Case ID: scl_20/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Curia, per Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wm. E. Johnston, v. John Johnston.
    
      Lancaster, Fall Term, 1834.
    An appeal lies directly to the Court of Appeals, from the judgement of a commissioner of special bail, and the verdict of a jury organized under the Act of 1833, to try questions arising out of the application of a defendant for the benefit of the “ Prison Bounds Act.” (See Crenshaw v. Wetsel, in note, ante 420.) The tribunal established by the act is one of special and limited jurisdiction, and no appeal would lie if it had not ]3een given by iaw; and it is only by a construction founded on the obvious intention of the Legislature, that even this Court will undertake to revise its proceedings, by entertaining an appeal: the right of the plaintiff to an appeal is expressly allowed, and the intention of the Legislature plainly indicates that the appeal should be directly to this Court; but this does not divest the Circuit Court of its general superintending power over this and all other inferior tribunals, which may be exercised by prohibition, mandamus, and other prerogative writs, but not by way of appeal.
    The finding of the jury, in such a case, that they “ are unanimously of opinion that the defendant be discharged,” sufficiently indicates their opinion that the facts are with the defendant, and must operate as a verdict in his favor.
   Curia, per Johnson, J.

reversing the decision of Mr. Jus. tice Earle.