State v. Southern Express Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Rice, J., Charleston, The Southern Express Company and E. P. Berry were convicted of violating the prohibition statute, and they appeal. cites: As to regulations interstate commerce: 237 U. S. 424 and 597; 204 U. S. 429; 222 U. S. 370; 223 U. S. 1; 236 U. S. 439, 445 ; 242 U. S. 311. Corporation not liable for criminal act of servant: 43 L. R.A..
Read the full summary
Before Rice, J., Charleston, The Southern Express Company and E. P. Berry were convicted of violating the prohibition statute, and they appeal. cites: As to regulations interstate commerce: 237 U. S. 424 and 597; 204 U. S. 429; 222 U. S. 370; 223 U. S. 1; 236 U. S. 439, 445 ; 242 U. S. 311. Corporation not liable for criminal act of servant: 43 L. R.A.. (N. S.) 2, 3; 37 S. W. 79; 153 S. W. 1158; 89 S. W. 537; 121 Ky. 543. cites: As to regulations of traffic in intoxicating liquors: 90 S. E. 402. Capacity-of corporation for crime: Bishop’s New Crim. Law, ch. 28, pp. 255-258; 70 Am. St. Rep.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This case was heard along with the cases of State v. Mappus, 107 S. C. —, 92 S. E. 1053, and State v. Barton, 107 S. C. —, 92 S. E. 1055. The discussion of the constitutional questions need not be repeated here.
1 1. In this case there was a motion for a change of venue, but the right to change the venue is not an absolute right, but depends largely on the discretion of the trial Judge. It does not appear that his Honor did not exercise his discretion, and we must assume that he did and refuse the motion in the exercise of his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. MappusSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
- State v. BartonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- Palmetto Golf Club v. Robinson, SheriffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Charleston Oil Co. v. Poulnot, SheriffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928