State v. Peeples

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Peeples

99 S.E. 813, 112 S.C. 310, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 14, 1919

Docket10224

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 813 (State v. Peeples) 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. Peeples, 99 S.E. 813, 112 S.C. 310, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 123 (S.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

The appellant was indicted under Section 697 of the Criminal Code for failure to support his wife and children. The appellant lives in Kershaw county. There was a disagreement between the husband and wife, and she moved into and now lives in Lee county with her children. The appellant demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court of Kershaw county, and claimed that the offense, if any, was committed in Lee county, where the wife and children reside. The demurrer to the jurisdiction was overruled, and the defendant was convicted for failure to support his children. From the sentence and judgment the defendant appeals, on one exception, as follows:

“For error in his Honor in overruling the demurrer made by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Court upon the ground that at the time charged in the said indictment the wife and children of the said defendant were residents of the county of Lee.”

The exception cannot be sustained. The recent case of State v. Stone, 98 S. E. 333, holds that the husband is required, primarily, to furnish necessaries of. life for his wife at his residence. The defendant resided in Kershaw *312 county, and. the place the appellant was required to furnish necessaries was in Kershaw county. The offense was committed in Kershaw county and Kershaw county was the proper county for the trial.

The judgment 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. Justice Fraser.

The appellant was indicted under Section 697 of the Criminal Code for failure to support his wife and children. The appellant lives in Kershaw county. There was a disagreement between the husband and wife, and she moved into and now lives in Lee county with her children. The appellant demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court of Kershaw county, and claimed that the offense, if any, was committed in Lee county, where the wife and children reside. The demurrer to the jurisdiction was overruled, and the defendant was convicted for failure to support his children. From the sentence and judgment the defendant appeals, on one exception, as follows:

“For error in his Honor in overruling the demurrer made by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Court upon the ground that at the time charged in the said indictment the wife and children of the said defendant were residents of the county of Lee.”

The exception cannot be sustained. The recent case of State v. Stone, 98 S. E. 333, holds that the husband is required, primarily, to furnish necessaries of. life for his wife at his residence. The defendant resided in Kershaw *312 county, and. the place the appellant was required to furnish necessaries was in Kershaw county. The offense was committed in Kershaw county and Kershaw county was the proper county for the trial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 813, 112 S.C. 310, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peeples-sc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack