The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-26
THE cue wARRANTO CASE.

ViRhru resumed, yeetorudy attoIuooni Uiio
hearing Of tho q'h0 aroYra'Ao against I. j.
Mackey, David Barrow, and j. f. Greene, AL
dermen.
BIr. Presley proposed to con1ne the argu-
ment TO the single point whether this court
has the right to try this case, Notwithstanding
the returns. There is GLASS Of cases in
this State where there was no trial by Jury.
He contended. also, that the property that ex-
listed in the Office was not such property as
as would require the intervention Of Jury to
deprive one of. He contended that tho Legis-
lature had q right to provide for the
trial Of right involving an Office without q
trial by jury. The very Office purportine to be
held by the party Ia an Office from which other
persons were ousted without the intervention
Of jury, and he placed into Office by legisla-
tive enactment. The court in the recent case
decided that the Legislature may do what It
pleases in reference to an Office Of corpora
tion. II the Legislature then has the right to
eject party from Office without the interven-
tion of jury, it certainly has a right to order
his right to the Office to be tried without
Q jury. IF the Legislature has the right to
provide for q method Of trying these cases,
has it done SOP He then proceeded to review
the mode of procedure from the early days Of
the common law up to the present time. The
act of 1918 gave judge sitting at chambers
right TO try quo ,uar'anto, and make de-
cision as though they were in open court, and
gave the parties the right Of appeal to the
constitutional courts of appeal. The case could
20 TO jury only when it comes TO question
OF damages. 1t is competent for the court
only to award judgment Of custer or discharge
the rule.
He also contended that tho giving of the
jurisdiction carries with it the right to try-be-
cause without the right to try, the jurisdiction
would be nullity, and the act giving the court
Jurisdiction in the subject matter OF a quo eoaY-
ramto gives it jurisdiction to do everything
else, and decide the case on q quo ecarrunto.
1t followed, therefore, that if the court did not
have jury, the court coul try the issue it.
self. The court should first hear the testi-
mony, and it it appears-4rom this that there is
question of fact. 1t could be submitted to a
jury.
Mr.. Bowen followed for the respondents.
He contended that the powers which the court
possessed and those granted by the Legisla-
ture there might be cases in which the facts
were not disputed, and these cases the court
could try, but in this case the allegation is de-
MED. The act provides that Justices can hear
and determine issues Of fact when both parties
file their consent; and this implies that the
party has right to demand trial He con-
tended that by the thirteenth and fourteenth
articles Of the constitution the parties had q
right to trial by jury.
He also insisted that it was the province Of
the jury to decide as to the intention, in case
party be moved from the State. Much had
been said about haste. II they wish to stop
Council, they can do it just as well by ousting
their own men. His clients had been elected
by the people Of Charleston, aud the parties
ought certainly be content to give them fair
trial. he then cited number Of cases in su D.
port OF his position, that issues of fact must
always be tried by juries.
Mr.. Tharin followed also for the respon-
dents. He said that in ,Aand0n,us the return
OF the respondents is conclusive until falsified
by q jury. In this case they have not only
failed to falsify the return by jury, but
they have not even falsified it by jurat. The
allegations in the information was not even
sH7orn to- and 10 just so much waste paper.
II the party demands jury, the court has no
right to decide the question. The residence
is question Of fact, and could be best decided
by twelve men. he contended that the whole
proceedings were unconstitutional. It was q
question that should have been brought up by
indictment, and not by quo aca,ranto. The
respondents now have to answer clause
which had not been set up. and he. therefore,
claimed that they should be dismissed.
Mr. Lord submitted the case to the court
without adding to the argument OF his prede-
cessor.
The argument, it will be perceived, was con-
lined to the question Of whether the case be-
longed properly to a jury, and did not touch
the real merits. The Judge announced that
he would require some time to consider the
motion. and would endeavor to announce his
decision as soon az possible.
LARGE SALE OF SECURITIES AND REAL ESTATE.
Mr.. q. B. Oakes sold yesterday the assets of
the Insurance and Trust Company of Charles
ton as follows:
Two hundred and thilty-five half shares OF
South Carolina Railroad, at 81 and ali.
$4,000 six per cent. bonds Of East Tennessee
and Georgia Railroad Company, at 66 and 81.
$4,000 seven per cent. bonds City Of Savan-
nah, at SO and est.
$1,000 seven per cent. bonds Memphis and
Railroad Company, at S7a.
$4,000 seven per cent. bonds OF South Caro-.
lima Railroad Company, ct 81.
s25o0 six per cent. bonds OF Greenville and
Columbia Railroad, guaranteed by the State Of
South Carolina, at 62.
$4,000 six per cont. bonds City Of Memphis,
guaranteed by the Memphis and Charleston
Railroad Company. ct 7OA.
$6SO9 City OF Charleston stock, at 642 and IS.
$500 bonds Memphis and Ohio Railrnad
at 81.
Twenty shares preferred stock OF the North
eastern Railroad, at 83a.
1915 certificate Of Indebtedness of the South
Carolina Railroad Company. at SO.
1855 certificate Of indebtedness Of the North
eastern Railroad Company, at Sc.
Twenty-Five shares Charleston Bank stock,
at 81 80.