State v. Stafford
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 15078. |
| Citation | 8 S.E.2d 849,193 S.C. 474 |
| Parties | STATE v. STAFFORD. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Plumer C. Cothran, of Greenville, for appellant.
Hubert E. Nolin, Sol., of Greenville, for respondent.
The defendant, W. B. Stafford, was convicted at the October 1939, term of the Greenville County Court upon the second count of an indictment charging abandonment and non-support of three minor, unmarried children, of the ages of sixteen thirteen, and eight years, respectively. The indictment charged the defendant in the first count with abandonment and with failure to support his wife, but this charge was withdrawn.
In his appeal to this Court he contends that the conviction should be reversed upon several grounds, which will be taken up in order.
Before passing upon the issues, we deem it desirable to state briefly some of the salient facts and circumstances out of which this prosecution arose. The defendant and his wife Anna M. Stafford, were married in 1903. Seven children were born to this union. The husband and wife separated in 1935, after a long, stormy history of domestic strife and bitterness, which culminated, according to Mrs. Stafford, in an attack upon her life. She testified that he attacked her with a knife, attempting to cut her throat. She escaped injury, she said, through the intervention of one of her older sons. That this attack was made upon her because she told him she would call the police because of his cursing and abuse. Thereafter she obtained a warrant from a local magistrate and placed him under a peace bond as a measure to secure her safety. After the warrant was issued the defendant left his home, and never returned. He now claims that by reason of the peace bond and the alleged conduct of his son on the occasion above referred to, he was forced to desert his home. Appellant operates a shoe shop in the city of Greenville, and, according to his own evidence, his gross receipts from this business during the year prior to his trial (which was 1938) amounted to over $1,600. He testified, however, that his net income amounted to only $560.
A warrant was issued for his arrest in January, 1939, under Section 1123 of the 1932 Code, charging him with abandonment and with non-support. Testimony for the State tends to show that during the period from 1934 to January, 1939, he made small, sporadic, and inadequate contributions to the support of his minor children, which fell far short of providing the actual necessaries of life. Within a year after he left home, in 1935, his house in which his wife and children had continued to live, was sold under a mortgage foreclosure. The two older daughters were employed in one of the textile mills in Greenville, and together made $43 per week. An older boy, Ralph, under age, but not alleged to be dependent upon the defendant, earned $11 per week. On the basis of this income, the family purchased a home on long term payments, and have been occupying it ever since. The two older daughters have now married and moved away, and although they still contribute to the support of the three younger children, this aid is not sufficient to afford them the necessaries of life.
The testimony for the State is to the effect that following the arrest of the defendant in January, 1939, the case was reached for trial in June. It was continued at that time, and for the entire period of five weeks following the continuance the defendant sent to the home of his wife and children about $3 worth of groceries. It likewise appears from the State's case, that he has never requested the children to live with him, nor has he offered a home to them. The record is full of charges and recriminations between Mr. Stafford and Mrs. Stafford, involving immorality and infidelity, which each denies.
It is said that the Court erred in charging an incomplete restricted, and, in the light of the issues made by the testimony, an erroneous proposition of law, as follows: "If, however, the wife should, without just cause or excuse, leave her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Eskew
...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. 835; State v. Stafford, 193 S.C. 474, 8 S.E.2d 849; State v. Du Rant, 87 S.C. 532, 70 S.E. State v. Dodson, 16 S.C. 453. The fact that defendant was not in Court and could no......
-
State v. Hellams
...the law charged in the instant case, which will hereinafter be quoted. This Court, in the comparatively recent case of State v. Stafford, 193 S.C. 474, 8 S.E.2d 849, 851, approved the following proposition of law charged the 'If, however, the wife should, without just cause or excuse, leave......