¶1 I concur in the result with Mr. Justice Hydrick. I think the jury- were fully warranted in finding from the evidence that some one kept at the still “a place where liquors were manufactured,” but there was no evidence that the defendant did. The keeping of such a place is not forbidden in the statute. The statute makes the doing of certain things a crime. It also makes the “keeping of a place” where certain things are done a crime. The statute makes a distinction between the two, and it seems to me the Court ought to observe it, especially in criminal cases.
91 S.C. 265
74 S.E 500
State v. Ravan
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 9, 1912
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1912-04-09
<p>Before Watts, ]., Spartanburg, 1911.</p> <p>Indictment by the State against Will Ravan. Defendant appeals.</p> <p>cites: Manufacture means change in form by hand or machinery: 36 Cyc. 519; 20 L. R. A. 241; 110 Tenn. 183.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1912-04-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1947
1 district · 9 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 →