The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-01-29

highway? Can yo6qA g.. 81 IS s sS
dispense this great autRe s ~ M # -
sbused by anybody? Has Has thse IS :. IS
all all history evor been SO carelessy gf@s = S7ss57
claimed :I.:nn as is done in the present ihslS S
Imitation nnitp on. Il i cannot express the true
better bet ,t than ,n in the he language of Judge Willard
of this suo eane to egra the
gared important for the protection rights property
oroiso the of the domain should
enter upon the lands of others either with their consent
% acter and proper limitations of such authority We ask
nothing more than your ruling shall be applied to this
uppose that section eight 1868 is by forced
guido by Which that ao than yG" ve MINI this S0lea aa
OF Mr. Justice Wlard2 you find that safeguard
easo2 Not Where YOU the sanction Of judicial
n"horty for tho claim ma" by he Columbia and Augusta
Judge at Chambers ro'sin' the defence existing
af olsS no a%s
according to to the law of t no ppicabo where
and accompanied by tho Clo Is making condemnation
contrary to any Prereribcd szcd legal mode
you seek not lodged the Gour Equy Unas tss
interesting question The ccut Judge s now % hsd 70 with ah
general power he holds the Court of Equity and
that OF the Judge previous system
Judged only legal but certain Equity
a., Mr. Magra,h-rhers ,h was remedy in equity Mr. J. Will
us a nr and w4en ne ne made MADE his order for the
right to ask it. Mr. j. Willard his until
been duy acquired that is the right lawfully acquired"
But Judge Boozer considers acquired Judge
right and Judge PIatt ordered the Jury to
assY because no injury could be done thereby
Judge Boozer hearing the motion dissolve the
ton would hear and decide all the questions the
adopse 1ou dSs Ss 5u hsy
have not been adopted because the Judge has fit
eonstrus tho Act as think your Ionors will
The difficulty has been Judge
neHsanre gave him power to condemn but no power to in
rccur TO the language Of the Act But the right Of
be condemned for the construction of Other highway: Pro-
oded that in the construction of such other highway there be
which such lands right Of way previously procured
Your lonors will mark the limitations the
across or along such right of way What the demand
s"u the & d Of c@um @ M nmd Au"s Rr0ad @ & co%pany
and lands claimed by the said South Carolina Railroad
Company
All Of these words may please the Court have attached
@ % hano ha ] w M m h %
does involve the right go "aong the pap0ss
crossing; it involves a simple right directly 1he Act
such right OF and the rule Of construction is strict
to Of and de-
not know whether it not whether the purpose
drawn may suppose any ythng-v;hat right could be
claimed by that road? Ghanceor Carroll his Decree
from Graniteve to lIamburg the Chancellor said that
then their Gh a If & they claimed under Act A. they could
any, existing right of way.
Lhc, no"cEel comes inc PrOVisO: f0t1ded hat IN the
construction of such other highway there be hndranco
its and enjoyment OF the highway for which
right OF previously procured Suppose here is
hindance who tries it? Who has authority try it2 Ifyou
conno the operation of this eighth section the question of
highway you have in tho nineteenth SECTION of the fourth
article tribunal established purpose understanding
directing and controlling that question; but question
ndrncs between railroads. who is to decide that point? Not
the County Commissioners for they have authority Who
then? The Judge before whom tho application mado? Where
Is the authority? Hndance mado the proviso 1t
therefore taken of the general provisions of the
Act Ii therefore, there is special provision made for it's
trial. must be tried according to law and in Term But sel
these objections they regarded and the ques
ton Of hndrance is assumed which, without
authority the Judge alone has right decide and secondly
that having such right he the question Of
Term time Your I1onor that in the Medical Col
ege tho Court Of Appeals determined that Judge in
vacation could entertain motion for ceriora
in Term time unless by authority Of Act Of the Legislature
Nor point to tie law i'll South Carolina by which
Judge in Chambers authorized to decide question involving
the divcsnrc Of legal rights? And if that question egu
right involves Of fact, resulting testimony
power OF Judge at Chambers decide it, wnre be
found What a hindruncc? Is it question Of fuct? The
constitution expressly provides that Judges shall
charge uIles respect TO matters of fact and the
stion has been maintained tho other side that although
Judge shall opinion upon Of before
he without Chambers