The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-02-27

the Legislature between the conflicting grants Nor has he
power while refusing to hear and decide qeston Oh lega
right arising between what alleged TO be contcunS Acts
of the State Legislature to set in motion those proceeog
which provided for where legal rights are not In qe
ton and intended to become the evidence OF sucn s
vested in the person corporation in whose beha such pro-
ceedngs are obtained No further do intend to 60 upon tne
general proposition than that desire to this case only
upon the question directly involved repeat as
proposition law that in such question dvesng
rights and affecting title to property cannot unoer Inc eo
sttution and laws of this State be determined by
| Chambers
In Com Dig Tit Prohibition Letter H. it is said FRO
hibtion will lie if spiritual Courts try custom or
same book Letter G. p 1O "In question OF tthes II Inc
precribe mod the jurisdiction ceases
So in Bacons Abrdg Title Prohibition Letter q Questions
of freehold rights only rabe in temporal Courts ana
ecclesiastical Courts ntemedde with these proh6lton
In our own State in the of the State White N
McC D. 174 Prohibition may upon suggestion that
either the cause original some matter arising therein
does belong to that Jurisdiction but TO ne
other Court In the case cited oy eounse on Inc
other side Yesterday Sd Richardson's Reports l3 The true
object of prohibition to restrain the usupauon OF INFERIOR
tribunals and compel them to observe limits OF ana
they cannot dispense with the evidence OF Witnesses
tute therefor written statements So in acons Abrdg oSo
If spiritual Court incidentally mconstraes Acts OF rarna
contrary to the rule of common law pro0on es even
after Misconcepon is matter OF rner
than of appea" In our State again. in the Of the
State u.s. Rdge Bailey r. 56O Although parties are with
tbo nr;sdcon of inferior Courts the bounds of law
prohibition will be awarded" Where inferior
Courts misconsrue Acts of Parliament Gould u.s. Gapper
East R. 35 full to the point and exhaustive OF the
Judgment of the Court The objections to granting
prohibition in this first that is late after sentence
second that msconsucon of statute matter OF appeal and
not of prohibition The first of these objections do not arise
here the second that which propose to consider and
which Lord Peterborough considers in the question be states
whether such msconstrucuon De ground lor or
merely of appeal"
uy replies the application to be- made this case
Of Home u.s. Lord Camden The authority of which, he says
as to that point received confirmation in the House OF
Lords remembering also that in that very case reported IL
Hy b. 5l5 as also in Brymer Atkins Hy B, l64 and
sS Lord oughborough and the other Judges of the Court
B. clearly considered the misconsrucon OF an Act OF Parla
ground for prohibition In the same after advert
ing of prohibition to the spiritual Courts no adds
authorities may be found equally strong as to the Courts OF
Westminster Hail. interfering by prohibition where statutes
have been expounded otherwise than the Courts law
would expound them At $40 he says of the number OF
cases which had reviewed "The matter OF all these
cases. both as they involved the determination OF questions OF
temporal nature and the construction OF statutes clearly
within the jurisdiction of the several Courts prohibited They
are cases in which the judgment given below might have
been corrected appeal and some OF them are cases "here tne
common Courts have taken upon themselves the consruc
relating to the inferior prohibited and have yet
such granted prohibitions when such interior Courts
misconstrued these Acts of Parliament"
The authority of this has never been questioned and
while it authority the proposition not to be questioned
that as said in the Dudley msconsucon OF statute
is matter prohibition though there may be an appeal
Although prohibition the Kings prerogative writ and
tissues properly the K B. for the rherance of justice it
may Engand in issue from the Chancery: the
Pleas Exchequer directed to the Judge and parties
in inferior Court b. Comm. ll2. And IN the case OF
Wadsworth Queen of Spain, E. L. and Eq r. $685. it is
expressly ruled that T the record fully dscoses the error into
which the inferior Court has fallen after there has been
Of jurisdiction prohibition and not awrit OF error
the appropriate remedy" .-...
May please your Honor do not stand here to ask
by anticipation decide the question ofrght but Will
not and legal rights buried and destroyed by
proceedings which have been had in the other Courts when
is your power by prohibition enable before
tribunal all the questions of right involved In the
and regularly before by writ OF error
Judge WardHave you any authority going to show that
msconsrucon ofatue is ground for prohibition as between
| Courts proceeding under the common law? ......-
Mr. Magrah-l submit that all the cited show that
where any Court in matter of common law Jurisdiction is not
proceeding according tho Of common law prohibition
/ lies.
Judge WlardTang the spiritual Courts and the Court
of Admiralty type of Courts proceeding according to
the Of law, you find instance where
prohibition allowed to Court proceeding according to the
of law upon mconstrucon of the statute In
other words not this authority allowed to shut out the
subtitle introduction Of ecclesiastical and civil law in these
Courts?
Mr. Magrath-Undoubtedy it intended that the Kings
Courts should be protected against the Pope Cour andn
this and also in the supposed agrsson of the Admiralty
hbton at first most actively employed But the remedy
other Court which msconstrued Act Of Parliament and
therefore did not properly exercise its Jurisdiction.
As said in Nathans case the Courts Of South Carolina
have found enlarge the relief afforded by prohb
ton and your Honors exclude from view that according
the constitution the authority conferred upon this tribunal
degnedy made extensive for supervisory control
"a other Courts this State power least great and
extensive that conferred upon any similar Court in the
United States The language emphatic. "The Supreme
Court shall aUayS hat at all times and in any stage OF the
proceedings have power to issue ws Of junction. etc. and
such other original and remedial wrs be to