State v. Hallback

Citations

• 40 S.C. 298
• 18 S.E. 919
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide — Arraignment.—The trial judge committed no error in refusing the demand of the prisoners, charged with murder, that the panel be entirely called over once in their hearing, before the jurors were presented for challenge.</p> <p>2. Warrant — Constable—Case Criticised. — An affidavit which charges the defendant with committing “a trespass” on a designated tract of land, “after notice,” and a warrant based thereon alleging complaint of the commission of “a trespass” on the said land “after notice,” sufficiently alleges the offence of “entry on the enclosed or unenclosed land of another, after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting the same,” to entitle the constable, deputised to arrest the defendant, to the protection of an officer of the law. This case distinguished from the case of State v. Mays, 24 S. C., 191, and attention called to the change of law since that decision was rendered.</p> <p>3. Ibid — Ibid.—Where a warrant is addressed “to any lawful constable,” and directs him to arrest the defendant, naming him, and on the back of this warrant is endorsed the appointment of “H. as a special constable to execute the within process,” signed by the trial justice, H. is thereupon constituted a special constable, charged with the duty of arresting the defendant named in the warrant.</p> <p>4. Charging Juries — Immaterial Error. — There is no error in charging an irrelevant proposition, unless it is shown that the defendant was injured thereby.</p>