State v. Pinchback
Supreme Court of South Carolina
The defendant was indicted under an act of the Legislature, passed in 1762, usually termed the Lottery Act, (2 Brevard's Dig. 26, 7,) for setting up a lottery, under the denomination of a sale for the disposal of two watches.
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted under an act of the Legislature, passed in 1762, usually termed the Lottery Act, (2 Brevard's Dig. 26, 7,) for setting up a lottery, under the denomination of a sale for the disposal of two watches. There was a demurrer to the indictment, and an objection to the evidence intended to be offered in support of it, both of which were by consent argued at the same time, and the Court below, without expressing any direct opinion on the demurrer to the indictment, sustained the objection to the evidence, and a motion is now made to reverse that decision. The evidence was,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr Justice Johnson.
There is no rule of law more generally received, than that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favour of innocence, and that nothing is to be taken by intrudment or implication. It follows, then, that wherever the construction is doubtful, this inclination of construction in favour of innocence ought to decide it. The question in this case appears to me to turn principally on the *130term lotteries, as used in the act. If, then, I show 7 % 7 7 that the facts offered in evidence do not constitute a lottery, or that it is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998