State v. Adams

84 S.E. 368, 100 S.C. 43, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 14
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 11, 1915
Docket8996
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 368 (State v. Adams) 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
State v. Adams, 84 S.E. 368, 100 S.C. 43, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 14 (S.C. 1915).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with being the father of a bastard child.

The prosecutrix and three other witnesses testified for the State.

The defendant did not testify, nor offer any testimony.

He appealed upon'exceptions, which, will be reported.

1,2 The first exception cannot be sustained, for the reason that it lias not been made to appear that the discretion of his Honor, the presiding Judge, was erroneously exercised.

3 The second exception must be overruled, for the reason that the testimony tended to show the relations between the defendant and the mother of the child, and that he had the opportunity of being the child’s father.

4 The third exception cannot be sustained, as there were facts and circumstances from which the inference could be drawn that the child was likely to become a burden to the county.

*47 5 The fourth exception will not be considered, as it fails to specify in what particulars the charge therein quoted was erroneous.

6 The fifth exception cannot be sustained, for the reason that the prosecutrix did not occupy towards the defendant the relation of an accomplice.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Lawrence
167 N.W.2d 912 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1969)
State v. Schmit
139 N.W.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1966)
United States v. Kobli
172 F.2d 919 (Third Circuit, 1949)
Tanksley v. United States
145 F.2d 58 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
State v. Danelly
107 S.E. 149 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 S.E. 368, 100 S.C. 43, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adams-sc-1915.