Hampton v. Hughes

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hampton v. Hughes

67 S.E. 311, 85 S.C. 343, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 252

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 22, 1910

Docket7516

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 311 (Hampton v. Hughes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hampton v. Hughes, 67 S.E. 311, 85 S.C. 343, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 252 (S.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

This was an action in the court of a magistrate to recover a mare. Over defendant’s objection, a printed paper, signed by plaintiff and the sheriff of Buncombe County, N. C., containing a description of the mare, and offering a reward of fifty dollars for her, was admitted.

Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, which was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court.

1 The exception that the printed reward was improperly admitted in evidence cannot be sustained, because no ground of objection to it was stated at the trial in the magistrate’s court, and because everything it contained was testified to by one or more of -the witnesses without objection. The admission of the paper itself was, therefore, harmless, if error, and the exception is technical. Section 368 of the Code, relative to appeals from inferior courts to the Circuit Court provides: “Upon hearing the appeal, the appellate court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects which do not affect the merits.” Jenkins v. Ry., 73 S. C., 292, 53 S. E., 481.

2 The other exceptions involve questions of fact which cannot be reviewed by this Court. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

This was an action in the court of a magistrate to recover a mare. Over defendant’s objection, a printed paper, signed by plaintiff and the sheriff of Buncombe County, N. C., containing a description of the mare, and offering a reward of fifty dollars for her, was admitted.

Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, which was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court.

1 The exception that the printed reward was improperly admitted in evidence cannot be sustained, because no ground of objection to it was stated at the trial in the magistrate’s court, and because everything it contained was testified to by one or more of -the witnesses without objection. The admission of the paper itself was, therefore, harmless, if error, and the exception is technical. Section 368 of the Code, relative to appeals from inferior courts to the Circuit Court provides: “Upon hearing the appeal, the appellate court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects which do not affect the merits.” Jenkins v. Ry., 73 S. C., 292, 53 S. E., 481.

2 The other exceptions involve questions of fact which cannot be reviewed by this Court. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 311, 85 S.C. 343, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-hughes-sc-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack