State v. Williams

• Citation: 15 S.E. 554,36 S.C. 493
• Parties: State v. Williams.
• Decision Date: 28 June 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

15 S.E. 554

36 S.C. 493

State

v.Williams.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 28, 1892.

Arrest — Offenses in Officer's View—Resisting Arrest — Ignorance of Officer's Authority.

1. Gen. St. § 836, authorizing a justice to arrest any person who, in his view, engages in disorderly conduct, etc., does not limit the officer to cases in which he acquires his knowledge of the disorder by seeing it, to the exclusion of cases where he hears it.

2. The fact that a person whom a mayor attempts to arrest does not know that the mayor is authorized by the charter of the city to make arrests, does not change his responsibility for acts committed in resisting arrest.

Appeal from circuit court of general sessions, Spartanburg county; Hudson, Judge.

John Williams was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

David Johnson, Jr., for appellant.

Mr. Schumpert, for the State.

McIver, C. J. Under an indictment for the murder of J. A. Henneman the appellant was convicted, and brings this appeal, alleging error on the part of the circuit judge in refusing certain requests to charge, and in the instructions given to the jury. For a proper understanding of the points raised, a brief statement of the facts will be necessary, so far as they relate to such points. There was testimony tending to show that the deceased, then being the mayor of the city of Spartanburg, and so known to be by the defendant, while passing along the streets of said city, had his attention attracted by a disturbance in a house quite near the street, and by calls for help proceeding from said house. The deceased, entering the premises for the purpose of quelling the disturbance, was met by the defendant in a somewhat defiant manner, and he, upon being ordered to surrender, refused to do so, and re-entered the house, followed by deceased, who drew his pistol, saying, "You are going for a pistol." After entering the house, a struggle ensued, in the course of which both parties fell out of the door upon the ground, and the defendant, having gained possession of the pistol of the deceased, fired upon him, either while down, or while rising from the ground, inflicting a wound from the effect of which the deceased died very soon afterwards. The testimony also tended to show that the disturbance in the house arose from the beating of a woman in the house, claimed by defendant to be his wife, and that she appeared at the window in a partially nude state, bloody, and calling for help. Appellant's counsel requested the circuit judge to charge the jury as follows: "If the defendant did not know that the deceased, as mayor of the city of Spartanburg, had authority to enter upon his premises, and into his dwelling, to arrest him, and believed at the time that the deceased was a meddler and a trespasser, and, acting upon this belief, killed the deceased in a sudden affray, in hot blood, without malice, then the deceased cannot be convicted of murder." To this request his honor, Judge Hudson, responded as follows: "I cannot charge you with that proposition, gentlemen, because all, from the...