The case National Loan & Exchange Bank v. Gustafson reached the South Carolina Supreme Court on appeal from a lower court decision. The court affirmed the judgment entered by Judge Dennis without elaborating on its own reasoning. Justice Blease concurred only in the result, while Justices Staber and Carter fully concurred in the affirmance.
The case Piper v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. concerned a dispute involving the casualty insurance company. In this dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Watts, with Justice Stabler concurring, stated that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. The dissent relied entirely on the reasons previously assigned by Judge Shipp rather than providing independent analysis. This indicates the dissenters believed the lower court's ruling was correct and should stand as the decision of the appellate court.
The case Pickett v. Geer reached the state supreme court on appeal from a circuit court judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision in full, adopting the reasoning set out by Judge Mauldin without adding its own analysis. Chief Justice Watts delivered the opinion, and Justices Cothran, BeEase, StabeEr, and Carter joined in the unanimous result.
The case of Hughes v. Wilburn reached the South Carolina Supreme Court as an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court. Chief Justice Watts delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that the Circuit Court's judgment was affirmed for the reasons previously assigned by Judge Sease. Justices Cothran, Brease, and Stabrer concurred fully, while Justice Carter concurred only in the result.
The case involved the appellant, under bond for violating the prohibition law, who failed to appear for trial and was convicted in his absence of possessing whisky. He appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of ownership or intoxication, failure to prove unlawful obtaining, and alleged errors in jury instructions regarding lawful versus unlawful possession. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the possession charge, the jury charge correctly stated the law against possessing intoxicating liquor regardless of how obtained, and the appellant's exceptions misunderstood the indictment's focus on possession rather than obtaining or ownership.
The case concerned the conviction of the defendant in Horry County for violating the state prohibition law under two counts: possession and storing of alcoholic liquor. After a jury verdict of guilty on both counts and a one-year prison sentence, the defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including insufficient evidence, improper admission of testimony about liquor sales, errors in jury instructions, and defects in the indictment. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that witness testimony about purchases and the source of the liquor supported the storing charge, that evidence of sales and related acts was admissible to prove the charged offenses or show consciousness of guilt, that the trial judge's evidentiary and instructional rulings were correct, and that one valid count in the indictment rendered any flaw in the other harmless.