State v. Rickenbaker, (No. 12110.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBLEASE
Citation135 S.E. 651
Docket Number(No. 12110.)
Decision Date26 November 1926
PartiesSTATE v. RICKENBAKER.

135 S.E. 651

STATE
v.
RICKENBAKER.

(No. 12110.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 26, 1926.


[135 S.E. 651]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Calhoun County; M. M. Mann, Judge.

C. H. Rickenbaker was convicted of possessing and storing alcoholic liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. S. Murph and J. C. Hiott, both of St. Matthews, for appellant.

A. J. Hydrick, Sol., of Orangeburg, for the State.

BLEASE, J. The defendant was indicted in the court of general sessions for Calhoun county, by the grand jury of said county, on a charge of having violated the prohibition law by having in his possession and storing alcoholic liquors.

The defendant was arrested on March 13, 1926. The grand jury returned an indictment Monday, the first day of the May term of the court thereafter. On Tuesday the defendant was called for trial and failed to an swer in person or by attorney. A certificate from a practicing physician was handed the presiding judge, in the following language:

"This is to certify that Mr. C. H. Rickenbaker is confined to his bed by illness. I have visited him this morning and advised him to stay in bed."

There was no formal motion for a continuance, but we presume the defendant intended the certificate of the physician to be his motion therefor. The judge ordered that a bench warrant be issued for the defendant. It is stated in the record that the defendant was found in his field, superintending his laborers, by the deputies who were sent for him. Soon after being brought into the court, the accused was called for trial. There was no request for continuance. The defendant announced that he would plead guilty, and upon his arraignment he so pleaded.

After the plea of guilty had been published, the presiding judge inquired if the defendant desired to make any statement before sentence was passed. The defendant stated that he had had in his possession a small amount, of whisky for his personal use; that he had been arrested by the federal authorities for having this whisky, had entered a plea of guilty in the federal court, and had paid a fine of $300 there placed upon him; that this was his first offense, and he asked for the mercy of the court.

After these statements made by the defendant, Judge Mann asked if there was any person in court who would like to say anything for or against the defendant. Thereupon, Mr. W. B. Hildebrand, a citizen of Calhoun county, made, in substance, the following unsworn statement:

"That defendant's farm adjoined his; that he had information that defendant was making liquor on his premises; that his farm labor would get drunk or sick off of his beer, and he was being thereby hindered in his farm work. That some time last fall he went to the defendant and requested him to stop making whisky and told him about his hands getting drunk, etc. Defendant replied, telling him, among other things, that he, defendant, sold whisky to the best people from St. George to Greenville, and that if he [Hildebrand] took a stand against him for making and selling whisky that he would not have friends enough to bury him. That he also told him that he was not going to quit making whisky. Mr. Hildebrand stated to the court that, inasmuch as the defendant said he did not intend to quit making whisky, he would like to ask the court to give.him such sentence as, in the opinion of the court, would make him stop. Mr., Hildebrand also stated that he was present when the search was made and assisted the officers in making the search of Bickenbaker's premises; that there was found in his bathroom a five-gallon jug with two gallons of whisky in it, and a tin funnel on the table by the jug, and a number of fruit jars in and around the bath

[135 S.E. 652]

tub that had the smell of whisky in them,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Queen, No. 20032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 11, 1975
    ...State v. Lee, 58 S.C. 335, 36 S.E. 706; State v. Francis, 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Rickenbacker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701, and State v. Young, 243 S.C. 187, 133 S.E.2d 210, this Court held that there was no abuse of......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...S.C. 231, 128 S.E.2d 98. In the cases of State v. Francis, 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; and State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701, this Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to continue case becau......
  • State v. Green, No. 16557
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 7, 1951
    ...9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. And see to the same effect State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651. The court said in State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651, 652: 'We think the judge should try to get, in open court, in the presence......
  • State v. Bodie, No. 16124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1948
    ...9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. And see to the same effect State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651. Statements coming under the ban of hearsay evidence would not be admissible under the rule announced in the foregoing cases. The course follo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Queen, No. 20032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 11, 1975
    ...State v. Lee, 58 S.C. 335, 36 S.E. 706; State v. Francis, 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Rickenbacker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701, and State v. Young, 243 S.C. 187, 133 S.E.2d 210, this Court held that there was no abuse of......
  • State v. Young, No. 18117
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 4, 1963
    ...S.C. 231, 128 S.E.2d 98. In the cases of State v. Francis, 152 S.C. 17, 149 S.E. 348, 70 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651; and State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701, this Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to continue case becau......
  • State v. Green, No. 16557
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 7, 1951
    ...9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. And see to the same effect State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651. The court said in State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651, 652: 'We think the judge should try to get, in open court, in the presence......
  • State v. Bodie, No. 16124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1948
    ...9 S.E.2d 730; State v. Reeder, 79 S.C. 139, 60 S.E. 434, 14 Ann.Cas. 968. And see to the same effect State v. Rickenbaker, 138 S.C. 24, 135 S.E. 651. Statements coming under the ban of hearsay evidence would not be admissible under the rule announced in the foregoing cases. The course follo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT