¶1 (concurring) : On the argument, I was of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Blease then held the views which are expressed at length in the opinion of a majority of the Court, written by him. After repeated study of this opinion and of the dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Cothran, I have reached the conclusion that the judgment should be sustained. That the indictment intended to charge the embezzlement of money is manifest; that there are matters alleged in the indictment not • pertinent to this charge is, I think, also manifest. Reaving out all references to the warrant, and taking the commencement and the conclusion of the indictment, we have a pleading aptly expressed, charging the embezzlement of money. The authorities cited sustain the view that these allegations can be treated as immaterial; certainly they are matters more evi *345 dentiary than matters of pleading. I concur in the judgment.
140 S.C. 325
138 S.E 835
State v. Alexander
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided June 29, 1927
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1927-06-29
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1927-06-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2007
5 state decisions
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 →