
    8521
    STATE v. MULWEE.
    1. Conditional Law — Ex Post Facto — Capital Punisiment. — The act providing- death by electrocution in capital cases is not an etc post facto law when applied to a case of homicide committed before the passage of the act.
    
      ■2. Appeal — Murder.—An error in instructing- the jury as to the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, is immaterial in a conviction for 'murder.
    Before Memminger, J., Oconee, March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment against Ernest Mulwee for murder of Sam Hyde. Defendant appeals.
    
      Mr. R. T. Jaynes, for appellant, cites:
    
      Law changing kind and place of punishment after crime is an ex post facto law: 8. Cyc. 1030; 38 Pac. 816.
    
      Solicitor Proctor A. Bonham, co-n-tra.
    April 14, 1913.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

2

Defendant appealed from sentence of death by electrocution, upon conviction of murder. The first ground taken is ruled by Malloy’s case, 95 S. C. The only other ground is that the Court erred in explaining- to the jury the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The defendant having been convicted of murder, the error was immaterial.

Affirmed.  