State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Thompson

1 S.C. Eq. 31, 25 S.C.L. 31

DecidedJuly 1, 1839

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C. Eq. 31 (State v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 1 S.C. Eq. 31, 25 S.C.L. 31 (S.C. Ct. App. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia,per

O’Neall, J.

refused both motions; adhering to the rule (in 1 Chitty Cr. L. 202,) that “the name and addition of the party indicted ought regularly to be truly inserted in every indictment: but, whatever mistake may be made in these respects, if the defendant appears and pleads not guilty, he cannot afterwards take advantage of the error.” It was observed that there was no hardship in the rule; for the prisoner lost no advantage or privilege by it on his trial, and, if he had need afterwards to resort to a plea of autre-foits convict, he would be allowed to shew that he was the same person heretofore convicted by the name of William Foster.

The court concurred unanimously.

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

Curia,per

O’Neall, J.

refused both motions; adhering to the rule (in 1 Chitty Cr. L. 202,) that “the name and addition of the party indicted ought regularly to be truly inserted in every indictment: but, whatever mistake may be made in these respects, if the defendant appears and pleads not guilty, he cannot afterwards take advantage of the error.” It was observed that there was no hardship in the rule; for the prisoner lost no advantage or privilege by it on his trial, and, if he had need afterwards to resort to a plea of autre-foits convict, he would be allowed to shew that he was the same person heretofore convicted by the name of William Foster.

The court concurred unanimously.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C. Eq. 31, 25 S.C.L. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-scctapp-1839.