing a neighborhood road by the removal of a bridge connecting it with a public highway, and from a reversal of the judgment and the dismissal of the prosecution, the State appeals. Affirmed.
P. H Stoll, of Kingstree, and J. J. Cantey, of Summerton, for the State.
Charlton Du Rant, of Manning, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted in a magistrate's court for obstructing a neighborhood road by the removal of a bridge connecting it with a public highway. The circuit court reversed the judgment and dismissed the prosecution, on the ground that the magistrate's court was without jurisdiction of the offense charged. The state appealed.
The case is ruled by State v. Harden, 11 S.C. 360, in which it was held that the statute under which defendant was indicted (Crim. Code, § 635) is applicable only to the obstruction of public highways, that is, those highways that are under the jurisdiction of the state or county authorities, such as are laid out or improved at the public expense, and that it is not applicable to that class of highways, commonly called neighborhood roads, which are public highways only in the sense that the public have acquired the legal right to use them.
The obstruction of such highways (neighborhood roads) is an indictable offense at common law, but the penalty for the offense has not been limited by statute so as to give magistrates jurisdiction of it, since the Constitution (article 5, § 21) prescribes that their jurisdiction shall not extend to criminal cases where the punishment exceeds a fine of $100 or imprisonment for 30 days. It has been held that the punishment for any offense must be so limited to confer jurisdiction of it upon magistrates. State v. Williams, 13 S.C. 546; State v. Weeks, 14 S.C. 400; State v Jenkins, 26 S.C. 121, 1 S.E. 437; State v. Madden, 28 S.C. 50, 4 S.E. 810.
The case relied upon by the state (State v. Wolfe, 61 S.C. 25, 39 S.E. 179) is not to the contrary. The defendant in that case was indicted in the court of general sessions for obstructing a neighborhood road. The circuit court was of the opinion that, as the offense was not one of those mentioned in section 18 of article 5 of the Constitution which gives that court concurrent jurisdiction with, as well as appellate jurisdiction from, inferior courts in all cases of riot, assault and battery, and larceny, the circuit court was without jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the magistrate for trial. This court reversed the judgment, and held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steverson v. Orangeburg County
... ... COTHRAN, ... J. (dissenting) ... I ... cannot distinguish this case from State v. Mellette, ... 106 S.C. 224, 91 S.E. 4, which in my opinion is controlling ... in favor of the appellant. In that case the defendant was ... ...
- State v. Freeland