Town of Williston v. Hancock

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Town of Williston v. Hancock

87 S.E. 997, 103 S.C. 199, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 7

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 25, 1916

Docket9265

StatusPublished

This text of 87 S.E. 997 (Town of Williston v. Hancock) 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

Town of Williston v. Hancock, 87 S.E. 997, 103 S.C. 199, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 7 (S.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

The defendant was tried and convicted before the town council of Williston of transporting whiskey and fined $50, *202 or thirty days upon the chain gang for Barnwell county. From this conviction and sentence he appealed to the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court (Judge Shipp) affirmed the sentence; and he appeals to this Court, and presents, by his exceptions, the following questions: (1) Did the ordinance, as amended, make it an offense to transport alcoholic liquors within the town of Williston? (2) Did the defendant transport' alcoholic liquors for unlawful purposes? (3) Did the intendant' err in charging the jury that this case differed from the charge in the case of Anderson v. Fant, 96 S. C. 105, 79 S. E. 641?

These exceptions must be overruled. The ordinance was ’passed long before the alleged offense was committed.

1, 2 3 The town had ample power and authority to pass the ordinance, and there is no specific law which provides how such ordinance shall be passed. The town had the right to amend the ordinance, as it did, and there was evidence to sustain the finding of the jury in the intendant’s Court, concurred in by the Circuit Court.

4 There was no error in the intendant’s telling the jury that the charge against the defendant in this case was different from the Fant case, as that case could not have had any application to the case tried.

Judgment 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. Justice Watts.

The defendant was tried and convicted before the town council of Williston of transporting whiskey and fined $50, *202 or thirty days upon the chain gang for Barnwell county. From this conviction and sentence he appealed to the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court (Judge Shipp) affirmed the sentence; and he appeals to this Court, and presents, by his exceptions, the following questions: (1) Did the ordinance, as amended, make it an offense to transport alcoholic liquors within the town of Williston? (2) Did the defendant transport' alcoholic liquors for unlawful purposes? (3) Did the intendant' err in charging the jury that this case differed from the charge in the case of Anderson v. Fant, 96 S. C. 105, 79 S. E. 641?

These exceptions must be overruled. The ordinance was ’passed long before the alleged offense was committed.

1, 2 3 The town had ample power and authority to pass the ordinance, and there is no specific law which provides how such ordinance shall be passed. The town had the right to amend the ordinance, as it did, and there was evidence to sustain the finding of the jury in the intendant’s Court, concurred in by the Circuit Court.

4 There was no error in the intendant’s telling the jury that the charge against the defendant in this case was different from the Fant case, as that case could not have had any application to the case tried.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 997, 103 S.C. 199, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-williston-v-hancock-sc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack