State v. Sonnerkalb
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This was an indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, tried at Charleston, May Term, 1819, before Mr. Justice Colcogk. It appeared from the 'evidence of Mr. Samuel Dubose, that a negro of his went into the store of the defendant, with some corn and an empty bottle; that after he entered, the door was closed ; that he heard the corn poured out, and he heard the liquor poured into some vessel.
Read the full summary
This was an indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, tried at Charleston, May Term, 1819, before Mr. Justice Colcogk. It appeared from the 'evidence of Mr. Samuel Dubose, that a negro of his went into the store of the defendant, with some corn and an empty bottle; that after he entered, the door was closed ; that he heard the corn poured out, and he heard the liquor poured into some vessel. As soon as the negro came out, he took him back into the store, and the defendant admitted that he had given him the whiskey for the corn, and had sold him a handkerchief for a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Colcock, J.
The first ground has been so recently settled in the case of the State v. John Helfrid,1 that it is unnecessary to say 'anything on that; and the third has been considered as settled, ever since the case of the State v. Stroxid.2 The second then only remains to be considered.
At the first view, I confess that the idea appeared to have great weight, but I am satisfied that it is not one Act, nor one offence, buti . one Act, yet that there may be two punishments.
The Act of 26th March, 1784,3 imposes a penalty of fifty pounds on persons…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. CorbittSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- United States v. BoydenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1868
- Blair v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888