The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-25
The QUO WARRANTo CASE.
Eesoro Mr.. Associate Justice willard
I'm hambers.

At 10 o'clock Yesterday morning, the tin
appointed f,r hearing the return to the VII
OF quo scarrdnlo served on Aldermen Barro,
T. J. Mackey and Greene. the res oondents 81
peared through their counsel before MIR. Asst
oiate Justice Willard, sitting in Chambers.
Mr. Tharin Of counsel for Aldermen Barro
and T. J. Mackey. moved that further prooeei
ings under the writs be forthwith quashed, an
was proceeding to quote authorities in suppol
Of that course, when the Court interrupte
him and declined to entertain the motion.
Mr.. Bowen, the senior counsel for the sam
respondents. then proceeded to read the n
turns to the writs in their respective cases
The returns are substantially the same In pul
port, and reoite that the said David Barro'
and T. J. Maokey were duly elected Aldermen
for the City Of Charleston on thu 10th day Q
November last, for term of Office which ha
not yet expired; that they duly qualified and en-
tered upon ther duties on the 81 day Of May
inst, and that they hold aud exercise thei
Offices as Aldermen Of right and by warrant o
Law. And in reply to the suggestion filed b.
the Attorney General, on behalf Of the Stase
they make general denial of the allegation
therein contained, Alderman Barrow afirmint
that he was. at the time OF the election, ant
has been ever since, and is now, q resident o
Ward No. 5; and Alderman T. J. Maokey affirm
ing that he was resident Of the State at the
time Of the adoption Of the constitution there
OF, and exercised his right as an eleotor BY
voting at the election for the ratification o.
said constitution. ALI OF which statements
arc duly supported by.Ehe sworn afidavits Of
the respondents aforesaid.
Mr. T. B. King. Of counsel for Alder nan
Greene read return to the witt issued
against that alderman, which generally de-
MES the allegations contained in the sugges-
ton, and objects to the Same on the groand
that they are unsupported by affidavit, and
claims that the relator was not in fact the At.
tornoy- General. but some private person or
parsons. and that the signature of the Attor-
General was only affixed to the suggestion
pro forMa.
Mr.. King was proceeding TO argue this lat
ter point, when he was interrupted by the
Court. who decided that there was no ground
for going behind the signature OF the Attorney
General. unless counsel were prepared to show
that the same was unauthorized.
Mr.. Kina then proposed TO Offer sfRdavits in
support OF the allegations contained in the re-
turn Of Alderman Greene.
Mr. Presley, in benali Of the relator, said that
if the counsel for the respondents proposed TO
try the case by afiiavits, the counsel for the
relator would assent to that proposition.
Mr.. King explained that he meant only to
present the afidsvits as basis for quashing
proceedings under the writ. Otherwise his
client wished to put himself upon the country.
Mr.. Bowen said that Alderman Barrow and
T. J. Msckey also desired to put. themselves
upon the country. He contendsd that an As
sociate Justice, sitting in Chambers, had no
right under the Constitution Of the State to
try and determine questions Of fact.
Mr.. PRESLEY. in reply, argued at some
length to show that by manifest implication
the court, in some cases, had clearly the right
TO try and decide questions Of faot as well as Of
isw. He urged that it's powers in this respect
were analogous to those Of q chancellor under
the old judicial sytem Of the State, and cited
precedents to show that in many cases such .
right had been claimed and exercised by the
courts.
The Court said that this vas question Of
vilal importance, and one by which many in
serests would be seriously affected. BE would
therefore suggest to counsel that an occasion
should be fixed when the matter could be fully
TINS could not be done now, as
he session Of the Supreme Court was about to
open. He would frankly say TO counsel, how
,yer, that bis prepossessions we're adverse to
he concession that such right belonged to
.he court. ...
Mr.. Pressley said that he desired full ar
zument Of the question, and il the decision of
he court should be adverse, he would move
hat leave be granted to transfer the cases to
he docket Of the Supreme Court. in order that
he question might be brought up before full
bench.
By consent of counsel it Was then arranged
hat the hearing Of the argument on the con-
;ested point sh ,uld take place at O'Clock this
tTuesd.y) afternoon. The court then ad-
ourned.