State v. Rollins

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Rollins

46 S.C.L. 297

DecidedDecember 15, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.C.L. 297 (State v. Rollins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Rollins, 46 S.C.L. 297 (S.C. Ct. App. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Tlie opinion of the Court was delivered by

Whitner, J.

The Acts of 1834 and 1817, each prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors to a slave, without a lawful permit by persons enumerated, though under different penalties. The distiller, vendor, and retailer, fall within each, and quoad such persons, the penalty enacted for that specific offence by the Act of 1834, is a repeal of the" penalty •prescribed by the Act of 1817. Under the authority of the cases of State vs. [299]*299Evans, 3 Hill, 190, and State vs. Brock, 11 Rich. 447, the judgment in this case must be arrested, the defendant having been convicted under the Act of 1834, in a former case, and incurred its penalty.

The motion in arrest of judgment is granted.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.

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

Tlie opinion of the Court was delivered by

Whitner, J.

The Acts of 1834 and 1817, each prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors to a slave, without a lawful permit by persons enumerated, though under different penalties. The distiller, vendor, and retailer, fall within each, and quoad such persons, the penalty enacted for that specific offence by the Act of 1834, is a repeal of the" penalty •prescribed by the Act of 1817. Under the authority of the cases of State vs. [299]*299Evans, 3 Hill, 190, and State vs. Brock, 11 Rich. 447, the judgment in this case must be arrested, the defendant having been convicted under the Act of 1834, in a former case, and incurred its penalty.

The motion in arrest of judgment is granted.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.C.L. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rollins-scctapp-1859.