State v. Thurston

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Thurston

135 S.E. 361, 137 S.C. 379, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 185

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 1, 1926

Docket12092

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 361 (State v. Thurston) 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. Thurston, 135 S.E. 361, 137 S.C. 379, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 185 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

“The defendant-appellant was tried in his absence before Judge J. Henry Johnson and a jury on January 15, 1926, on a charge of violation of the prohibition law, and was convicted and sentenced to serve one year in the state penitentiary, or for a like period on the public works of Greenville County.”

The exception is:

' “Because his Honor was in error in sentencing the defendant-appellant to one year on the public works of Greenville County, or for a like period in the state penitentiary, without *380 the alternative of a fine, said sentence being an abuse of discretion, in that said sentence was unreasonable and excessive for such a small amount of whisky. Upon the foregoing exception the defendant-appellant asks the Supreme Court to grant a new trial, or to remand said case to the Circuit Court for a modification of said sentence.”

The exception is overruled as being without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Beease, and StabeEr and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Ramage concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

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. Justice Watts.

“The defendant-appellant was tried in his absence before Judge J. Henry Johnson and a jury on January 15, 1926, on a charge of violation of the prohibition law, and was convicted and sentenced to serve one year in the state penitentiary, or for a like period on the public works of Greenville County.”

The exception is:

' “Because his Honor was in error in sentencing the defendant-appellant to one year on the public works of Greenville County, or for a like period in the state penitentiary, without *380 the alternative of a fine, said sentence being an abuse of discretion, in that said sentence was unreasonable and excessive for such a small amount of whisky. Upon the foregoing exception the defendant-appellant asks the Supreme Court to grant a new trial, or to remand said case to the Circuit Court for a modification of said sentence.”

The exception is overruled as being without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Beease, and StabeEr and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Ramage concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 361, 137 S.C. 379, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thurston-sc-1926.