State v. Branham

Citations

• 13 S.C. 389
• 1880 S.C. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>1. An exception in the words “ that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence,” charges no specific error, and will not be considered.</p> <p>2. Where an alleged misnomer of the owner’s name in an indictment for burglary, has not been objected to in the court below, nor made a ground of appeal, this court cannot consider it.</p> <p>3. It is not necessary to prove the precise day or year of the commission of the offence as laid in the indictment, except when time enters into the nature of the offence, or is made a part of the description of it.</p> <p>4. The act of 1866 (13 Stat. 405), enlarging the limits Within which burglary and arson may be committed, did not repeal burglary at common law; and the act of 1878 (16 Stat. 631), increasing the punishment for burglary at common law, did not repeal the act of 1866, (Gen. Stat., eh. OXXIX., | 32,) nor the common law offence.</p> <p>5. The Circuit judge having permitted evidence of a confession of guilt made by a prisoner to the committing magistrate to go to the jury, this court refused to interfere upon that ground, although the manner of the officer was rude and Ms caution to the prisoner not as explicit as it should have been.</p> <p>6. Where the confessions of a prisoner made to a trial justice at the preliminary examination are reduced to writing and signed by the prisoner, and such written statement is within reach of the court, it is error to admit parol testimony of the confession.</p>