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


right arising between what alleged to be conflicting Acts
the State Legislature to set in motion those proceedings
which provided for where legal rights not IN
and intended to become the evidence OF such rights
vested in the corporation IN whose behalf such pro-
ceedngs obtained No further do intend to 60 upon the
general proposition than that desire to this only
upon the question directly involved repeat therefore, as
proposition of law that in such question dlvesng legal
rights and affecting title to property cannot under the con-
sttution and of this State be determined by Judge in
Chambers
In Com Dig Tit Prohibition, Letter F. H. it is said Pro-
hbtion will lie if spiritual Courts try custom prescription
which matters abe only by the common law Also the
same book Letter G. TO- In question of tthe if the
prescrbe odo the jurisdiction altogether
So Bacons Abrdg Title Prohibition Letter L. q Questions
of freehold rights only triab temporal Courts and if
ecclesiastical Courts ntemedde with these prohibition ie
In State in the of the State White N.
McC 174: Prohibition upon suggestion that
original collateral matter arising therein
does belong that jurisdiction but to the conzance OF
some other Court In the very cited by counsel the
other side yesterday Sd Richardson's Reports 3 "he true
object of prohibition to restrain the usurpaton OF inferior
tribunals and compel them observe limits jurisdiction and
they the evidence OF witnesses and suo
ute therefor written statements So in Bacons 58o
If spiritual Court incidentally misconstrues Acts OF Para
contrary the rule Of common law es even
Miseoncepon matter OF prohbltlon ratne
than Of appeal In own State again. IN the case OF ne
State us Rdge Bailey r. $50 Although parties with
the jurisdiction of inferior Courts if the bounds OF law are
ransgressed prohibition will be awarded Where inferior
Courts misconsrue Acts of Parliament Gould Gapper
East b. 345 full the point and exhaustive OF the
question Lord Eenborough the Chief Justice delivering the
Judgment of the Court observes The objections to granting
second that of statute matter OF and
not of prohibition The first these do not arise
here the second that which we propose to consider and
which Lord Peterborough considers the question he states
whether such msconstruction be ground pohpon or
merely of appeal
It in the consideration of this question that he most effect
uay replies the application attempted be made to this case
of Home u.s. Lord Camden The authority of which, he says
that point, received confirmation in the House OF
Lords remembering also that in that very case reported IN
II Hy b. 515 also in Brymer Atkins Hy b. l64 and
1888 Lord oughboroug and other Judges Of the Court Of
c. B. clearly considered the nsconstructon OF an Act OF Para
men ground for prohibition In the after advert
ing the prohibition to the spiritual Courts ne adds
"uhoes may found equally strong aso the Courts Of
Westminster Hail. interfering by prohibition where statutes
have been xpounded otherwise than the Courts of law
would expound them At p $40 he says OF the number OF
cases which he had reviewed. he subject matter OF all these
cases both as they involved the determination of questions OF
temporal nature and the construction OF statutes clearly
within the ursdcono the several Courts prohibited They
in which the Judgment given below might have
been corrected appeal and Of them where the
law Courts taken upon themselves the construc
Acts of Parliament made respecting subjects peculiarly
relating inferior Courts prohibtd and have yet even
in such granted prohibitions when such inferior Courts
msconstrued these Acts of Parliament"
The authority of this has been questioned and
while it authority the proposition is not to be questioned
that said in the case Dudley OF statute
is matter for prohibition though there may be appeal
Although prohibition the Kings prerogative writ and
issues properly K B. for the rtherance of JUSTICE it
may England in issue from the Chancery tho
Pleas Exchequer directed to the Judge and parties
in any inferior Court b. Comm H. And i'll the case Oh
Wadsworth Queen Of Spain g. H. and Eq H. $780, it Is
expressly ruled that the record fully dscoscs the into
which the inferior Court has fallen after there has been an
excess Of jurisdiction, prohibition and not writ of error is
the appropriate remedy"
MAY please our Honors do not stand here to ask you
by anticipation decide the question of right but that will
not quietly sit legal rights buried and destroyed by
which have had in the other Courts when it
is in yourower by prohibition, to enable to 60 before
competent tribunal all the questions right involved in the
necessary regularly before you by writ OF error
Judge Wlard-Have you any authority going to show that
osatute ground for prohibition as between
Courts proceeding under the common law?
Mr. Magrath-f submit that all the cited show that
where any Court ofcommcn law Jurisdiction not
proceeding according the of law prohibition
lies
Judge Willard spiritual Courts and the Court
of Admiralty type Of Courts not proceeding according to
the course Of law, you find any instance where
prohibition is allowed to Court proceeding according to the
course law upon mconstuction OF the statute? In
other words this authority allowed TO shut out the
subtitle introduction of ecclesiastical and civil law in these
Courts?
Mr. Magrath-Undoubedy ii intended that the King
Courts should be protected against the Popes Courts and IN
this and also the supposed agressons OF the Admiralty pro-
hbtion first actively employed But the remedy
afforded in relation these Courts found useful in any
which msconstrued Act of Parliament, and
therefore did properly exercise its jurisdiction
AS said Nathans the Courts OF South Carolina
have found occasion to enlarge the relief afforded by prohIb
and your Honors exclude from view that according
the constitution the authority conferred upon this tribunal
designedy made extensive for supervisory control over
all other Courts in this atc power at least great and
that conferred upon any similar Court in tho
United States The language is emphatic "The Supreme
proceedings have power issue wrs Of Injunction and
other remedial