State v. Couch
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Watts, J., Pickens, July, 1897. Indictment against Walter Couch for illegal sale of liquor. From verdict and sentence, defendant appeals. Dispensary act of 1894 zvas repealed by act of 1896, and it zvas error to admit evidence of sale before act of 1896:109 U. S.,596; 143 U. S., 27; 7 Am. Dec., 99; 58 Am.
Read the full summary
Before Watts, J., Pickens, July, 1897. Indictment against Walter Couch for illegal sale of liquor. From verdict and sentence, defendant appeals. Dispensary act of 1894 zvas repealed by act of 1896, and it zvas error to admit evidence of sale before act of 1896:109 U. S.,596; 143 U. S., 27; 7 Am. Dec., 99; 58 Am. Dec., 100; 29 S. C., 476; 14 Rich., 164. If both acts are in force solicitor should have been required to say under zvhich he zvould try: 24 S. C., 142; 28 S. C., 353. Sec. 43 of act of 1896 is ex post facto (1) because it alters rule of evidence as to sale before its passage: 2…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The appellant was convicted of selling a quart of liquor to Newton Oates, under an indictment charging him with the sale of spirituous liquors to “one W. S. Newell, R. L. Bryant, Robert Holden, G. W. Russell, and to divers other persons to the jurors aforesaid unknownHe appeals from the sentence under said conviction upon several grounds. This Court does not deem it necessary to pursue the questions presented by the appellant, except one of them, for it is important that this single question should be met. We hold that the conviction…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Spartanburg v. ParrisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- State v. DeadwylerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925