State v. Glover

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Glover

72 S.E. 1087, 90 S.C. 166, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 198

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 13, 1911

Docket8054

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 1087 (State v. Glover) 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. Glover, 72 S.E. 1087, 90 S.C. 166, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 198 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

The defendant was tried before Magistrate W. D. Hamlin without a jury and was found guilty on a warrant charging that defendant did assault and strike Sam Green with a brickbat. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court mainly on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction of the case, an assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Judge Gage sustained the jurisdiction of the magistrate and affirmed the judgment and sentence, which was a fine of twenty-five dollars or thirty days at hard labor on the public works of the county. The appeal relates only to the question of jurisdiction.

Section 13 of the Criminal Code, relating to magistrates, provides: “They may punish by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the jail or house of correction not exceeding thirty days, all assaults and batteries, and other breach of the peace, when the offense is not of a high and aggravated nature, requiring in their judgment, greater punishment.”

The case of State v. McKittrick, 14 S. C. 454, approved in State v. Burch, 43 S. C. 3, 20 S. E. 758, in construing this statute, held that it leaves it to the magistrate in the first instance to determine whether he will take jurisdiction to try a case of assault and battery where circumstances of aggravation are alleged, but that such determination is not conclusive and is reviewable in the Circuit Court.

We are bound to assume that the Circuit Court concurred with the magistrate in the view that the circumstances of the *168 case, did not .require a sentence beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate to impose. We .cannot say that there was error of law or abuse of discretion in the judgment of the Circuit 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. Chief Justice Jones.

The defendant was tried before Magistrate W. D. Hamlin without a jury and was found guilty on a warrant charging that defendant did assault and strike Sam Green with a brickbat. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court mainly on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction of the case, an assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Judge Gage sustained the jurisdiction of the magistrate and affirmed the judgment and sentence, which was a fine of twenty-five dollars or thirty days at hard labor on the public works of the county. The appeal relates only to the question of jurisdiction.

Section 13 of the Criminal Code, relating to magistrates, provides: “They may punish by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the jail or house of correction not exceeding thirty days, all assaults and batteries, and other breach of the peace, when the offense is not of a high and aggravated nature, requiring in their judgment, greater punishment.”

The case of State v. McKittrick, 14 S. C. 454, approved in State v. Burch, 43 S. C. 3, 20 S. E. 758, in construing this statute, held that it leaves it to the magistrate in the first instance to determine whether he will take jurisdiction to try a case of assault and battery where circumstances of aggravation are alleged, but that such determination is not conclusive and is reviewable in the Circuit Court.

We are bound to assume that the Circuit Court concurred with the magistrate in the view that the circumstances of the *168 case, did not .require a sentence beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate to impose. We .cannot say that there was error of law or abuse of discretion in the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 1087, 90 S.C. 166, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-glover-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack