State v. Robinson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Townsend, J., Anderson, June, 1904. Indictment against Adam Robinson. From Circuit order affirming magistrate judgment, defendant appeals. cite: Defendant cannot be punished under statute changing punishment: 12 Ency., 539, 530'; 14 Rich., 164. Contracts used for compromise of prosecution are void: 15 Ency., 977; 33 S. C., 430; 18 S. C., 577; 1 Bail., 589; Clark on Con., 483; 9 Rich., 262; 1 Strob., 82; 1 Bay, 249; 44 S. C., 538; 2 Hill," 625; 2 McM., 356; 2 Strob.,…
Read the full summary
Before Townsend, J., Anderson, June, 1904. Indictment against Adam Robinson. From Circuit order affirming magistrate judgment, defendant appeals. cite: Defendant cannot be punished under statute changing punishment: 12 Ency., 539, 530'; 14 Rich., 164. Contracts used for compromise of prosecution are void: 15 Ency., 977; 33 S. C., 430; 18 S. C., 577; 1 Bail., 589; Clark on Con., 483; 9 Rich., 262; 1 Strob., 82; 1 Bay, 249; 44 S. C., 538; 2 Hill," 625; 2 McM., 356; 2 Strob., 117; Chev., 177; 51 S. C., 362. As to meaning of “advances:” 1 Ency., 757; 17 Ency., 3; 13 S. C., 267; 5 S. C., 468; 24…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
1 The defendant was convicted in the court of Magistrate, D. R. Greer, in Anderson County, of the offense of violating a contract h> labor after having-received advances from the landlord; and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The prosecution was under the act, approved February 25, 1904, which went into' effect twenty days thereafter, 24 Stat., 428. The magistrate found the date of the alleged offense to he March 16, 1904, the day on which the act went into effect, and there was testimony to sustain this finding.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bankhead v. ShedSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Co. v. Greenwood Hardware Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1906