State v. Wagstaff

• Decision Date: 20 December 1920
• Docket Number: 10542.
• Citation: 105 S.E. 283,115 S.C. 198
• Parties: STATE v. WAGSTAFF ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

105 S.E. 283

115 S.C. 198

STATE v. WAGSTAFF ET AL.

No. 10542.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 20, 1920

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Florence County; S.W G. Shipp, Judge.

G. W Wagstaff and A. C. Hargrove were convicted of simple assault and battery, and they appeal. Affirmed.

G. F Stalvey, of Lake City, and Willcox & Willcox, of Florence for appellants.

L. M. Gasque, of Marion, and Whiting & Baker, of Florence, for the State.

WATTS J.

The defendants were convicted of simple assault and battery, and, after being sentenced, appeal, and by exceptions, three in number, complain of error in not directing a verdict of not guilty as asked for by the defendants and error in the judge's charge.

The facts were that H. M. Graham, who lived at Lake City, got off of the train arriving from Florence and handed his hand satchel to a negro porter to carry it to the hotel where Graham lived. The defendant Wagstaff, who was a policeman, stopped the negro after he had gone a short way with the grip in a small wagon in which he transported baggage, and told the porter that he intended to seize and search the grip for liquor. Graham came up, and a discussion between him and the policeman as to the right of the policeman to search without warrant followed. The policeman had no warrant and made no pretense that he had one. Both Graham and the policeman put their hands on the grip, and Graham testified that the policeman snatched it away from him. This is controverted by the officer, who contends that Graham voluntarily surrendered possession of the grip. The grip was searched, and no liquor found. Hargrove, who was chief of police, was present the whole time, and, while he took no part actually in taking the grip, he conferred with Wagstaff, and never at any time ordered Wagstaff to desist. Wagstaff said he searched it "because I suspicioned it had liquor in it." "He had been reported as having liquor in there, and his satchel looked very heavy that time." Wagstaff does not attempt to show that his information was such as to create in his mind a reasonable belief that his information was such as to believe Graham a violator of the law. He had no warrant. He did not forbid Graham to move the grip until he could get one, as he had a right to do, but arbitrarily and unlawfully made the seizure and search, and found nothing.

"Any attempt to do violence to the person of another, in a rude,

...