*1 519. such is Act, under our finding Youthful Offender required where the record shows that the youthful defendant a offender. the trial Knowledge by the existence of judge isAct and the presumed, of sentence imposition upon offender youthful as an adult constitutes an implicit finding of no by the Act. required benefit

We are convinced decisions in Powell and Herr- ing are sound and are reaffirmed. case,

In the the trial had before him present the fact that was 17 years nature appellant age, offense, and seriousness of the record prior trial, and other information disclosed at the in in cluding plea mitigation. The sentence attorney’s shows implicitly finding that who judge’s appellant, committed the crime of armed while on robbery probation for house would benefit breaking, not afforded treatment under the Youthful Offender Act.

The sentence is affirmed. accordingly an

While of no explicit finding not a legal benefit of sentence prerequisite imposition pursuant Act, subdivision Youthful (d) Offender we out Powell that pointed “the better practice is make an for the record that explicit finding the defendant will receive no benefit from offender youthful treatment.”

Affirmed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Gregory, Rhodes and JJ., concur. SERVICES, INC., Respondent, MCC FINANCIAL v. Mildred DUFFEL, Appellant.

(220 E. (2d) 127) S. *2 Laurens, Whitesides, of Ap- and Culbertson Messrs. for cite: pellant, Laurens, Re- Thompson, Townsend and

Messrs. for cite: spondent, Whitesides,

Messrs. Culbertson and Laurens, Ap- for pellant, Reply. 26,

Nov. 1975.

Lewis, Chief Justice: The at issue concerns question validity substituted summons, service of the and other complaint, initial pleadings in this claim and action. delivery instituted

Respondent this action in claim and delivery against leaving Notice of copies Right Preseizure Summons, Hearing, Affidavit, Complaint, and Bond with son, fifteen appellant’s year old at (15) appellant’s home, 15, on March 1975. failed to Appellant respond notices contained in the took pleadings respondent pos- 28, session of the on involved March 1975. property Sub- 3, 1975, on sequently, appellant, April served notice of mo- tion set aside the quash purported the plead- *3 on her on return the that the or of ings proof service ground failed to show was that service effected accordance with the of 10-2507 of Section the 1962 of provisions Code Laws, amended, as the so to court This give jurisdiction. from of an order the lower court appeal the mo- denying tion a that service was made. upon finding properly of affidavit,

Section 10-2507 that service the provides in a notice and claim and undertaking action delivery shall be on defendant served the a by delivering copy thereof to found, can him if he be or to his from “personally, agent, taken, or, whose if the neither be possession property can found, either, them at the usual abode by leaving place of of with suitable and some discretion.” person age (Emphasis of of Laws, Section 10-438 the Code of with simi- added). of the the lar summons and provisions, governs com- plaint. service, of aby sheriff,

The signed deputy was as follows: sworn, deponent being undersigned duly

“The that says Summons, Notice, he a copy Complaint, served Affi- the to Bond ... on defendant Rod- by delivering davit and him of with the leaving copies Duffel and ney personally mother, . . his his Mildred Duffel . 15th same at home for March . of 1975 . . day service, the set aside of the motion to hearing ap-

Upon Duffel, filed that with whom the Rodney an affidavit pellant left, son, her fifteen years were was that he was papers (15) to of and the her. At same never delivered the age, pleadings time, file, the trial to over respondent permitted ap- affidavit of the officer who pellant’s objection, supplemental service, the of to the effect signed that Rod- original proof Duffel were left was a ney with whom the pleadings person discretion, understand and the competent appreciate seriousness associated with the and the said pleadings that mother, Duffel did deliver the his with Rodney pleadings lived, he whom as evidenced to the by acknowledgment 17th, son, officer on two after the service on her days March had that she received the pleadings. and 10-438) required statutes (10-2507

The foregoing that or be pleadings be personally that served appellant abode, with some of suitable person left her usual place at discretion. age service fails show that the said original

The affidavit left, Duffel, were was a pleadings with whom Rodney discretion, nor does it show resided person However, when the original supplemental at that place. sheriff are together, considered deputy affidavits Both are affidavits supplied. deficiencies in the original lower court that for finding ap- the basis formed *4 with the pleadings. was served properly pellant is the issue contention that of service basic Appellant’s the affidavit of serv- solely original must be determined upon was in error in trial judge permitting ice and that the or by to be supplemented supported subsequent original who served the papers, relying upon officer affidavit McCormac, 93, 186 S. C. S. E. of Matheson v. 195 the case

523 Haverty 122 and Cannon Furniture Company, 179 S. C. v. 1, 183 E. cases S. 469. These are not controlling: .They hold that the .recitals in simply a'judgment, a lack showing because of defective jurisdiction service of process, cannot contradicted, be a collateral in proceeding, by any evidence outside of the record. 49 C. S. Judgments Section 426(b) J. 846, 848. (c), pp. think this' more

We case is properly ánalogous 1 earlier cases Laurens Trust Co. v. Copeland, 154 390,

S. C. 151 S. E. 617 and Dill-Ball v. Company where, 233, Bailey, 1010, 103 S. C. 87 S. E. the issue of in service was raised the original action. thesé circum In stances, the Court looked the face of beyond the Affidavit of determine Service to whether or actual not ob was in tained with the statute. compliance applicable, cases These are to the effect that Affidavit of. Service only prima and,' facie evidence of the facts stated therein where directly attacked, be extrinsic may impeached by evidence.'

The entire record convinces us that 'the actual service (cid:127) in this was made in case with compliance Sections 10-438; 10-2507 and the order under accordingly, appeal affirmed. Rhodes JJ., concur.

Littlejohn, Gregory, in J., concurs result only. Ness, in : Ness, (concurring result) Justice I concur result of Mr. opinion Lewis. In Justice view need my the Court not the cases relied distinguish upon Section 10-409 Code appellant. expressly grants allow trial discretion to amended service at “it any time unless clearly appears prejudice material Wells, 198, v. would result.” C. 78 S. Corley E. (2d) S. The trial court found the defendant’s son was (1953). of discretion service was There no person was proper. abuse of She not fail discretion. did to answer. on the ;relying *5 she rather being jurisdictional;

error in her. In event any never delivered papers asserts the boy her no as the trial court extended has prejudice she suffered time answer. DAVENPORT, DAVENPORT, Hogg

George Appellant, v. Jean W. Respondent. (2d) 228) E. (220 S.