Case ID: scl_47/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Kelly vs. John D. Johnson.
    
      Prison Bounds Act — Examination of Applicant.
    
    If an applicant for the benefit of the Prison Bounds Act he allowed to amend his schedule after suggestion filed, he may he examined as to the amended schedule, although no specifications he filed making exceptions to it.
    BEFORE THE OLERK OF THE COURT, AT MARION, JUNE, 1859.
    This was an application for tbe benefit of tbe Prison Bounds Act. On suggestion filed, a trial before a jury was had, and tbe applicant was acquitted. Tbe plaintiff appealed. Tbe only point decided by tbe Court of Appeals will sufficiently appear in tbe opinion delivered in that Court.
    
      Bargan, for appellant.
    
      Phillips, contra.
   Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by

O’Neall, C. J.

In tbis case, on tbe fourth ground, we think a new trial should be granted. That ground imputes error to tbe Commissioner of Special Bail, in ruling “that tbe plaintiff could not interrogate tbe applicant as to tbe title to certain lands, bouses, and other property which be said belonged to bis wife as a sole trader, because.there was no special exception as to tbe omission to .insert them in tbe schedule.”

Tbis occurred, as I .understand, after tbe applicant bad amended his schedule. Of course there could be no special objection set down to it.

The point seems to have been expressly decided in opposition to the Commissioner’s .ruling. In Hyatt vs. Hill, 2 McM. 55, it was held, that whenever the Judge or Commissioner permits a party to amend his schedule after specifications have been filed suggesting fraud, it becomes a new schedule, and the creditor has the same right to examine the party as to the amended part of the schedule as he had to the Original.

It follows that the Commissioner’s ruling being erroneous, a. new trial must be had.

The motion is therefore granted on the fourth ground of appeal.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

Johnstone, J., dubitante.

Motion granted.