State v. Miller

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Miller

70 S.E. 1061, 88 S.C. 485, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 151

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 25, 1911

Docket7880

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 1061 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 70 S.E. 1061, 88 S.C. 485, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 151 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced under an indictment for assault and battery with intent to kill.

On the night of January 29, 1910, there was a candy-pulling party at the house of John Head, near Saxe-Gotha Mills, in Lexington county. While the party was in progress some one from the outside fired a shotgun, the shot striking the door of the house, and as the door was opened another shot was fired, which passed through the doorway, some of the shot striking several members of the party— Willie S. Head, Artie Hook, Henry Hook and Bertha Rish. *493 The evidence offered to show that the deed was perpetrated by the defendant was circumstantial.

The exceptions relate solely to the charge. ' We have examined the charge as a whole carefully, and are satisfied that it is free from prejudicial error.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is 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 convicted and sentenced under an indictment for assault and battery with intent to kill.

On the night of January 29, 1910, there was a candy-pulling party at the house of John Head, near Saxe-Gotha Mills, in Lexington county. While the party was in progress some one from the outside fired a shotgun, the shot striking the door of the house, and as the door was opened another shot was fired, which passed through the doorway, some of the shot striking several members of the party— Willie S. Head, Artie Hook, Henry Hook and Bertha Rish. *493 The evidence offered to show that the deed was perpetrated by the defendant was circumstantial.

The exceptions relate solely to the charge. ' We have examined the charge as a whole carefully, and are satisfied that it is free from prejudicial error.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 1061, 88 S.C. 485, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack