Weikman v. City Council

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 371

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action to recover a penalty imposed by an Ordinance of the City Council of Charleston, for an offence which consisted in “keeping spirituous liquors,” without license, in certain places therein mentioned, the declaration, to suit the various terms of the Ordinance, stated in the first count, the shop, in the second, the back room, and in the third, the premises connected with the shop; and the verdict was “guilty of having liquor in the back room,” and the fine assessed at fifty dollars. Held that the words immediately connected with “guilty,” shewing of what guilt had been found, could not be rejected as surplusage.</p> <p>2. It is only where a verdict, before certain and valid, according to a fair construction, has been cumbered by the addition of useless matter, not qualifying the previous meaning, that the addition can be rejected as surplusage.</p> <p>3. Although the technical words, “in manner and form, as alleged in the second count,” might be added to the words “guilty of having,” &c. yet, when thus amended, the offence as alleged, would not be found.</p> <p>4. Reasonable intendment, and the addition of manner and form, cannot alter or enlarge the meaning of the other words in the verdict. If the act found by the addition of manner and form constitute the fact to be found, then the verdict is certain; but if the act found, when made precise, be not the fact alleged, the addition will only give time, place, circumstance and manner to the act found, but leave still the variance between it and the fact alleged.</p>