The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1917-07-19

lc lOllO W lS q VI liiC
! decision of the supreme court in the
case of the State VS.. George j. HERS,
convicted of manslaughter in this
| county and sentenced to serve six
years in prison. The summary is
reprinted from the Columbia State
OF last Sunday:
The State, respondent, against
George ]. HERS, defendant-appellant.
Criminal Law. /. Motions for
continuance are addressed to the dis
cretion of the trial judge and no
abuse of discretion in refusing the
motion is shown here.
2. Where defendants attorneys
simply objected to questions pro-
pounded to a witness and did not
state to the trial judge any grounds
of objection and the exception does
not attempt to point any error of law
or point any prejudicial error by the
admission of the evidence, there is no
question for this court to consider.
5. General reputation of the de-
ceased for violence may be shown but
not particular acts.
4. Judges charge as a whole be-
ing free from error, defendant can
not complain.
Before Judge Gary, Bamberg. Af-
frmed.
Opinion by R. C. Watts, A. J.
The defendant was indicted for
murder, tried and convicted of man.
slaughter before Judge Gary at the
October term of court, 1916, and af-
ter sentence appealed.
The first exception alleges error on
the part of his honor in refusing mo-
tion for continuance made by the de-
fendant when the case was called for
trial.
His honor found, as a matter of
fact, that due diligence had not been
used to procure the attendance of the
witnesses named in the affidavit.
There is nothing in the record to
show that his honor abused the dis
cretion vested in him in refusing the
motion. One of the witnesses, Ed
wards, did appear and testify in the
case during the progress of the trial,
and there was no compliance on the
part of the defendant with rule 81 of
circuit court rules. There was no
subpoena or warrant for arrest of
these witnesses shown to the court
or any claim that such papers were
in existence. A perusal of the af-
fidavit shows want of compliance
materially with the demands of the
rule.
So his honor was not in error in
refusing the motion to continue and
this exception is overruled.
Exception alleges error in allow
ing DR.. G.. F. Black to testify over
the objection of defendants attor-
neys.
The defendants attorneys simply
objected, did not state any grounds
of objection to the trial judge when
the objection was made, and in the
exception made do not attempt to
point out any prejudicial error of law
or point out any prejudicial error by
the admission of the evidence. There
is no question presented by this ex-
ception for this court to consider.
This exception is overruled.
Exception is overruled for the
same reasons assigned in overruling
exception g. Brown VS.. Building COM
pany, SO S. C. 80.
Exception is overruled for the
same reasons assigned in oyerruling
executions 2 and 8, and also as
it is not pointed out or suggested IN
the exception wherein or in what
manner the defendant was prejudiced
and the jury had before them testl-
mony of other witnesses similar to
that attempted to be proved by this
witness.
Exception alleges error in exclud-
ing the evidence of the witness, Cope
land, proof of individual acts of vio-
lence by the deceased. His honor
ruled that the witness had already
answered the question objected to by
the State and the record in the case
will not support the exception made
in the case. His honor was not in
error in ruling as he did. General
reputation of deceased for violence
may be shown, but not particular acts
of violence. State VS.. Trailkill, II
S. G.. 142. This exception is over
ruled.
The sixth exception complains Of
error upon the part of his honor in
his charge to the jury.
We find the charge as whole was
free from error and defendant can
not complain.
All exceptions are overruled. Judg-
ment affirmed.
We concur: Eugene B. Gary, c.
J.:D. E. Hydrick, A. j.; T. B. Fraser,
A. j.: George w. Gage, A. j.
Methodist Missionary Meeting.