Case Name: The State vs. John A. Cook. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave; Same vs. Same. Indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a license; Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling liquour behind a screen; Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling rice to a slave without a ticket; Same vs. Diederich Lohman. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave; Same vs. James Pressly. Indictment for assault with intent to murder
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1837-02-14
Citations: 1 Ril. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. John A. Cook. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave. Same vs. Same. Indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a license. Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling liquour behind a screen. Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling rice to a slave without a ticket. Same vs. Diederich Lohman. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave. Same vs. James Pressly. Indictment for assault with intent to murder.
Judges: RICHARD SANTT,
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 234–236

Head Matter:
The State vs. John A. Cook. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave. Same vs. Same. Indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without a license. Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling liquour behind a screen. Same vs. Same. Indictment for selling rice to a slave without a ticket. Same vs. Diederich Lohman. Indictment for selling liquor to a slave. Same vs. James Pressly. Indictment for assault with intent to murder.
R. B. Smith, Attorney General, for the State*
J. D. Dawson, Attorney for defendant, Cook.
Yeadon & Macbeth, Attorneys for defendant, Lohman.
C. C. Stboheokee, Attorney for defendant Pressly.
Tried before his Honor Judge Bat, at Charleston, October Term, 1836.
Judge’s Report. — In each of these cases, which came before meat the Charleston Sessions, October Term, I8ü6,1 directed the indictment to be quashed, on the ground, that the names of the grand jurors were not set forth in the indictment, nor any specification of an offence on the docket, of any kind or nature whatever. And for authority to support my views of the propriety of this course, I refer to 2 Halo’s P. C. 167.
In the last mentioned of the cases, against Cook, that for selling rice to a slave without a ticket, no motion was made- to quash the indictment, by the counsel, on either side ; but the jury, who were charged with it, being unable to agree upon their verdict, I directed the indictment to be quashed, in the absence of counsel. In each of the remaining five cases, a motion to quash was made by the defendant’s counsel, and was in each instance sustained by me. In the case against Diederich Lohman, the motion to quash was met by a motion, on the part of the Attorney General, to amend the caption of the indictmeut, by inserting the names of the grand ju. rors, from the minutes of the court. I thought that this motion came too late, after the defendants had pleaded to the indictments, and accordingly refused it.
The Attorney General has given me notice of appeal in each of these cases ; but as they all involve the same question, I have concluded to report them together.
E. H. BAY.
- Grounds of Appeal.
1. That the motions to quash, on the ground, that the names of the grand jurors were not set forth in the indictment, came too late after the defendants had pleaded ; after which, the objection, if available at all, could only be taken advantage of by motion in arrest.
2. That the motion to amend was in due season, and ought to have been granted; and the objection to the indictment thereby obviated.
3. That the defects of the docket afforded no ground to quash the indictment.
4. That the orders to quash, were, in all respects, contrary to law, and the practice of the court.
H. BAILEY, Attorney General.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice O'Neaix
delivered the opinion of the court.
The ground upon which the indictments were quashed in these cases, has been again and again ruled in this State, to constitute no valid exception to a indictment. Indeed it is no longer to be regarded, as a question on which argument is to be hoard; or th® bench is to be expected to assign reasons for a judgment upon it.
The motion to reverse the several orders to quash the indictments, agd to restore the cases to the docket, is granted.
JOHN B, G'NEALL.
Filed 14th February, 1837.
We concur,
RICHARD SANTT,
J. S IliCHAiiDfcJON,
JOSJAH J. EVANS.
4. P. BUTLER.