State v. Vari

Citation14 S.E. 392,35 S.C. 175
PartiesState. v. Vari.
Decision Date03 January 1892
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Criminal Law—Review on Appeal—Juror as Witness.

1. In a prosecution for larceny it is for the jury to determine whether the venue has been proved, and their conclusion will not be reviewed on appeal.

2. In a prosecution for larceny, where it was alleged that the money was taken from a certain mining camp, there was no error in allowing one of the jurors trying the case to testify that the mining camp was within the county alleged, and then take part in the verdict.

3. In such case, the fact that the witnesses had been excluded from the court-room when not on the stand did not disqualify the juror.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Berkeley county; Norton, Judge.

Sullivan Vari was found guilty of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. W. Polite, for appellant.

Mr. Jervey, for the State.

McGowan, J. The defendant was indicted for "grand larceny, "in stealing $60 from one Frank Carielle "at Magnolia mines, in the county of Berkeley." The witnesses were all Italians, recently arrived in the country. They testified through an interpreter, and were unacquainted with the county lines, etc. There was an order separating the witnesses during the trial.-As the solicitor was about to rest his case, he remembered that he had not proved the venue, and he asked permission to call C. P. Winters, who was on the jury, to prove that the Magnolia mines were in Berkeley county. The permission was given, and Mr. Winters, being sworn, proved that he tesided at Drayton Hall, near the Magnolia mines, and that they were in Berkeley county. He then resumed his seat on the jury, and they found the defendant "guilty." The appeal comes to this court upon the grounds: "(1) Because his honor erred in refusing a new trial. (21 Because there was no proof that the money charged to be stolen was taken from Magnolia mines. It is therefore submitted that his honor erred in not so holding. (3) Because to prove that Pinckney's mine and Magnolia mines are in Berkeley county, without proving that the money was taken from either of said mines, was a fatal failure of proof of venue, and his honor erred in not so ruling. (4) Because one C. P. Winters was sworn and impaneled as a juror to try the case against the defendant, and, having heard these witnesses on the part of the state, was called by the solicitor from the jury-box, and sworn as a witness for the state, and was then allowed to return to the jury-box, and joined as a juror in finding the verdict; and it is alleged that this was contrary to law and the rules of evidence. (5) Recause, before taking the testimony, the judge ordered the witnesses to be excluded from the courtroom during the hearing of the testimony, and to remain without, until called. It is charged that Winters did not leave the court-room, and therefore, in a sense of justice, he was disqualified as a witness in the case, and his honor erred in not so holding."

Exceptions 2 and 3 relate to alleged deficiency of proof as to the place where, as alleged, the money was stolen. That was a matter of fact, of which this court has no jurisdiction. "It is the right of the jury to pass upon the evidence submitted, as to whether or not the venue has been proved, and to arrive at a conclusion. Such evidence might be associated with any facts within their own knowledge." State v. Dent, 6 S. C. 383; State v. Williams, 3 Hill, (S. C.) 421;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Vareen, 16700
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 8, 1953
    ...This case was recognized and follewed in the case of State v. Dent, 6 S.C. 383, in a case of murder. To the same effect, see State v. Vari, 35 S.C. 175, 14 S.E. 392. The fourth exception is The exceptions are overruled and the judgment affirmed. BAKER, C.J., TAYLOR and OXNER, JJ., and JAMES......
  • Caines v. Marion Coca Cola Bottling Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 31, 1941
    ...... juror, it has been sanctioned in exceptional cases, such, for. instance, as appears in State v. Vari, 35 S.C. 175,. 14 S.E. 392. See also 3 Jones on Evidence, Section 766, Page. 1396, 6 Wigmore on Evidence, Section 1910, Page 593; 70 C.J.,. ......
  • Hull v. Seabd. Air Line Ry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 9, 1907
    ...The reasons assigned by the presiding judge are satisfactory to this court, and his ruling is sustained by the case of State v. Varl, 35 S. C. 175, 14 S. E. 392. 2. The second assignment of error is that the presiding judge erred in refusing to charge the following request: "I charge you, a......
  • City Of Florence v. Berry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 23, 1901
    ...case was recognized and followed in the case of State v. Dent, 6 S. C. 383, in a case of murder. To the same effect, see State v. Vari, 35 S. C. 175, 14 S. E. 392. The fourth exception is overruled. Exceptions fifth and sixth may be considered together, as they both make the point that ther......
  • 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