State v. Bullock
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Benet, J., Abbeville, June, 1898. Indictment against W. R. Bullock for forgery. From order quashing indictment, State appeals. Affidavit is not necessary to prove witness fees: Gen. Stat., 623; 21 Stat., 736. Writing in question included in definition of forgery: Crim.
Read the full summary
Before Benet, J., Abbeville, June, 1898. Indictment against W. R. Bullock for forgery. From order quashing indictment, State appeals. Affidavit is not necessary to prove witness fees: Gen. Stat., 623; 21 Stat., 736. Writing in question included in definition of forgery: Crim. Code, 295. Solicitor may send out indictment without commitment by magistrate: 43 S. C, 112. Claim of a witness for fees must be established by affidavit: Gen. Stat., 623, 622, 605; Rev. Stat., 791, 642. Witness pay certificate muss be approved by supervisor. Rev. Stat., 677; 21 Stat, 481. Acts defining subject of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The respondent was tried at June term, 1898, at Abbeville, for the crime of forgery. Upon a *302demurrer to the indictment by the defendant, who is now here as respondent, Judge Benet ordered the indictment quashed. The State appeals from such order. In order that we may refer to the indictment, it is thought best to reproduce it, and it is as follows: “The State of South Carolina, county of Abbeville. At a Court of General Sessions, begun and holden in and for the county of Abbeville, in the State of South Carolina, at Abbeville Court…
2Cited by8 opinions
- State v. BrandtSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
- State v. RabensSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- State v. Lee-GriggCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- State v. MurraySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- State v. WalkerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.