State v. Cooler

Citations

• 30 S.C. 105
• 3 L.R.A. 181
• 8 S.E. 692
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 76

Syllabus

<p>1. The fact that one of the petit jury had served on the grand jury that found the bill of indictment, furnishes a good ground of challenge to such juror; but if he is sworn without objection, it is no ground for new trial, even though this ground of challenge was not known to the prisoner or his counsel, or could not have been discovered by due diligence, until after the jury was empanelled for the trial.</p> <p>2. Under the act of 1887 (19 Stat., 819), limiting the punishment for petit larceny to imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or to a fine of not more than §100, trial justices have exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution (art. L, § 19) of this offence, even where committed and indictment found before the passage of that act.</p> <p>3. And that statute having diminished the punishment for petit larceny, one convicted after the statute of petit larceny committed before the statute, should be r.ried by a trial justice and sentenced to the punishment prescribed by the new law.</p>