State v. Roof
| Decision Date | 16 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | 12403. |
| Citation | 142 S.E. 238,144 S.C. 118 |
| Parties | STATE v. ROOF. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lexington County; C C. Featherstone, Judge.
J. W Roof was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
E. L Asbill, of Leesville, and Martin & Sturkie, of Lexington, for appellant.
T. C Callison, Sol., of Lexington, for the State.
Having been convicted and sentenced in the court of general sessions of Lexington county on the charge of violation of the prohibition law, in that he manufactured intoxicating liquor, the defendant has appealed to this court.
The entire charge of the circuit judge was as follows:
There was no request on the part of appellant's attorney for any fuller instructions.
The one exception imputes error on the part of the circuit judge because there was a failure to declare the law applicable to the cause. The specific complaint is that the jury should have been instructed as to a definition of the term "manufacturing alcoholic liquors."
In support of this exception the appellant cites three cases decided by this court, hereinafter referred to, but we do not think they warrant the position taken by the appellant.
In Wagener v. Parrott, 51 S.C. 489, 29 S.E. 240, 64 Am. St. Rep. 695, Chief Justice Pope used the following language:
"This court has held that the provision of the present Constitution, which compels a circuit judge to declare the law, while its language is, 'shall declare the law,' means 'shall declare the law applicable to the case then before him."'
In Marchbanks v. Marchbanks, 58 S.C. 92, 36 S.E. 438, it was decided that it was the duty of a magistrate to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case on trial.
In Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 95 S.E. 510, Mr. Justice Gage, speaking for the court, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lyles
... ... that the omission did not furnish a proper ground for ... complaint where no specific request to charge along that line ... was made and the omission was not called to the attention of ... the Court by counsel. Also, see State v. Harrell et ... al., 142 S.C. 24, 140 S.E. 258; State v. Roof, ... 144 S.C. 118, 142 S.E. 238; State v. Dodenhoff, 153 ... S.C. 7, 150 S.E. 315 ... [210 ... S.C. 94] Apparently under exception 5 it is contended that ... the Court erred in failing to charge that the offense of ... assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
... ... declare the law, a duty also rested on appellants to call to ... the court's attention any omissions on its part and to ... request a definition of the terms used, if desired ... Township Commissioners v. Mfg. Co., 76 S.C. 386, 57 ... S.E. 201; State v. Wardlaw, supra; State v. Roof, ... 144 S.C. 118, 142 S.E. 238 ... Under ... the view, however, which we take of the evidence, the error ... here assigned, while valid, is not prejudicial. The verdict ... of the jury is amply sustained by the testimony ... Exceptions ... VI and VII ... ...
-
State v. Eskew
...85 S.C. 64, 67 S.E. 6; State v. Harrell et al., 142 S.C. 24, 140 S.E. 258; State v. Craig, 161 S.C. 232, 159 S.E. 559; State v. Roof, 144 S.C. 118, 142 S.E. 238; State v. Jacobs, 111 S.C. 283, 97 S.E. State v. Stafford, 193 S.C. 474, 8 S.E.2d 849; State v. Du Rant, 87 S.C. 532, 70 S.E. 306;......