State v. Switzer

• Decision Date: 09 February 1903
• Citation: 43 S.E. 513,65 S.C. 187
• Parties: STATE v. SWITZER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

43 S.E. 513

65 S.C. 187

STATE v. SWITZER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 9, 1903

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Greenville county Gary, Judge.

Indictment against Morris Switzer. From an order sustaining the plea of former jeopardy, the state appeals on the following exceptions: "Please take notice that, pursuant to notice duly served, the state appeals from the judgment of the court of general sessions made in above case at the summer term on the following grounds: (1) Because the judge erred in sustaining the foregoing plea of autrefois acquit made by the defendant to the foregoing indictment. (2) Because his honor erred in holding that the offense charged in this indictment was the same charged in the case of State v. Morris Switzer, in which the court at the spring term 1902, ordered a verdict of not guilty." Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal because the exceptions pointed out no specific error of law. Affirmed.

Mr. Boggs, for the State.

B. M. Shuman and M. F. Ansel, for appellee.

JONES J.

In this case the state appeals from an order sustaining defendant's pleas of former acquittal and once in jeopardy. It appears that the defendant was acquitted on trial under a former indictment, charging "that the said Morris Switzer on the 16th day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, with force and arms, at Greenville Courthouse, in the county and state aforesaid, did feloniously, willfully, and maliciously attempt to set fire to the storehouse, storeroom, and building of the estate of one H. A. Cauble, deceased, held in trust by one R. E. Bowen, there situate, the same being within the curtilage or common inclosure of a room wherein persons habitually slept, whereby such sleeping apartment was endangered, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, against the peace and dignity of the same state aforesaid."

The second indictment, to which the pleas at bar were directed charged as follows: "That Morris Switzer, late of the county and state aforesaid, on the 16th day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, with force and arms, at Greenville Courthouse, in the county and state aforesaid, did feloniously and maliciously attempt to set fire to the storehouse of M. H. Finlay and William Finlay, partners in business under the firm name and style of Finlay Brothers, with intent feloniously, willfully, and maliciously to set fire to, burn, and consume said storehouse of said Finlay Brothers, partners as aforesaid, by kindling a fire in and attempting to burn and consume the storehouse then and there occupied by him, the said Morris Switzer, adjacent to and adjoining the storehouse of the said Finlay Brothers, partners as aforesaid, each of said storehouses being under one common roof, and the same second floor, extending over and across each of the said two storehouses, and the said houses having one brick wall, eight inches thick, common to both, so that by then and there kindling such fire the said Morris Switzer did attempt, feloniously, willfully, and maliciously, to burn and consume the storehouse of the said Finlay Brothers, partners as aforesaid, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." The circuit court, in sustaining defendant's pleas, held that both indictments were predicated upon the same acts--the same setting fire to the same building--and charged the same offense. The state, appellant, excepts, alleging error in holding that both...