State v. Revels

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Revels

68 S.E. 523, 86 S.C. 213, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 4, 1910

Docket7598

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 523 (State v. Revels) 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. Revels, 68 S.E. 523, 86 S.C. 213, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 29 (S.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years on the public works of the county.

The only question involved in the exceptions is whether there was any testimony tending to show involuntary manslaughter.

There was testimony that on the night of the homicide, there was an ice cream supper given at the home of defendant, and that deceased, James Henry Jacobs, who was brother-in-law of defendant, was present assisting the defendant, appearing to be partner. A crowd was present. In the yard a man and a boy were quarreling. Defendant told them he was not going to have any fuss there, and ordered the man, Smith, to shut up or get out, and Smith replied with an oath that he would hush or get out when he got ready.

Defendant walked off saying that he would scatter the crowd, went into his house, and was returning along the passage in the direction of the front door with a cocked gun in his hand, when Allen Tolson caught hold of the gun and requested defendant to put it up lest he cause trouble, and defendant said that he was not mad, that he would not hurt anyone. The defendant told Tolson to turn the gun loose; it was cocked. About the time Tolson turned the gun loose, the deceased, Jacobs, took hold of *215 the barrel end and they were pulling at the gun when it fired, the load striking deceased about the knee, from which wound he died. Immediately after the shooting defendant said he would not have done it for anything in the world, and walked out of the house. Before Jacobs died he said he was not mad with defendant and would not hold it against him.

The testimony was sufficient to warrant an inference that the homicide was caused by the negligent handling of the loaded gun, within the definition of involuntary manslaughter, as declared and enforced in State v. Gilliam, 66 S. C., 422, 45 S. E., 6.

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 of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years on the public works of the county.

The only question involved in the exceptions is whether there was any testimony tending to show involuntary manslaughter.

There was testimony that on the night of the homicide, there was an ice cream supper given at the home of defendant, and that deceased, James Henry Jacobs, who was brother-in-law of defendant, was present assisting the defendant, appearing to be partner. A crowd was present. In the yard a man and a boy were quarreling. Defendant told them he was not going to have any fuss there, and ordered the man, Smith, to shut up or get out, and Smith replied with an oath that he would hush or get out when he got ready.

Defendant walked off saying that he would scatter the crowd, went into his house, and was returning along the passage in the direction of the front door with a cocked gun in his hand, when Allen Tolson caught hold of the gun and requested defendant to put it up lest he cause trouble, and defendant said that he was not mad, that he would not hurt anyone. The defendant told Tolson to turn the gun loose; it was cocked. About the time Tolson turned the gun loose, the deceased, Jacobs, took hold of *215 the barrel end and they were pulling at the gun when it fired, the load striking deceased about the knee, from which wound he died. Immediately after the shooting defendant said he would not have done it for anything in the world, and walked out of the house. Before Jacobs died he said he was not mad with defendant and would not hold it against him.

The testimony was sufficient to warrant an inference that the homicide was caused by the negligent handling of the loaded gun, within the definition of involuntary manslaughter, as declared and enforced in State v. Gilliam, 66 S. C., 422, 45 S. E., 6.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 523, 86 S.C. 213, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-revels-sc-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack