Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

126 S.C. 416

120 S.E 491

State v. Deschamps

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 6, 1923

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1923-12-06

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1923-12-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2019

10 state decisions

501923193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 On . Petition for Rehearing

Per Curium.

¶2 The point to which the petition for a rehearing is directed, viz. that the Circuit Judges order was so far predicated upon his view of the weight and sufficiency of the evidence as to preclude appeal by the State, was not overlooked by the Court-in the consideration of the appeal .or in the preparation of the opinion heretofore filed. In view, however of the respondent’s affidavit to the effect that he was prevented by sickness from arguing the cause, In person or by attorney, upon the hearing of this Court, the appeal record has been carefully reexamined.

¶3 The ground upon which the Circuit Judge rested the order for a new trial, as pointed out in the opinion, was definitely stated. The prefatory remarks of the Judge by way of comment on the evidence as to the amount of damages are referable to and controlled by the view of the law as to the construction of the statute upon which the Judge’s ruling was expressly based. The record discloses no valid reason for impeaching the correctness of the conclusion that the Circuit Judge’s order was predicated wholly upon a' view of the law, in which this Court does not concur. It follows that the petition for rehearing must be denied and the order staying the remittitur revoked-

¶4 It is accordingly so ordered.

/126/sc/416 · .json · Public domain