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


Ito act by public authority upon and to certain extent
the land of third his authority held to
be peculiarly the nteFptOn ola Court
invoke the aid the Court Of Chancey But suppose that Court IN
granting dissovng the injunction committed eordd any
hear of writ of prohibition that ground? You have
appellate Jurisdiction chancery all its here and
mere delay be sufficient ground then would authorize prohibl
ton tor everything Objectionable especially this % where you
not allowed appeal until the final judgment and decree
Your Honors will find that this matter underwent examination in
England the very famous of Home the Earl OF Camden
The Kings Bench issued prohibition the Prize Court The pro
een came up and the Judges gave an opinion which was
the House Lords That the whole of this great
deal of laid the door of Judges P and Boozer but If SO
the committed of law and the subject matter
appeal this Court where your Honors have this
whole question finally be matter Of delay but eventually
however, this the method refer your Hono very clear
decision this subject which will be found the of Leonard q
Richardson L. r. 11 and will take the liberty of reading what
there better said than myself On lib the Court
observe "The ground taken for writ of prohibition is that the
Magistrate and ehoders assumed decide the relation of
ndord and existing between John McCoo and the ao
without receiving such evidence the tor offered and which he
aeges the Court had legal right refuse; other terms the
assumed the Of dispensing with such evidence the
reator had law introduce show that he was not at the
the of the applicant but that he had right retain his
by virtue of his tenancy others etc. "There wide
difference says the Court betwen the different modes bringing
sup for and revision from inferior tribunals to Courts OF
superior urdcon and they ought not be conounde IRON
desire to do justice forum when it should be applied tor
another The Office of writ of prohibition Is not enable the
superior Courts correct OF may be done
n motions of appawhere appeals alowedor by writ of
compel them to observe the limits of their Jurisdiction
The point considered again in Richardson 514 The
State Nathns The preliminary which this case presents
is whether prohibition the proper remedy The Court The
proper mode by appeal but appeal given then the
injured party without redress The inferior Court
had jurisdiction and as the appeal will any in the
decon and the appropriate remedy the writ Of prohibition ought
" not to have been granted"
Now may please the Court if you sitting here Court of
Sessions you could grant this writ because Judge Pt conceded
have jurisdiction have read that clause Of the constitution which
gives him exclusive jurisdiction in all similar cases So Judge Boozer
had usdos the Which of them have erred it for
your Hono dcde but that the of law and noa
defect Of jurisdiction Clear that would be waste OF words to
press upon your attention There number of the Eng
h Courts to the effect but is unnecessary to cucumber your
notes by reference to them
your Honors the grounds which this suggestion
alleges and how far they have been cleared Of difficulty by
have Just submitted The first ground named support
of the proposition that all the proceedings in the case
illegal void that because the Act of 1863 No AZ only declares
manner by which lands the right lands may be
taken and confer the right take said lands right of
Judge Pa certainly decided that point the other 1t lay
within his jurisdiction and he made mistake will be corrected
but it certainly matter for prohibition -
The second ground is Because the right OF way sought to be
condemned in this right of granted by the State the
South Carolina Railroad Company that the lands sought be
demned lands obtained said road b purchase
powers that end given by the Legislature Of the State
and that where through the exercise OF the right OF
eminent domain appears that corporation claims invade the
franchises of another corporation and appropriate them to Its own
appear that the authority for the exercise OF this great
power given by the sovereign either express terms OF p
implications that such delegation OF
authority derived from the privilege in charter to construct
between
Now shall presently show that the claim made by
Carolina Railroad Company that the grant OF this land TO
them the State of their franchises exclusive privileges
mistake law We asking to curtaiany OF the privileges OF
the South Carolina Raoud We do not propose take thing om
We simply asking condemn piece OF land owned under
qualified title Whether have right to take that land or not Is
La question of law question within the competency OF the Circuit
Court whichever qy the Circuit Court decide we claim it
decision which Court make and cannot interfere
with it by prohibition ~ =,
NAV as we'll this stage the enter the discussion OF
that point which comes appropriately under second proposition
namely that South Carolina Railroad Company have no right to
any preliminary trial They have filed their bill in Court OF Equity
When the case up the Court will decide the question:
that they have right preliminary trial before we enter the
land deny The right Of eminent domain the State can
doubt be exercised by the Legislature and when exercised
there is an end all question That body have right deal with
the subject domain they please and the
ncon draw this that whenever railroad to which given
certain land for right of confines its operations within
the limits of the secured by the Legislature in its charter
the riph of eminent been fully exercised that land and
the railroad has an unauesonabe right under according the law
of the State
Mr. Justice Wiad-Do you that where right given in
general terms any land equally open between certain points
e. Mr. Memminge-Any land the location In other Worus'
mean that when the company has located Its ne al te n
within xtyfve feet of that line such be the limit mas Deen SUD-
ecd to the legislative exercise of the right Of eminent domain
Mr. Justice Wid-Do you deny the jurisdiction OF equity to
determine that there mocaion that taking into account
particular class of property where obstruction was Unnecessary
Mr. Memming-No sir What claim is that as general rule
the preliminary trial for purpose of ascertaning whether the
RIGHT of eminent domain has been exercised And whenever h
road COMPANY is given by the State land within sxVe feet OF It's
lime of location the domain there exercised and no
preliminary trial necessary to enable hat W h'ei
such land and py condemnation money Why what premi
nary for Is not the State the proper interpreter OF he
rctrou ht-