The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-01-29

grand jury .hon absolutely refused hear testimony
Judge Boozer on the motion to dissolve7 =,
Mr. Conner-Yes, SIR and answered that ts were
solve the Injunction and all other questions deter
mined by the Court Edge6od. The was like wio
question of right would be en,ertainod f " ''' WV
ne deal nS of sa shas WHICH ait hsn b We grod the with
and appreciated whom he said he realized for time the
will second heariHg: had
not brought my mind to tho conviction possibility
through their depot lot Granitovo, being necos
ry indcred in their and enjoyment provided against
section oght therefore, felt my duty interrupt the dis
cusson by declaring TO petitioners the determination
insisted fifty for their roadIyd" Ills Hosor was
shocked at the injustice proposed and hence he promptly
abandoned he would prayed for Ii
such hndance the law had forbidden. The the
Legislature intended such right way, to
justify such an extensive encroachmont the vested rights
another that claimed and prayed petition
"Soon thereafter continues his Honor they he Columbia
ten feet only at Granitcvlo but through route
take than feet jury so clearly
in excess of the delegated to hcm that their judgment
been determined by foot rule and had Judge order
have about it, pooso av. ,nss ssn too
plain for doubt There would have been
ton. But OUT there was sub
stitucd sufficient width of ground the of
roadbed the change material one and rights
Judge that distinction without a difference" he
could not be to bo scnstvey the subject
Judge Wlard-If Judge Patt had retained "ten feet in
his ORDER would that order havo nugatory? Would
it not have been judicial buncr which he right to
eliminate previous to the finding of decree? have always
nugatory Judgment which would legal proceeding
into % farce think that point scarcely worth discussion
to to this nacr directly Judge Patt in his order First
m had m become aa convinced & that at some points it CHE claim
bdden and secondly that according to my consideration
tho Act although would tolerate and permit tho
VIII
they required to tho General Assembly intended
lego of laying oadbcd along tho regular and
usual right Of of another company, that
In ton feet the precise limit by order
and if o WAS intended to abandon that claim other
clear that fifty feet could be taken the question
to make the order in such would the jury
what testimony to be taken and how determine
Judge % my 70 mind the order perfectly n4
feet to: to @ s 'Sr 'N'S""
Mr. Conner1hat would substitute indefinite deh}
embankmcnt tho wider then
and neither party could know exactly wheo the line which
divided them l"n but the right in law be precisely
there your line; determine the question by the
term term Tor % 'oaaoed You'd give you shifting base
Judge WardTho jury supposed to have had the nee
Mr.: Conncr-Thcy did not have a thing
/ Judge WiardAt any rate the question purely in
Mr. Conncr-of course necessary for tho Jury to
determine by actual teo 1t has very place
that tho track has been changed three times and
ono instance moved half mile. Uncss deter
ned therefore, in accordance with this doctrine
be shifting limo all the time.
But here the direct question anything
clear plain and Haphatic the opinion Judge patI
that tho Icgislntu intcnded give Columbia and
augusta Kalroad Company right of way of fifty
the land Of another company for it would work such hin
draco as the law had forbidden Yet jury under tho
cose granted to Them which they derived by the
lot tho order from feet" sufficient width for the
construction OF the roadbed have condemned sixty along
three and thrcefourhs of mile of the when
totho hel
ted base he allowed them would not hindrsncc
lie says in his order Stil had lingering regard
to the hindrance question points, at Dead
" Fall, and tho other at Grantcvile depot lot
Inconvenience will DO occnsioned injuries done and
s9me money expenditures for the repairs of injuries
n these will he made good to them by tho compensation
dict Of tho jury required and ordered in and Act"
The Chief Jace see that Judge Pt i'll his opinion, says
that before the injunction removed they not
only that they have rendered the compensation they
have acquired the right"
Mr. Nr Conaer-rha. i Just the point make When the
other side wt before Judge Booze they claimed that right
had been ACQUIRED by the payment compensation That
was the great argument But have there
not single paper on which you lay your finger which
there is decision Of this question right Judge Platt says
tlt