Reaves v. Moody

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Reaves v. Moody

49 S.C.L. 312

DecidedMay 15, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 49 S.C.L. 312 (Reaves v. Moody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reaves v. Moody, 49 S.C.L. 312 (S.C. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DuNKIN, C. J.

This was an action of trover for two bales of cotton, tried before Mr. Justice Aldrich, at Marion, Spring Term, 1867. The issue depended entirely on the [313]*313evidence, in wbicb there was some discrepancy, but which was submitted to the jury, under a charge of the Judge, to which no objection was taken. Their verdict was for the plaintiff; and the grounds of appeal submitted to the Judge object only to the sufficiency of the evidence. That depends on the degree of credit given to the witnesses, and this Court is not prepared to controvert their conclusions.

The cause was tried on 21st March. Some three weeks afterwards, to wit, on 15th April, four of the jury made an affidavit before a magistrate that they had not agreed to the verdict; and upon this, an additional ground was taken, that it was not the verdict of twelve men. It has been long settled that this ground cannot avail the appellant. The precise point was adjudicated more than half a century ago. See Freeman vs. Collins, (Brev. MS. Reports, cited 1 Rice Dig. 57.) But the whole subject is elaborately discussed and the authorities reviewed in Smith vs. Culbertson, (9 Rich. 108.) It is difficult to add anything to what is there stated against the admissibility of such affidavits.

The motion is dismissed.

WARDLAW and INGLis, A- JJ-, concurred.

Motion dismissed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DuNKIN, C. J.

This was an action of trover for two bales of cotton, tried before Mr. Justice Aldrich, at Marion, Spring Term, 1867. The issue depended entirely on the [313]*313evidence, in wbicb there was some discrepancy, but which was submitted to the jury, under a charge of the Judge, to which no objection was taken. Their verdict was for the plaintiff; and the grounds of appeal submitted to the Judge object only to the sufficiency of the evidence. That depends on the degree of credit given to the witnesses, and this Court is not prepared to controvert their conclusions.

The cause was tried on 21st March. Some three weeks afterwards, to wit, on 15th April, four of the jury made an affidavit before a magistrate that they had not agreed to the verdict; and upon this, an additional ground was taken, that it was not the verdict of twelve men. It has been long settled that this ground cannot avail the appellant. The precise point was adjudicated more than half a century ago. See Freeman vs. Collins, (Brev. MS. Reports, cited 1 Rice Dig. 57.) But the whole subject is elaborately discussed and the authorities reviewed in Smith vs. Culbertson, (9 Rich. 108.) It is difficult to add anything to what is there stated against the admissibility of such affidavits.

The motion is dismissed.

WARDLAW and INGLis, A- JJ-, concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.C.L. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reaves-v-moody-scctapp-1868.