State v. Charles
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before PeuriEoy, J., Union, B. M. Charles and W. J. Estes pleaded guilty to a violation of the dispensary law, and the sentence imposed was suspended on terms.
Read the full summary
Before PeuriEoy, J., Union, B. M. Charles and W. J. Estes pleaded guilty to a violation of the dispensary law, and the sentence imposed was suspended on terms. Subsequently a rule to show cause why the suspended sentence should not be enforced for violation of its conditions was made absolute, and defendants appeal. cites: As to examination of witness: 82 S. C. 288; 85 S. C. 327; 89 S. C. 153; 98 S. C. 114; 100 S. C. 428. cite: As to conditional suspension of sentence: 87 S. C. 466, 474; 79 S. C. 274; 47 E. R. A. (N. S.) 848. Good behavior: 1 Century Dictionary 1899; 76 S. W. 175; 25 Ky. E.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The record shows:
“This appeal involves the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions for Union county at the August term of 1916 to enforce a sentence which had been suspended on terms by a former presiding Judge at the May, 1916, term of said Court. The defendants pleaded guilty to violation of the dispensary law at the May, 1916, term of the Court of General Sessions, and were sentenced -each to pay a fine of five hundred ($500) dollars, and be confined to hard labor for a period of six months.. This sentence to stand suspended during…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- Crooks v. Sanders, SuperintendentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
- State v. KingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1952
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.