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

decree is necessary You define the rights Of both parties
You get the question in other Mr. Justice Willard
says Anoher ground party complained against processes
by public authority and enter and to certain extent
use the land of third and exceeds MS authority Is held TO
peculiarly proper for the nterpon Of Court of Equity
That the law And the South Carolina Railroad Corporation did
invoke the aid of the Court of Chncey But suppose that Court in
granting disovng the injunction committed an erodd any
hear Of prohibition that ground You have
appellate jurisdiction chncery and correct all its errors here ana
delay be sufficient ground then would authorize pr0hlbl
on tor everything Objectionable especially In TINS % where YOU
not allowed appeal until the final judgment and decree
Your Honors will find that this matter underwent IN
England very famous of Home the Earl OF Camden
The Kings issued prohibition the Prize Court The pro-
ceedngs and the Judges opinion which was
deal error laid door Judges Pat and Bozer but if SO
the committed of law and the subject matter OF
appeal this Court where Honors have tins
whole question finally be matter of some delay but eventually
the Justice the be determined here AS said before
however, the method refer your Hono to clear
Richardson L. r. D. and will take the liberty of reading what
there better said than can myself On Page l the court
The ground ken Tor writ de5 o. no he u; % o
Landlord and tenant existing between John cCoo anu Gh
whou receiving such evidence the retr offered and which ne
eg the Court had legal right refe or in other terms the
assumed the power dispensing with such evidence the
o had by law to introduce to show that ne was NOT AZ @
time the tenant of the applicant but tha ne naa ghs & I
difference says the Court between the different modes OF
for review and revision from inferior tribunals TO
superior usdcon and they ought not be ontounded from
"dese to do Justice in one forum should be applied for
another The true of writ of prohibition not to enable the
on motions of appeawhere appeals are aowedor by witt OF
corar the usupaons of inferior tribunals and
compel them observe the limits Of their jurisdiction - MI
The point considered again in Richardson o14 lne
State u.s. Nathan he preliminary question which this case presents
whether prohibition the proper remedy The Court says Ihe
mode haat By appeal 1 Sq where The Inferior Court
had jurisdiction and as appeal will correct in the
decision the appropriate remedy the writ pohoon ousn1
{" have been granted" . g
Now may please the Court if you sitting here Court
you could grant this writ because Judge Pt conceded
to have Jurisdiction have that of the constitution which
gives him jurisdiction all similar cases. 80 Judge boozer
had Jurisdiction Which them have erred 1t Tor
your Honors ece but the OF and not
defect of jurisdiction clear that it would be waste words
press upon your attention There number OF cases IN the Eng
sh Courts the effect but unnecessary to encumper your
notes by reference to them.
now ask your Hono to take up grounds which this suggestion
alleges how far they have been cleared OF dcuy W tne
argument have lust submitted The first ground named support
the proposition that the proceedings the irregular
illegal and void that because the Act OF 1868 NO. A decle
the manner by which lands the right OF way over as may @
and does not confer right take said lands right OF
Judge Patt certainly decided that point way the other IL lay
within his Jurisdiction and if he made mistake it will be corrected
but it is certainly no matter for prohibition.
The second ground because the right Of sought to be
condemned right Of granted by the State to the
South Carolina Railroad Company that the lands to be con-
cnned lands obtained for the Of said road by
under powers that end given by the Legislature OF the State
and that all where through the exercise OF the right OF
eminent domain appears that corporation claims to invade the
franchises of another corporation and appropriate them to its own
usc appear that the authority for the exercise OF this great
power given by the sovereign power either express terms o
necessary Implication and that presumption such delegation OF
authority derived from the privilege in charter to construct
F." road between certain tymiai"
Now shall presently have occasion to show that the Claim MADE p
the South Carolina Railroad Company that the grant OF this land to
them by the State one of their franchises exclusive privileges
mistake in law We asking cura the privileges OF
the South Carolina Railroad We do not propose to take thing from
them We are simply asking condemn piece land owned under
qualified title Whether have right take that land not
question of law question within the competency OF the Circuit
Court and whichever aray Circuit Court decide claim
decision which Court has right make and cannot Interfere
with it by prohibition ,-.....-- g
of the
that point which appropriately under my second
namely that the South Carolina Railroad Company have right to
any preliminary They filed their bill in Court OF Equity
When the there the Court will decide the question
that they have right preliminary trial before we enter Sn
land we deny right Of eminent domain the State can beyond
doubt be exercised by the Legislature and when so exercised say
there an end of all question That body have right to deal with
the subcs matter of domain just they and the dis
tpction draw this that whenever railroad to which gwen
certain amount of land right Of confines its operations within
the limits of the secured by the Legislature its charter
the rs Of eminent domain been fully exercised that land and
the railroad has an unqucsb right under according the law
of the State. -.
Mr. Justice Ward-Do you that where right given IN
general terms any land equally open between certain points
Mr. Memmnner-Any land the location In other words,
mean that when the company has located its line all the land
within sxyve of that ne if such be the limit has been SUBJ
iected legislative exercise of the right OF eminent domain
Justice Wiard-Do you deny the jurisdiction OF equity TO
determine that there mslocaon that Is taking into account
particular class property where obstruction unnecessary!
Mr. Memmnger-No sir What claim is that general rule
the preliminary trial for the purpose Of ascertanng whether the
right eminent domain has been exercised And whenever K
road Company given by the State land within sve feet OF Its