The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-26
THE quo RARRANT0 CAsE.

THE quo RARRANTO CASE.
According to appointment. Associate Justic
Willard resumed, yesterday afternoon. th
hearing OF tho quo uorranlo against T.
Mackey, David Barrow, and ). F. Greene, a.
dermen.
Mr.. Presley proposed to confne the argu
ment to the single point whether this cour
has the right to try this case. notwithstandin:
the returns. There is a class Of cases il
this State where there vas no trial by jury
He contended, also, that the property that ex
listed in the Office was not such property q
ss would require the Intervention Of jury h
deprive one of. He contended that the Legis
lature had right to provide for tn
trial OF right involving an Office without {
trial by jury. The very Office purporting to bt
held by the party is an Office from which othel
persons we're ousted without the Intervention
Of q jury, and he placed into Office by legisla
tive enactment. The court in the recent CASE
decided that the Legislature may do what il
pleases in reference to an Office Of corpora
tion. II the Legislature then has the right to
eject party from Office without the interven.
ton of jury, it certainly has 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 SO? 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 a judge sitting at chambers a
right to try quo warranto, and make de-
cision as though they we're in open court, and
gave the parties the right Of appeal to the
constitutional courts Of appeal. The case could
go TO jury only when it comes to question
Of damages. It is competent for the court
only to award judgment of custer or discharge
the rule.
He also contended that the 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 net giving the court
jurisdiction in the subject matter OF quo ,oar-
ranto gives it Jurisdiction to do everything
else, and decide the case on quo ,oarranto.
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 if it appears from this that there is
aquestion Of fact, it could be submitted to
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 1he s9e 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 a trial. He con-
tended that by the thirteenth and fourteenth
articles Of the constitution the parties had Q
light to trial by jury.
BE also insisted that it was the province OF
the jury to decide as to the intention, in case
q party be moved from the State. Much had
been said about haste. II they wssh TO stop
Council, they can do 1t just @ well by ousting
l6eS own mens His clients hadbeeu elected
BY the people Of Charleston, and the parties
ought certainly be content to give them fair
trial. He then cited number Of cases in sup.
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 mandamys the return
of the respondents is conclusive until falsifed
BY jury. In this case they have hot only
Failed to falsfy the return by q Jury, but
hey have not even falsi1ed it by o jurat. The
allegations in the information was not even
,worn to. and is justso much waste paper.
I the party demands jury, theooursz1 no I
ight 10 decide the question. The residence
8 question OF Tact, and could be best decided |
y tweiye -maa-Uo sonbouted that the whole |
were unconstitutional 1t was a |
question that should have been brought up by
and not by quo scarranto. The
respondents now have to answer q clause |
which had not been set up. and he, therefore,
,laimed that they should be dismissed.
MIR. Lord submitted the case to the court |
Without adding to the argument OF his prede-
,essor.
The argument, it will be perceived, was con-
ined to the question Of whether the case be.
onged properly to q jury, and did not touch
he real merits. The Judge announced that
he would require some time to consider the
notion, and would endeavor to announce his
decision as soon as possible.
LARGE SALE OF SECURITIES AND REAL ESTATE.
yr. 2. B. Oakes sold yesterday the assets of
he Insurance and Trust Company Of Charlee-
on as follows:
Two hundred and thi1ty-fve half shares Of
'outh Carolina Railroad, at 81 and al.
5000 six per cent. bonds Of East Tennessee
md Georgia Railroad Company, at66 and 81.
$4,000 seven per cent. bonds City Of Savan-
lah, at 50 and 95A.
$1,000 seven per cent. bonds Memphis and !
Charleston Railroad Company, at 67s.
$4,000 seven per cent. bonds of South Caro-
ina Railroad Company, at 81.
$2500 six per cent. bonds OF Greenville and
2olumbis Railroad, guaranteed BY the State Of |
'outh Carolina, at 62.
5000 six per csnt. bonds City of Memphis,