State v. Parnell
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Wilson, J., Williamsburg, June, 1912. Indictment against Hoyt Parnell. Defendant appeals. Construction of words susceptible of more than one meaning: 3 Hill 99; Potter’s Dwar.
Read the full summary
Before Wilson, J., Williamsburg, June, 1912. Indictment against Hoyt Parnell. Defendant appeals. Construction of words susceptible of more than one meaning: 3 Hill 99; Potter’s Dwar. St. 279; 36 Cyc. 1172, 1179; 23 Ency. 361. Doubt should be resolved in favor of defendant: Potter 130, 246; 26 N. Y. 523; 36 Cyc. 1186; 1 Whar. 44; 36 Cyc. 112; 23 Ency. 346, 349, 350; 12 Wheat 270; 19 N. J. 245. How to' gather intention of lawmakers: Bish. on Stat. Crimes, 83; 73 U. S. 385; 2S S. C. 526; 1 Kent 521; Potter 133, 144; 5 Wheat 96; 36 Cyc. 110, 1137; 23 Ency. 319, 322. Construction of similar acts:…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with unlawfully trafficking in seed cotton within the prohibited period without a. license; also, with unlawfully trafficking in seed cotton, between the hours of sunset and sunrise.
Pie appealed from the sentence imposed upon him by the Court.
The defendant requested his Plonor, the presiding Judge, to charge the jury as follows:
“In order to determine whether or not the acts committed, come within the wording of the statute, it is necessary to give attention to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. AssmannSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1896
- State v. WestmorelandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- State v. ReederSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
- State v. BoyerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924