Ex parte Tolson v. Linton
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before Frost, J., at Chesterfield, Spring Term, 1850. John Linton .had, at a former term, been convicted for trading with a slave, and not appearing to receive sentence, it was sealed up and deposited with the clerk. The recognizance for his‘■appearance was taken in the sum of three hundred dollars, and the sureties thereto, upon his not appearing to receiv;e sentence, paid the same to the Commissioners of Public Buildings for Chesterfield District.
Read the full summary
Before Frost, J., at Chesterfield, Spring Term, 1850. John Linton .had, at a former term, been convicted for trading with a slave, and not appearing to receive sentence, it was sealed up and deposited with the clerk. The recognizance for his‘■appearance was taken in the sum of three hundred dollars, and the sureties thereto, upon his not appearing to receiv;e sentence, paid the same to the Commissioners of Public Buildings for Chesterfield District. At the present term of the Court, the appellant, John Tol-son, made a motion, predicated upon affidavit, that Linton had fled from the country,…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Wardlaw, J.
The prosecutor’s claim to one-half of the fine is noted upon the case of the State v. Baldwin. That case was decided upon the authority of Van Evour’s case; and the latter case, relating to the penalty.for retailing without license, was overruled by the Act of 1825, which, in the case-of The State v. Lesterjette, was held to have taken away the informer’s right incases of retailing,.by appropriation of all fines under that Act to the Commissioners of Roads, without saving the rights of informers. .The Act of 1827, which, gave other fines to the Commissioners of Public…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985