Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 S.C.L. 5

State v. Alexander

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided December 15, 1853

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1853-12-15

Before WhitNer, J., at Abbeville, Fall Term, 1853. The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows: “These defendants were indicted and convicted for a riot, &c., in the village of Abbeville on the following proof: “Dr. J. Branch testified, that, at midnight in October of the last year, and during the sitting of the Court, he was aroused from his bed by a call from his domestics, that persons were in his stable: on getting into the yard he heard voices in the…

Decided 1853-12-15

¶1The opinion of the- Court was delivered by

Glover,!.

¶2This case having been submitted to the jury with proper instructions, there is no good reason to review their decision, if the presiding Judge had not reported, that from his view of the facts he scarcely supposed that the offence had been made out.

¶3The grounds of appeal submit, that there was no proof of concert, of intention to commit a breach of the peace, of a tumultuous assembling in terrorem populi, of a show of armor, or of an intention to oppose any who should come against them.

¶4L. E. Jackson, who was particeps criminis, proved the assembling of the defendants, their concert to commit a trespass, and the execution of their purpose ; add to this the evidence of Dr. Branch, who was aroused from his bed at midnight by his servants, and heard the noise and saw a light in the direction *8of his stable, and we have the prominent facts which are required in a definition of riot.

¶5A show of arms, like threatening speeches, turbulent gestures, &c., is only one of the circumstances which are calculated to produce alarm. If persons assemble to do an unlawful act, the apparent tendency of which is to'inspire terror, and they execute their purpose, it is not necessary to show that it was in terror em populi. (11 Mod. 116.)

¶6The defendants assembled at midnight, concerted to do an unlawful act, prepared the necessary instruments, committed a trespass, and because the alarm was limited to one household, they object that the offence is not established.

¶7It appears to the Court that the evidence sustains the verdict, and that the defendants can take nothing by their motion.

¶8Motion dismissed.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers and Whitker, -JJ., concurred.

¶9Appeal dismissed.

/41/scl/5 · .json · Public domain