State v. Ray

75 S.E. 174, 91 S.C. 551, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 272
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 5, 1912
Docket8242
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 174 (State v. Ray) 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. Ray, 75 S.E. 174, 91 S.C. 551, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 272 (S.C. 1912).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

Defendant was convicted of forgery in signing the name of S. D. Gillard to an order addressed to the Southern Express Company, requesting the company to deliver to him a package of whiskey which he had ordered in the name of Gillard, without his consent.

The exceptions raise only two points:

1 1. Error, in holding that defendant could be convicted, since there was no proof of intention to defraud either Gillard or the express company. This point is controlled by the case of State v. Webster, 88 S. C. 56.

2 2. Error in admitting other orders of like import, signed by other persons, that is, orders to which the names of other persons had been signed. It appears from the record that testimony was admitted, without objection, that defendant had, at different times, presented to the express company orders, purporting to have been signed by different persons, and received packages of whiskey shipped in their names. As this testimony was not *552 objected to, the appellant cannot complain of its admission. But it was unobjectionable. State v. Allen, 56 S. C. 495, 35 S. E. 204; State v. Talley, 77 S. C. 99, 57 S. E. 618.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Bikle
185 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1936)
State v. Lyle
118 S.E. 803 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 S.E. 174, 91 S.C. 551, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ray-sc-1912.