Case Name: STATE v. HALL
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1919-08-25
Citations: 112 S.C. 421
Docket Number: 10254
Parties: STATE v. HALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
10254
STATE v. HALL.
(100 S. E. 143.)
Criminal Law — Appeal—Reservation op Grounds op Review — Inconsistency op Verdict With Evidence. — Where defendant did not raise in the Circuit Court the question of error in sentencing on a verdict-inconsistent with the evidence, in that defendant had been found guilty on a count charging him with procuring a name to be forged on a note, and on a count charging him with himself writing the name, such question is not properly before the Supreme Court for consideration on defendant’s appeal.
■ Before Townsend, J., Kershaw, Summer term, 1918.
Affirmed.
Oliver Hall was convicted of forgery,- and he appeals.
W. B. deLoach, for appellant:
W. Hampton Cobb and A. F. Spigner, Solicitors, for the State.
August 25, 1919.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him in one count, with making, causing, and procuring to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited a certain note of the said Oliver Hall, in the sum of $450, payable at the Bank of Camden, S. C., by- then' and there .writing and indorsing thereon the name of W. T. Hall, and in the second count, with uttering and passing said note, which he then and there knew to be a forgery.
The only exception upon which he appealed is as follows:
"For error in his Honor, the presiding Judge, in passing the sentence upon the defendant that he did; the verdict of the jury being, inconsistent with the evidence, as the said jury found the defendant guilty on both counts in the indict ment, one count charging the defendant with procuring the name of W. T. Hall to be written upon the said note, and the other count charging the said defendant with writing the name of W. T. Hall upon the said note."
The question presented by the exception was not raised in the Circuit Court, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court for consideration.
Appeal dismissed.