Case ID: scl_1/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Executors of Lynch against Horry.
    Where the inhabitants c*l a parish aro liable to for repairing or making a causeway., they are in-terestedxn the suit respecting it, and therefore it is a good cause for changing the venue.
    
    ON a motion being made in this case to change the •venue from Georgetown to Charleston district.
    The case appeared to be, that in 1775, the defendant, together with Benjamin Huger and Paul Trapier, jun. since deceased, as commissioners of the high roads in Prince George’s parish, contracted with Thomas Lynch, deceased, for making what is now called Lynch’s Causeway, from North to South Santee, for which they engaged to pay him 8,000/. old currency ; which sum, by an old act of assembly, passed previous to the time of contract, was to be raised by a tax upon the negroes in Prince George’s parish, which then comprehended the whole of the present district of i Georgetown, except Prince Frederick’s parish ; and the said commissioners were authorised, by the act, to make the assessment. Lynch, on his part, finished the Causeway, Yvhich was accepted on the part of the commissioners, in che year 17'/8 or 1779. The commissioners, however, Gc;5-‘f, <-q she confusion of the war, omitted to lay the tax, or collect the money to defray the expense ; and thus matters remained over till after the peace ; when this action was . L brought by Bowman and others, executors of Lynch, against Horry, the surviving commissioner, for recovery of the gum contracted for.
    The suit was originally commenced in Georgetown district, and the present motion was to change the venue front that district to Charleston district, on the ground, that the parishioners of the former district were interested in the event of the cause ; and, therefore, an impartial or disinterested jury could not be impanelled to try the merits, The motion was founded on Mr. Bowmaxüs affidavit, in which he swore, that the defendant had told him, he did not think a jury could be got in Georgetown district, whq would find a verdict against him on this contract.
    Two grounds of objection were taken against this motion: 1st. That the different districts were now independent of each other; and, of course, po order made in one, should be binding, or have any effect, in the other. 2d, That even if the court had a power to change the venuey it was unnecessary, because a jury might be drawn from Prince Frederick's parish, whq would be disinterested, im* partial men.
   The Court.

No rule of law is better established than this, that when a fair trial cannot be had in one county or district, a venire must be awarded to an adjoining county, The books are full upon this point, and the principle of law is founded on wisdom and justice ; for, as a man cannot be a judge in his own cause, so a juror should not sit op pne in which he is eventually interested. The smallest degree of interest, is a decisive objection to a witness, and much more so to a juror. 2 Black. 480. And as to the power of the court, it is a common law right, and the court, is bound to. grant it, unless taken away by some express, statute. The old statute of Richard II. not being in force here, it stands upon the footing of the common law, unless altered by our local acts of assembly,

The first act which relates to the circuit courts, is that of 1769, which creates the districts, and authorises the holding of these courts. There is nothing in .this act which takes away the right or power of the court. On the contrary, the 23d clause gives a power to the court to strike a special jury and try causes, either at bar, or at the circuit courts.

The next act is that of 1789, giving those courts original and final jurisdiction. The preamble is the best key to it. It recites “ the inconvenience of writs and processes being s‘issued from and returned to Charleston” Then it goes on, and gives the several circuit courts the same powers as to the matters therein mentioned, as the court of common pleas at Charleston enjoyed. And the 15th clause expressly reserves the right of applying for new trials, Sic. as üsual; which shews that the controlling power of the judges at bar, as to all matters of law, was never intended to be taken away by the act of If89.

The new constitution expressly requires, that fhe judges shall, after the conclusion of the circuits, meet at Columbia5 to hear motions for new trials, in arrest of judgment, and such other points of law as might be submitted to' them j then to adjourn to Charleston for the same purpose. So’ that this power of the judges in superintending the administration of justice throughout the state, Seems to be' specially reserved by the constitution. The Court, therefore, has no doubt as to its power to grant the motion. With regard to the second objection to this motion, there is no weight in it; for, as the law stands now, a jury cannot be drawn from Prince Fredericks parish. The sheriff is bound to draw the jury out of the district jury-box, and the first thirty drawn, are to serve : so that it may happen,that not one man may be drawn from Prince Fredericks parish. And in cases of special juries, each party has U right to give in his own list. Let the rule, therefore, be’ snade absolute for changing, the venue to Charleston dis= ti-ict: where the cause was afterwards tried, and a verdict found for the plaintiffs. *

Pinckney and Pringle, for the motion.

Trezevant, against it.