State v. Stone
| Decision Date | 25 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 10170. |
| Citation | 98 S.E. 333,111 S.C. 496 |
| Parties | STATE v. STONE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lexington County; J W. De Vore, Judge.
Defendant Frank Stone was indicted for abandoning his wife, Eva Stone. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and the State appeals. Judgment reversed.
George B. Timmerman, of Lexington, for the State.
C. E Sawyer, of Aiken, and C. M. Efird, of Lexington, for respondent.
The respondent, Frank Stone, was indicted under section 697 Criminal Code of South Carolina, for abandoning and failing to supply the actual necessities of life to his wife, Eva Stone. The section is:
" Misdemeanor for Husband to Fail to Support Wife and Children.--Any able-bodied man who shall, without just cause or excuse, abandon or fail to supply the actual necessities of life to his wife or to his minor, unmarried child or children dependent upon him, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year, or be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars: Provided, that if he, either before or after conviction, shall give bond, with one or more sureties, approved by the clerk of the court, in the sum of not less than $300, conditioned upon his supporting and maintaining his said wife or said minor unmarried child or children, he shall not be imprisoned or the fine imposed until the condition of said bond is broken."
The defendant and his wife lived together for a short time only. Stone lives in Aiken county, near the Lexington county line, and was married there. His wife, before her marriage, lived with her father in Lexington county. On account of the disagreement between them, Stone left his home in Aiken county and told his wife he did not intend to live with her any longer. He sent to the house and had it stripped of everything, even the stove and cooking utensils which she was using at the time to prepare her dinner. Having nowhere else to go, Mrs. Stone went across the county line to live with her father.
The evidence tends to show that Stone has not returned, nor offered to return, to his wife, or to provide a home for her anywhere, and avows his intention not to do so.
The indictment in this case was given out in Lexington county. The defendant moved to dismiss the proceedings, on the ground that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Cook
... ... State. Hair v. Hair, 10 Rich. Eq. 163; Rhame v. Rhame, 1 ... McCord Eq. 197, 16 Am.Dec. [213 S.C. 253] 597; Wise v ... Wise, 60 S.C. 426, 434, 38 S.E ... 312, 108 S.E. 921. See also, State v ... Bagwell, 125 S.C. 401, 118 S.E. 767; State v ... Free, 158 S.C. 515, 155 S.E. 838; State v ... Stone, 159 S.C. 400, 157 S.E. 137; and State v ... Lynch, 180 S.C. 11, 184 S.E. 153 ... In ... State v. Free, supra [158 S.C. 515, ... ...
-
State v. Nesmith
...This contention is without substantial merit. The offense of nonsupport is made by the statute, as this court has held ( State v. Stone, 111 S.C. 496, 98 S.E. 333), continuing one. The State offered some testimony, as we have pointed out, to the effect that the defendant first breached his ......
-
State v. Hellams
...Court held that the husband is required primarily to furnish the necessaries of life for his wife at his residence (citing State v. Stone, 111 S.C. 496, 98 S.E. 333), and the same thing applies to his children. It was recognized in that case that the words in the statute, 'without just caus......
-
State v. Stafford
... ... force of arms causes and forces her husband to desert his ... home and his minor children ... We see ... no error in the foregoing instruction. State v ... Craig, 161 S.C. 232, 159 S.E. 559; State v ... Lancaster, 135 S.C. 412, 133 S.E. 824; State v ... Stone, 111 S.C. 496, 98 S.E. 333. If the appellant had ... desired a fuller and more comprehensive charge, it was his ... duty to have requested it. The trial judge, immediately ... before the instruction in question, had charged the jury, ... "but if he (the husband) destroys his home by cruel and ... ...