State v. Mayson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Mayson

5 S.C.L. 284

DecidedNovember 15, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.C.L. 284 (State v. Mayson) 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. Mayson, 5 S.C.L. 284 (S.C. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

The laws of this State do not recognize a court, composed of two magistrates, except in particular cases. ]f this perjury was committed before a court, required by law to be composed of two magistrates, the indictment is erroneous. If the case .was of such a nature as to require but one, then the verdict is erroneous, as both could not be sitting in a judicial capacity. So that the variance between the indictment and the verdict is fatal. If the jury meant that the offence was partly committed before one, and partly before the other, that is erroneous; for one, although a magistrate, acted in this ease only in a ministerial capacity, and the verdict does not shew which acted in the judicial, and which in a ministerial capacity; and, - therefore would not be a bar to another indictment for the same offence. I am farther of opinion, that the verdict is contrary to evidence. Mr. Adcock swears that the warrant was returnable before Mr. Turner, and that he did not sit on the trial at all, but was merely the organ of Mr. Turner, to administer the oath for him. I think therefore; that) a new trial ought to be granted.

Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.

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

Nott, J.

The laws of this State do not recognize a court, composed of two magistrates, except in particular cases. ]f this perjury was committed before a court, required by law to be composed of two magistrates, the indictment is erroneous. If the case .was of such a nature as to require but one, then the verdict is erroneous, as both could not be sitting in a judicial capacity. So that the variance between the indictment and the verdict is fatal. If the jury meant that the offence was partly committed before one, and partly before the other, that is erroneous; for one, although a magistrate, acted in this ease only in a ministerial capacity, and the verdict does not shew which acted in the judicial, and which in a ministerial capacity; and, - therefore would not be a bar to another indictment for the same offence. I am farther of opinion, that the verdict is contrary to evidence. Mr. Adcock swears that the warrant was returnable before Mr. Turner, and that he did not sit on the trial at all, but was merely the organ of Mr. Turner, to administer the oath for him. I think therefore; that) a new trial ought to be granted.

Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.C.L. 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mayson-sc-1812.