Columbia, November, 1866. the defendants were admitted as witnesses, and had the oppor tunity of telling their own story. It was the province of the jury to estimate what degree of credit should be attached to this as well as the other evidence in the cause. They have found the defendants guilty, and we see no ground, either in the charge of the Court or in the conclusions of the jury, to warrant this Court in ordering a new trial. The motion is dismissed. WARDLAW and INGLIS, J. J., concurred. Motion dismissed. State vs. Looper and Durham. THE STATE US. JAMES PERRY LOOPER AND ALLEN DURHAM. Manslaughter-Punishment. A white person convicted of manslaughter cannot be sentenced to any more degrading punishment than imprisonment : he cannot be sentenced to hard labor. BEFORE MUNRO, J., AT PICKENS, FALL TERM, 1866. The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows: "The defendants, James Perry Looper and Allen Durham, were indicted at the Fall Term, 1866, for Pickens District, for the murder of Thomas R. Miller, and found guilty of manslaughter. "The sentence of the Court was, that they be sent to the penitentiary: James Perry Looper for five years, and Allen Durham for three years; and that they both be confined in the jail of Pickens till the penitentiary shall be established and ready to receive convicts." The defendants appealed, and now moved this Court to correct the sentence of the Court, on the grounds: 1. The law does not authorize the sentencing of a man convicted of crime to the penitentiary till a penitentiary is estab lished. 2. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter, and cannot, under the Act of the Legislature, be sentenced to the penitentiary for that offence. Perry, for appellants. Reed, solicitor, contra. Columbia, November, 18€6. The opinion of the Court was delivered by DUNKIN, C. J. By 4 sec. A. A. 1865, p. 12, it is enacted that "The punishment of felony with benefit of clergy, for the first offence, shall, at the discretion of the Court, be by one or more of the following modes," &c.; among which are enumerated confinement in a penitentiary, with such imposition of hard labor and solitary confinement as may be directed, whipping in all cases involving the crimen falsi; disqualification to vote, &c. At the close of the enumeration it is declared as follows: "But no punishment more degrading than imprisonment shall be imposed on a white person for a crime not infamous." Whether, prior to the Act of 1865, manslaughter was regarded in the law as an infamous crime, rendering the party convicted incompetent to testify in a court of justice, is an inquiry which it is not proposed now to institute. But, after a careful examination of the Act of 1865, purporting to amend the criminal law, and declaring various felonies without benefit of clergy and others with benefit of clergy, and indicating the scale of punishments as well as the special qualification above recited, the Court is of the opinion that the crime of manslaughter is not such infamous offence as would subject the party convicted to any punishment more degrading than imprisonment. The presiding Judge reports that, by the sentence of the Court, the parties were sent to the penitentiary, one for five, the other for three years; and to be confined in the jail of Pickens until the penitentiary was established and ready to receive convicts. As thus stated, the Court perceives no error in the judgment pronounced; but on reference to the original sentence on the indictment, the defendants are ordered to be imprisoned, the former for five years, and the latter for three years, to remain in the jail at Pickens until the penitentiary be prepared to receive convicts, then to be transported by the Sheriff, and delivered to the keeper of the penitentiary, and State vs. Looper and Durham. there be confined at hard labor for the remainder of the term of imprisonment. So much of the sentence as superadds to imprisonment a condemnation to hard labor during the term of imprisonment is without warrant of law, and the sentence is, to that extent, corrected. WARDLAW and INGLIS, J. J., concurred. Sentence corrected. Columbia, November, 1866. S. C. C. RICHARDSON vs. JOEL G. RHODUS. Trespass to Try Title-Debtor and Creditor-Fraudulent Con veyance. As against existing creditors, a voluntary conveyance is, as a general rule, fraudulent and void. It is not a question of intention, but the conclusion is declared by the law, and whether the donor had at the time sufficient property, not embraced in the conveyance, to pay his debts, is an inquiry not pertinent to the issue. The only qualification to the general rule is, that where the indebtedness is slight, as for the current expenses of the family, or the debts are inconsiderable as compared with the value of the donor's estate, and the creditor, by his delay or laches, has allowed the reserved estate to be wasted-in such case the conveyance will be held valid. Where the debt is voluntary and the creditor is a subsequent one, or where the deed is for valuable consideration, the question whether the conveyance is valid is one of actual intent. BEFORE ALDRICH, J., AT CLARENDON, FALL TERM, 1866. The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows: "This was an action of trespass to try title. On motion of defendant's attorneys Miss Emeline Rhodus was allowed to come in and defend the title. "The following is a report of the evidence: "1. Record in case of S. C. C. Richardson vs. Joel G. Rhodus, Exor. "2. Y. N. Butler.-Was Sheriff in March, '61. The records in Clerk's and Sheriff's offices have been destroyed. I levied on and sold a tract of land under an execution in the above case. The levy was regularly entered on the execution. The property levied was regularly advertised and sold. Plaintiff |