State v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Smith

34 S.E. 657, 56 S.C. 378, 1900 S.C. LEXIS 175

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 2, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 S.E. 657 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 34 S.E. 657, 56 S.C. 378, 1900 S.C. LEXIS 175 (S.C. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

Appellant asks a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court for alleged error: (1) in not granting a continuance on account of the absence of two of his witnesses, and (2) in forcing him to trial in the absence of the stenographer.

1 The refusal of a motion for continuance does not constitute reversible error, unless a clear case of abuse of discretion is shown. In this case it does not even appear that the witnesses were material, much less that there was any abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial.

2 No objection was made on account of the absence of the stenographer; but if there had been such objection, there is nothing to show that appellant was in any way prejudiced by such absence. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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