salutary rule in South Carolina

1971In the case of Edwards v. Union Buffalo Mills Co., et al., 162 S. C. 17, 159 S. E. 818 (1931), this court held: “In the case of State v. King, 158 S. C. [251], 285, 155 S. E. 409, 421 , Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Blease said this: ‘In the recent case of State v. Kennedy, 143 S. C. 318, 141 S. E. 559 , we held: “* * * Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime f

1952Appellant next charges error in the Solicitor’s cross examination of Appellant and his witness. *119 “ ‘ “Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime from having the fair and impartial trial, guaranteed to him under the Constitution of this state, this court will exercise its power to uphold the Constitution by reversing the case, with the purpose of giving a defenda

1971In the case of Edwards v. Union Buffalo Mills Co., et al., 162 S. C. 17, 159 S. E. 818 (1931), this court held: “In the case of State v. King, 158 S. C. [251], 285, 155 S. E. 409, 421 , Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Blease said this: ‘In the recent case of State v. Kennedy, 143 S. C. 318, 141 S. E. 559 , we held: “* * * Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime f

1952Appellant next charges error in the Solicitor’s cross examination of Appellant and his witness. *119 “ ‘ “Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime from having the fair and impartial trial, guaranteed to him under the Constitution of this state, this court will exercise its power to uphold the Constitution by reversing the case, with the purpose of giving a defenda

1952Appellant next charges error in the Solicitor’s cross examination of Appellant and his witness. *119 “ ‘ “Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime from having the fair and impartial trial, guaranteed to him under the Constitution of this state, this court will exercise its power to uphold the Constitution by reversing the case, with the purpose of giving a defenda

1949In the recent case of State v. Kennedy, 143 S. C. 318, 141 S. E. 559 , we held: "* * * Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.’ If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime from having the fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him under the Constitution of this state, this court will exercise its power to uphold the Constitution by reversing the case, with the purpose of giving a defendant the trial to whic

1973In the case of Curtis v. Renneker, 34 S. C. 468, 13 S. E. 664 (1891), Chief Justice Mc-Iver stated the rule as follows: “The rule that a statute will never be given such a [retroactive] construction, unless it is required by the express words of the statute or must necessarily be implied frojn such words, is too well settled to need the citation of any authority to support it.” As asserted by Chief Justice Mclver, this salutary rule of statutory construction is too well settled to require citation; a great number of decisions of the South Carolina Supreme Court have recognized this rule and th

1971In the case of Edwards v. Union Buffalo Mills Co., et al., 162 S. C. 17, 159 S. E. 818 (1931), this court held: “In the case of State v. King, 158 S. C. [251], 285, 155 S. E. 409, 421 , Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Blease said this: ‘In the recent case of State v. Kennedy, 143 S. C. 318, 141 S. E. 559 , we held: “* * * Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime f

1971In the case of Edwards v. Union Buffalo Mills Co., et al., 162 S. C. 17, 159 S. E. 818 (1931), this court held: “In the case of State v. King, 158 S. C. [251], 285, 155 S. E. 409, 421 , Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Blease said this: ‘In the recent case of State v. Kennedy, 143 S. C. 318, 141 S. E. 559 , we held: “* * * Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime f

1964Public Service Authority , 200 S.C. 127 , 20 S.E. (2d) 645 , where it was said: "It is perhaps unnecessary to say that courts have no legislative powers, and in the interpretation and construction of statutes their sole function is to determine, and within the constitutional limits of the legislative power to give effect to, the intention of the Legislature.

1964Public Service Authority , 200 S.C. 127 , 20 S.E. (2d) 645 , where it was said: "It is perhaps unnecessary to say that courts have no legislative powers, and in the interpretation and construction of statutes their sole function is to determine, and within the constitutional limits of the legislative power to give effect to, the intention of the Legislature.

1953Certainly, the legislature has interdicted judges from sitting in cases of such relationship, and it is a good guide to the exercise of a sound discretion by a circuit judge to observe the same degree of relationship. * * *” We also quote from State v. Merriman, 34 S. C. 16, 34, 12 S. E. 619, 625 , cited and followed in Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 91, 20 S. E. 905 : “We are not aware of any statute fixing the degrees, either of consanguinity or affinity, within which a juror is disqualified; and it must therefore be left to the circuit judge to determine whether the fact that the juror’s father an

1953Certainly, the legislature has interdicted judges from sitting in cases of such relationship, and it is a good guide to the exercise of a sound discretion by a circuit judge to observe the same degree of relationship. * * *” We also quote from State v. Merriman, 34 S. C. 16, 34, 12 S. E. 619, 625 , cited and followed in Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 91, 20 S. E. 905 : “We are not aware of any statute fixing the degrees, either of consanguinity or affinity, within which a juror is disqualified; and it must therefore be left to the circuit judge to determine whether the fact that the juror’s father an

1953As we endeavored to point out in the very recent case of Rogers v. Rogers , 221 S.C. 360 , 70 S.E. (2d) 637, 640 , "There is a growing tendency among the courts to apply, not merely to affirm preliminarily," *185 this salutary principle.

1953As we endeavored to point out in the very recent case of Rogers v. Rogers , 221 S.C. 360 , 70 S.E. (2d) 637, 640 , "There is a growing tendency among the courts to apply, not merely to affirm preliminarily," *185 this salutary principle.

1953Also, see Glasgow v. Glasgow , 221 S.C. 322 , 70 S.E. (2d) 432 .

1953Also, see Glasgow v. Glasgow , 221 S.C. 322 , 70 S.E. (2d) 432 .

