The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-18

L
made to take it up for hearing. I am satlstied
there is no precedent for such q course: II IS
true that O. continuance is matter OF discre-
tion. bat it must be regulated by some STAN
dard OF law or right. When o cause IS once
continued and notice OF the fact brought nome s
| to counsel, they are supposed TO DISMISS II Ior
| the present from their minds and arrange tneir
| time and attention for other engagements.
Here the permission to docket was favor to
relators, and without q regular and formal
continuance without alleging accident, mistake
or fraud, il is asked that the hearing shall no"
be had. Counsel concluding that the order
was to stand, made appointments at distant
| Their part, they must now fore1o. 1t is said
that the cause must be taken up because the
State is a party, and interests OF Importance
are involved. A court must have known and
recognized principles for Its guidance, and the
State rs O suitor has no higher claim 70 It's
consideration or preference thsn Inc hullolest
citizen. Rules of court, though extraordinary
circumstances may abate tue rigor OF thelr en-
forcement, should be fixed and stable.
Associate Justice Willard, speaking for the
majority of the court, said: As to the motion
to ouash the writ of error, while il was novel
question, the majority OF the court would not
OCCUPY the time OF counsel with 1ts furtner
consideration, especially rs lts consideration
was not imperatlyely demanded in this case:
The record of the case WAS before them, and
they we're of the opinion that they could pro-
ceed to the consideration OF the questions In
volved.
AS regards continuance, the court had full
power over case. notwithstanding contln,
uance was entered they could restore it and
order argument to proceed. A case may as
well be called after the close OF the docket as
during it's call. The question is one OF discre-
ton, which should only be exercised upon JUST
and sufficient grounds.
The relator had urged public considerations
as rendering an early argument expedlent; mad
stated that the judgment OF the supreme
Court was necessary, in order that further
legislation might be obtained from the General
Assembly. The majority Of the court could
not assent to the doctrine that they were net at
liberty TO notice the fact that the State was q
party to the record, and that the interests IN
yolved were public interests.
On the other hand, the only grounds OF prelu-
dice alleged related to convenience OF coun-
sci, which may be properly consulted. 10 REFER
ence to assigning day for the hearing OF the
case, but is not allowed as sufficient ground ID
itselffor losing o term. The continuance would
be vacated and the cause restored to the DOCK
ct, but the respondents would be at nperty 10
urge such matters as ore appropriate IN refer
ence to fixing convenient day for the nearing.
The court then adjourned.
On reassembEng to-day, Saturday Mr.
Chamberlain moved, by order, that Judge WI
lard be declared disqualified by reason OF his
having sat in IN inferior court. Inc point was
contested by Messrs. Cambell aud Hayne, but
after consultation with Judge HoGe. !Judge
Willard being absent) the Ch1ef justice de-
cded in favor of the motion, aud Judge r. b;
Carpenter was accordingly duly commissioned
by the Governor, and took his seat upon the
bench.
tinnance OF the case, on grounds similar to
those made the previous day. They were en-
tirely unprepared to go into the case. fuie
100 OF the Appeal Court made certain condl,
tions necessary, which had not been complied
with by tho other side, and taxing ali lne cll,
cumstances connected with the sudden and
hurried manner in which the case had been
pressed for hearing without due notice, 1t was
q proper opportunity for the exercise OF the
discretion OF the court.
Mr.. Cor bin professed to be asionlshed at the
motion, and called for the reading OF an order
which, notwithstanding the closing paragraph
Of Justice Wizards decision, was signed only
this morning before the meeting of the court.
The order fixed to-day for the hearing. Mr.
Campbell read rule one hundred, which recites
that the grounds OF appeal, record, citations,
points, authorities ofcounsel, shall be FURNISH
cd counsel, and said they had not been sup
pied, and that this rule was OF itself bar to
such peremptory order. They could not
forego the rule without great prejudice.
MIR. Hayne added some remarks, and the
court retired for consultation. The decision
VAS that the order having been entered on tine
minutes. it was adjudicated matter and lmpera-
tive u,,on the court. The Chief Justice stated,
however, that Judge Hoge did not concur IN
the apparent order of Judge Willard.
MIR. Campbell said the counsel for defendants
had nothing more to say. They had resisted
motion to set aside distinct order OF the
court. They had made a motion for q contin-
uance, and both had been set aside. The ori-
ginal order Of continuance was as distinct and
binding upon the court as the order they had
before them, yet they had overruled the former,
and declared They were incapable Of overruling
the latter.
The Attorney General then commenced the
reading OF the record, pending which the court
adjourned. +. u. DE +.