State v. Sheppard
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Townsend, J., Lexington, February, 1898. Indictment against John Sheppard, Monroe Seay and Hampton Rawl. From verdict and sentence, defendants, Seay and Rawl, appeal. Indictment should have been quashed: 2 McC., 257. Indictment charging three different and distinct offenses, at different and distinct places, solicitor, should have been required to elect 24 S. C., 142. Cruel or unusual punishment shall not be indicted: Art. 1, sec. 19, and sec. 5 of Con.
Read the full summary
Before Townsend, J., Lexington, February, 1898. Indictment against John Sheppard, Monroe Seay and Hampton Rawl. From verdict and sentence, defendants, Seay and Rawl, appeal. Indictment should have been quashed: 2 McC., 257. Indictment charging three different and distinct offenses, at different and distinct places, solicitor, should have been required to elect 24 S. C., 142. Cruel or unusual punishment shall not be indicted: Art. 1, sec. 19, and sec. 5 of Con. (oral argument).
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The indictment under which these defendants were tried contains three counts. In the first, the offense charged was riot; in the second, the offense charged was assault with intent to kill; and in the third count, the offense charged was disturbing a religious congregation. In the first count, the offense was alleged to have been committed “at Countsville African Methodist Episcopal Church, in the county of Lexington and State aforesaid;” in the second count, the offense was alleged to have been committed “at Lexington Court…
2Cited by15 opinions
- State v. HoustonUtah Supreme Court · 2015
- State Ex Rel. McLeod v. C & L CORP. INC.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- City of Greenville v. ChapmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
- Ex Parte KlughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.