Case Name: STATE v. ABELSON ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1918-01-04
Citations: 108 S.C. 356
Docket Number: 9838
Parties: STATE v. ABELSON ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
9838
STATE v. ABELSON ET AL.
(94 S. E. 872.)
Criminal Law — Evidence—Admissibility.—Evidence is admissible if it tends to prove the issues or constitutes a link in the chain of proof, though it does not bear directly on the issues.
Before Smith, J., Greenville.
Affirmed.
Defendants appeal from a conviction on the charge of receiving stolen goods', knowing them to be stolen.
Messrs. McCullough, Martin & Blythe and Messrs. Bonham & Price, for appellants.
The latter cite: As ,to the question of identity of goods: 106 S. C. 270. And urged that case at bar does not come within rule stated therein.
Solicitor J. Robert Martin, for State, respondent,
cites: As to identity and ownership of property: 10 Ene. Ev. 668; 106 S. C. 272. As to corpus delicti: 2 Strob. 273; 4 McC. 358; 28 L. R. A. (N. S.). As to liability of one partner for the criminal acts of the other: 1 Mills Const. Rep. 274; 4 Strob. 303; 83 S. C. 256-7; Clark’s Crim. Law (2d ed., Hornbook Series) 329; Wharton’s Crim. Law (11th ed.), secs. 1235-6. As to guilty knowledge: Wharton’s Crim. Law, sec. 1229; 83 S. C. 256-7; 20 S. C. 110; 83 S. C. 157; Wharton’s Crim. Law (11th ed.), secs. 1229-30; Clark’s Crim. Law (2d ed., Hornbook Series) 330; 83 S. C. 356; 77 S. C. 383. As to intent: 10 Ene. Ev. 674; Clark’s Crim. Law 330; 30 S. C. 134; 39 S. C. 350; 77 S. C. 385; 83 S. C. 258.’ As to admissibility of evidence: 30 S. C. 134; 39 S. C. 350; 80"S. C. 390; Jones on Ev., sec. 143.
January 4, 1918.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
The defendants were convicted of receiving a roll of copper wire of the value of $60, knowing it to be stolen. All the exceptions (except the ninth) are dependent upon questions of fact. From a consideration of all the circumstances, we are led to the conclusion that there is testimony-tending to sustain every material allegation of the indictment.
The rule is thus stated in Railroad v. Partlow, 14 Rich. 237: "It may be that no one of the facts would, of itself, warrant the inference, and yet, when taken together, they may produce belief, which is the object of all evidence. In 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 51, it is said: Tt is not necessary that the evidence should bear directly upon the issue. It is admissible if it tends to prove the issue, or constitutes a link in the chain of proof, although alone, it might- not justify a verdict in accordance with it.' This is usually the case where an issue depends upon circumstantial evidence."
The foregoing words are quoted with approval in Dantzler v. Cox, 75 S. C. 334, 55 S. E. 774.
We have not discussed the evidence in detail, as it would unduly prolong the opinion, and would subserve no useful purpose.
The ninth exception must be overruled, for the reasons assigned by his Honor, the presiding Judge, in refusing to strike out the testimony.
Affirmed.