The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-17

may make improvements pen @ but he does with MS eyes
open and full knowledge Of his responsibility Ii the decision Is
against him whole We understand that we 90 not
that take this land without judgment but on the contrary
affirm if be against shall sacrifice all we may nave ex
pended upon the land Yet take that risk Ii the Judges are "
fail duty and be frightened Of propriety because man
to make road defiance of law what the OF law h
Johnston go and build his line the LANDS OF he
South Carolina Railroad your Honos the conclusion that
he acted without of law he take the
therefore say may please Court that idle camor which
raised and which should give concern
proceed show that your Hono have nothing 90
this case although you have much to 90 WITH
the end The judgment of the Court must be reached by a"
but recently have taken your places upon
bench system of jurisprudence has been W
you lay the foundation securely and to avoid creans
precednts that may work ncacube mischief hereafter
party appeal rapidly he desires and apph o
newly invented facilitate his object you are not
to accede to that request permit process which is not clearly
authorized by the constitution the law which ne
attempt made by friends the other side reminds me OF an
dent of my early experience client once came into my once w1
inquired if could not find catch and bring the man
asked where he The reply he did not know but SAID ne
the moment you put the clerks office there not man TO
whom refers who will quietly walk into JAIL deliver hmse up
and beg for Gods sake surrender everything that wanted
strikes that it something like cora bogus when Is ree
But to proceed argument shall maintain three PROPOSE
ons that upon the case made by plaintiffs this Court could
not act by prohibitions secondly they not entitled to
mnary trial. that preliminary trial not matter OF right IN TINS
and thirdly that if such preliminary trial be had the .OS oOum0
Now propositions consider mere matters OF instruction
would wasted upon such argument and shall therefore
touch upon them very eaborate The hrst PopGa ION % se
question your Honor decide On the made by this party
can YOU issue of prohibition Your Honors will perceive tna
the constitution of 1868 very careful in the distribution OF powers
the judicial department Referring article four OF that
lit will be found judicial of this State vested the
Supreme and Circuit Courts namely "a Court OF Common
Pleas having civil urisdco Court of General Sessions with
criminal jurisdiction only Probate Courts and Justices OF the
Peace" Section declares that he Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction only in Of chancery and shall
n
General Assembly may by law prescribe: odd the sad
Court shall always have power to issue wrl OF ao
quo scaran abea corpus and such other original and RENE
dial may give general supervisory control
over all other Courts in the State
will be observed that prohibition not mentioned that section
the fifteenth Of the article however, the language
follows "The Courts of Common Pleas shall have exclusive ur
dcon all Of divorce and exclusive original jurisdiction IN
all civil cases and actions co which shall not be cognzabe
before Justices of the Peace appellate jurisdiction in all such
may be provided by law They shall have power to issue
of manam prohibition, scire aca and all other wTi
may necessary for carrying their fully into effect
Your Hono,s will perceive therefore, that the issue this writ
not given Supreme Court but the Circuit Court and
asked assume jurisdiction only by virtue of the language h
quoted that sad Court shall always have power issue wr OF IN
junction. nondan qarraao ha6eaS corpus and such othe
original and remedial wri be necessary to give general
supervisory control all other Courts in the State
The proposition that the writ of prohibition belongs to the
Jurisdiction of the Court according the clear declaration OF
the constitution denied to the Supreme Court 1t exclusive IN
the Circuit Court when but cannot take
cognzance of originally although you have power to issue such
be necessary general supervisory control over all o5h
Courts IN the State
The second proposition that before assert uris
dcton this writ under that article OF the constitution there
must be some legislation The act organize the supreme
Court upon this subject for it declares that each OF the
Justices the Supreme Court shall have power to administer oat
issue of Injunction aanddn qo acarronto AadS corpus
and other remedial according to the principles and course OF
common law existing the State OF South Carolina which
hereby declared be of force far applicable and no. incon
sistent with the constitution,
The Legislature therefore, have directed the tom and you cannot
assume that under the constitution of prohibition necessary to
supervisory control other Courts Of the State and
queny that may issued without further legislation But the most
important proposition is this of prohibition is
and does not come within the description this Act Of the
Now please your Honors necessity shown in various ways
think the absence of necessity concusvey shown In one
When YOU demonstrate things have in certain
manner without the nterposton of other thing for hundreds
of years. YOU prove that that latter thing not at all necessary ana
defy the other side to find which IN an Appeal
Court of prohibition originated In all the books from
King Edward the Cono down this time case can be found
lin which writ prohibition has issued from this Court 1t always
issued from the Court below further There are States In this
Union where the power expressly to this Court In
the laws of power the Supreme Court OF the
State prohibition inferior Courts tor the further
ance Justice but Mr. Nathan Dane in his Treatise
on the Law recoeed in which this power has been eXer
csed" He adds Danes American Law 336 "And but one
case is at present found which prohibition has issued OF
the United States that Pnnsy much considered
In that case issued the District Court The case
libel damages OF capture vessel as prize
by beeerent power which vessel alleged to be neutral
American prop the vessel having been carried ya psa
place of safety belonging to the captors.
Your Hono are also doubtless that England such writ
ever issued for Lord Coke during the heat of controversy with the
Courts of Admiralty claimed such authority between the
He