Town Council Of Chesterfield v. Ratliff

• Decision Date: 07 July 1898
• Citation: 30 S.E. 593,52 S.C. 563
• Parties: TOWN COUNCIL OF CHESTERFIELD. v. RATLIFF et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E. 593

52 S.C. 563

TOWN COUNCIL OF CHESTERFIELD.

v.RATLIFF et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 7, 1898.

Discharging Firearms — Violation of Ordinance—Excuse—Question for Jury.

1. In a prosecution under a town ordinance prohibiting the discharging of firearms within the corporate limits without a reasonable excuse, it is competent to show that the firearms were discharged at rabbits which had been depredating upon defendant's garden.

2. What is a reasonable excuse under such ordinance is a question for the jury.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Chesterfield county; J. C. Klugh, Judge.

Prosecution by the town council of Chesterfield against W. N. Ratliff and another for violating an ordinance. From a Judgment of the circuit court reversing a judgment of the town council finding defendants guilty, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. J. Kennedy, for appellant.

Stevenson & Matheson, for respondents.

McIVER, C. J. The defendants were prosecuted before the town council of Chesterfield for the violation of an ordinance of said town forbidding the shooting of firearms anywhere within the corporate limits of the town without a reasonable excuse for doing so. Upon their trial they demanded a jury, which was accorded to them. Evidence was offered on the part of the prosecution tending to show that the defendants had fired, one a pistol, and the other an ordinary shotgun, within the corporate limits of the town; but when the defendants offered testimony tending to show that they had shot at a rabbit in a corn patch of one of the defendants, who had suffered from the depredations of rabbits in his garden, such testimony was objected to, and ruled to be incompetent. "After argument of counsel and the charge of the court, the jury brought in a verdict against the defendants as follows: 'We find the defendants, W. N. Ratliff and D. H. Laney [guilty] of shooting firearms in the corporate limits of the town of Chesterfield, '—the same being the form prescribed by the intendant. the form of which appears in the reports of the town council; whereupon the court sentenced each of the defendants to pay a fine of ten dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail for ten days." The defendants appealed upon numerous grounds to the circuit court, where the appeal was heard by his honor. Judge Klugh, who reversed the judgment of the court below upon two grounds: (1) Error in ruling out the testimony offered by defendants for the purpose of showing that they had a reasonable excuse for shooting; (2) for error in charging upon the facts. From this judgment the town council appeals upon numerous grounds, which in various forms...