Case Name: STATE v. JACKSON
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-10-30
Citations: 126 S.C. 244
Docket Number: 11313
Parties: STATE v. JACKSON
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
11313
STATE v. JACKSON
(119 S. E., 576)
Intoxicating Liauons — Evidence op Manttpactueing, Held to Atjthoeize Submission op Case to Juey. — Positive and circumstantial evidence tending to prove that defendant manufactured intoxicating liquor held to warrant submitting the case to the jury.
Before Rice, J., Laurels, November, 1922.
Affirmed.
Ben Jackson indicted for manufacturing liquor and upon conviction appeals.
Mr. P. P. McGowan, for appellant, cites:
Liquor must contain more than one per cent alcohol: 109 S. C., 415.
Mr. H. S. Blackwell, for respondent.
Oral argument.
October 30, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
"The defendant was tried at the September term of the Court of General Sessions for Laurens County under an indictment which charged that the defendant, on or about December 15, 1921, did manufacture liquor containing more than 1 per cent alcohol, and which, if drunk to excess, would produce intoxication. At the close of the testimony for the State the defendant moved the Court for direction of a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the testimony was not sufficient to warrant a verdict for the State, and that no reasonable jury could find a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court refused the motion, which was renewed on the same grounds, which was likewise refused. After the introduction of all the testimony and arguments of counsel and charge of the presiding Judge, the jury rendered a verdict of gulity; whereupon the defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was refused, and the defendant was sentenced to serve upon the chain gang for a period of eight months."
Appellant by exceptions, three in number, alleges error on the part of his Honor in not directing a verdict as asked for by the defendant, and alleges error in charging on the facts. The exceptions must be overruled. The State made out such a case by positive and circumstantial evidence as warranted his Honor in submitting to- the jury for their determination the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The defendant says a strange negro came along, and he gave him some gas, and he told him if he would make some mash he would come back and make him some liquor. He said, " 'You get some sugar and meal and put it in a tub with some water' — tola me how — 'and I will come back Christmas and make you some whiskey.' I said, 'You can't make it here; you will have to carry it off.' He said, T will.' " Eater on defendant said the mash was in the tub, "Two weeks is as near as I can come at it before policeman came." Judge Rice's charge was free from error, and he did not charge on facts in violation of Article 5, § 6, of the State Constitution of 1895.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.