State v. Minton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Fraser, J., Charleston, February, 1882. The report of the presiding judge was as follows: This case was heard by me at the term of the Court of Sessions for Charleston county in February, 1882, and by consent of counsel the decision was reserved, to be rendered after the adjournment of the court.
Read the full summary
Before Fraser, J., Charleston, February, 1882. The report of the presiding judge was as follows: This case was heard by me at the term of the Court of Sessions for Charleston county in February, 1882, and by consent of counsel the decision was reserved, to be rendered after the adjournment of the court. Ben Tomkins was arrested on a warrant duly issued, charged with larceny of live stock, under the value of $20, and conceded by the State to be a charge of misdemeanor and not felony. He was released on the usual recognizance, and Warren Minton, the respondent, was surety for his appearance to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Me. Chief Justice Simpson.
[Omitting the statement.] It is conceded that in misdemeanors, unlike felonies, the defendant may be tried in some cases in his absence, and as the object of the recognizance is to secure his presence so as to receive sentence, it has been unusual, if not unknown in this State before this case, for the bond to be adjudged forfeited till after conviction and failure to appear for sentence evidenced by bench warrant and a return of non.est inventus. The question, however, is not what has been the custom and practice, but what is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. RabensSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- State v. VosburgSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916