State v. Cockfield

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Cockfield

49 S.C.L. 53

DecidedDecember 15, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 49 S.C.L. 53 (State v. Cockfield) 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

State v. Cockfield, 49 S.C.L. 53 (S.C. Ct. App. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DuNKIN, C. J.

By the Act of December, 1866, (13 Stat. 406.) “Every entry on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant, prohibiting the same, shall be deemed a misdemeanor.” The comprehensive language of the enactment will not permit the Court to suppose that it was intended to have any other than the ordinary acceptation. If, as was supposed in the argument, the law was only directed against those who entered claim[56]*56ing title, restrictive terms would obviously have been applied. Such was the instruction of the presiding Judge. The matters urged in the remaining grounds of appeal were circumstances of extenuation, proper for consideration in the sentence to be imposed, but would not warrant the interference of this Court.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw and Ietglis, 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.

By the Act of December, 1866, (13 Stat. 406.) “Every entry on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant, prohibiting the same, shall be deemed a misdemeanor.” The comprehensive language of the enactment will not permit the Court to suppose that it was intended to have any other than the ordinary acceptation. If, as was supposed in the argument, the law was only directed against those who entered claim[56]*56ing title, restrictive terms would obviously have been applied. Such was the instruction of the presiding Judge. The matters urged in the remaining grounds of appeal were circumstances of extenuation, proper for consideration in the sentence to be imposed, but would not warrant the interference of this Court.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw and Ietglis, A. JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.C.L. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cockfield-scctapp-1867.