¶1 concurring. In our opinion the order of Judge Gage refusing a new trial involved only questions of fact, the decision of which was in his discretion, and the order, therefore, was not appealable. For this reason we think the motion to> dismiss the appeal should have been granted. But the other Justices being of a different opinion, and the motion to dismiss having, therefore, failed, we now concur in refusing' the motions made in behalf of defendant, and in affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court.
74 S.C. 401
54 S.E 601
State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided May 25, 1906
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1906-05-25
Before Gage, J., Horry, February, 1906. Motions in State against Commander Johnson, appellant. cites: Jziror must be impartial: 36 S. C., 504, 479; 39 S. C., 97. Juror must answer truly on voir dire: E. R., 37 Ch. Div., 541; 8 S. C., 239; 20 S. C., 449; 15 S. C., 155. Refusal to grant new trial here is error of law md reviewable: 54 S. C., 142, 148; 9 S. E., 861; 57 Miss., 434.
Affirmed · Decided 1906-05-25