1953If it appears to the court that the juror is not indifferent in the cause, he shall be placed aside as to the trial of that cause and another shall be called.” In State v. Brock, 61 S. C. 141, 39 S. E. 359, 361 , which construes the foregoing section, is the following: “* * * *389 While the circuit judge committed error in stating that jurors related by blood or connected by marriage within the sixth degree to either of the parties were disqualified from sitting as such, that both consanguinity and affinity within the sixth degree were grounds for legal exceptions under the statutes, still he

1952Appellant next charges error in the Solicitor’s cross examination of Appellant and his witness. *119 “ ‘ “Uncalled for personal abuse of a witness by counsel is objectionable, and will not be condoned or allowed by the court.” If the record in any case shows that this salutary rule has been violated, and the effect was, in this court’s opinion, to prevent one charged with crime from having the fair and impartial trial, guaranteed to him under the Constitution of this state, this court will exercise its power to uphold the Constitution by reversing the case, with the purpose of giving a defenda

1948In contrast, the usual rule of burden of proof was applied in Brown v. Brown, 44 S. C. 378, 22 S. E. 412 , to the attack upon a conveyance from husband to wife, the opposite of this case; but it was executed under similar circumstances of separation.

1948The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions in the law of this state were stated in Bryant v. Smith et ux., 187 S. C. 453, 198 S. E. 20 , and Re Johnson’s Estate (Johnson v. Crutchfield), 198 S. C. 526, 18 S. E. (2d) 450 .

1948The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions in the law of this state were stated in Bryant v. Smith et ux., 187 S. C. 453, 198 S. E. 20 , and Re Johnson’s Estate (Johnson v. Crutchfield), 198 S. C. 526, 18 S. E. (2d) 450 .

1948Way v. Union Central Life Insurance Company, supra, 61 S. C. 501, 39 S. E. 742 , was cited with approval and the rule of, it was called a salutary principle.

1948Way v. Union Central Life Insurance Company, supra, 61 S. C. 501, 39 S. E. 742 , was cited with approval and the rule of, it was called a salutary principle.

1940As was said in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 185 S. C., 518, 194 S. E., 640, 641 ; “This salutary principle has been consistently and uniformly recognized.” We think that the lower Court misconceived the holding in Alexander v. Alexander, 164 S. C., 466, 162 S. E., 437 , 82 A. L.

1940As was said in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 185 S. C., 518, 194 S. E., 640, 641 ; “This salutary principle has been consistently and uniformly recognized.” We think that the lower Court misconceived the holding in Alexander v. Alexander, 164 S. C., 466, 162 S. E., 437 , 82 A. L.

1938From Long v. Hunter, 48 S. C., 179, 26 S. E., 228 , we quote the following salutary principle, which is controlling of the instant issue (page 229) : “When the order specifies in what particulars the complaint is to be amended, and there is a failure to comply with the order, the complaint may be struck out on motion.” The informality of the order of Judge Dennis at the time of the attempted service of the amended complaint as of course did not defeat the effect of a formal order for the terms of the informal order were well known to appellant’s counsel and only lacked concrete form because of

1938In Smith v. Smith, supra, the rule was announced that in an action for permanent alimony, the wife is entitled, upon a proper showing made, during the pendency of the suit, to an allowance for her support and maintenance, for costs and expenses and counsel fees to enable her to prosecute her action, if she is without separate means, and the husband is able to support her, whether she be libelant or respondent.

1933The Act was referred to by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in the case of Ex parte Michie, 167 S. C., 1; 165 S. E., 359 , and this decision is cited as showing that the general rule applicable to the trustees was relaxed by the statute in South Carolina as to state banks and trust companies, so as to legalize the course of conduct pursued by the trust company in this case.

1932The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.’ See also Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 128 ( 3 L.

1931In fact, to the same effect is the opinion of the Court in Kirby v. Telegraph Co., 77 S. C., 409, 58 S. E., 10, 12 , 122 Am.

1922In Cobb v. Railroad Co., 37 S. C. 200, 15 S. E. 879 , where a horse was frightened and made to run away by the shouting of train hands on a train that was passing, the Court held: “If, while in the defendant’s employ, and in the exercise of the duties of the position for which he was employed, he maliciously * * * performed those duties, * * * the employer is liable.” And again: “It is a salutary rule to hold employers responsible for the acts of their employees while performing the duties for which they are employed.” See, also, Moore v. Railroad Co., 38 S. C. 1, 16 S. E. 781 ; Rucker v. Smok

1922In Cobb v. Railroad Co., 37 S. C. 200, 15 S. E. 879 , where a horse was frightened and made to run away by the shouting of train hands on a train that was passing, the Court held: “If, while in the defendant’s employ, and in the exercise of the duties of the position for which he was employed, he maliciously * * * performed those duties, * * * the employer is liable.” And again: “It is a salutary rule to hold employers responsible for the acts of their employees while performing the duties for which they are employed.” See, also, Moore v. Railroad Co., 38 S. C. 1, 16 S. E. 781 ; Rucker v. Smok

1908The Court in Ex parte Florence School, 43 S. C. 11, 15, 20 S. E., 794 , uses this language: “It is a well settled and salutary rule, that a court should never undertake 'to pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature — an ordinate -branch o'f the government — 'unless it is necessary to the determination of the case in which such' a question is presented.” The Court in Trimmer v. Bomar, 20 S. C., 354, 361, thus states the rule: “In elections 'the great matter isi the result.

1905Wagner v. Sanders, 62 S. C., 73, 39 S. E., 950 .