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

power refusing to hear and decide question of legal
of the State Legislature motion those proceedings
which provided for where legal rights in ques
on and intended become the evidence such
vested in the corporation in whose behalf such
ceedngs obtained No further do intend go upon
general proposition than that for desire argue this only
the question directly involved repeat therefore
law that in such question divestng legal
rights and affecting title to property under tho
stuon and laws of this State be determined by Judge
In Com Dig Tit Prohibition, Letter f, ii, it said
hbon will lie if spiritual Courts try prescription
hook G. p. 10 ain question of tithes If the
parshoner n,odo jurisdiction
So Bacons Abrdg Title Prohibition Letter L. "Questons
Of freehold and rights only rabe in temporal Courts
ecclesiastical Courts nteeddlo with these prohibition lies
In State, in tho of the State White N. &
McC, p. ia: "Prohibton may upon suggestion that
bn % o
some other Court In the cited by counsel the
object prohibition usurpation of inferior
tribunals and compel them to observe limits Jurisdiction
they dispense with tho evidence of
tue therefor written Statements So Bacons Abrdg $50
If spiritual Court incidentally misconstr4cs Para
mont contrary to the rule of law prohibition lies
after sentence Msconcepon is matter of prohibition
b oy % Sts IN a of r the
in the jurisdiction of inferior Courts if the bounds of law
Courts msconstue Acts Of Parliament us Gappor
East H. 345 full to tho point and exhaustive
judgment the Court, objections to granting
prohibition in this first that after sentences
not of prohibition Tho first Of these objections do
the % soGnnd is that which we propose to consider and
whether such msconstructon be ground prohibition
1t is question that he most effect
ua replies to the attempted to be made this
that point, confirmation in the House of
Lords remembering also that in that very reported
lss Lord Loughborough and the the Court of
g. b. clearly considered the Act of Para
ment ground for prohibition case after advert
ing to the of prohibition the spiritual Courts adds
Authorities be found equally strong Courts
have been cxpoune otherwise Courts of common law
wo"d h 3 sh0% AT p o he o" the number of
both they involved the questions Of
temporal nature and the construction of statutes, clearly
within the jurisdiction Of the several Courts prohibited They
i'll which the Judgment given below might have
common law Courts have taken upon themselves the
Jn c m n OF made subjects peculiarly
in such granted prohibitions such inferior Courts
misco"strued these Acts Of Parliament"
The authority of this has been questioned
that said in the in Dudley
Although prohibition tis Kings pSerogatS5e Writ and
gand some eases ISSUE from tho chanacry s
Common Pleas or lxcheq1er directed the Judge and parties
Wadsworth u.s. Queen Of Spain r. L. an, Eq r. a55 it is
SHGsssy E ruled THAT r elf the rec record & fully dseGscs the error into
excess OF unsdcLon Prohbi'n and not writ Of error is
May please Ionors do stand here ask you,
By anticipation to decide the question of right but that you will
proceedings which have boon had in the other Courts when it
is in your power by prohibition enable 90
and 1t necessary regularly before You Of
Judge Nlliard-llave you authority going show
misconstruction ofstatutc ground prohibition
Courts proceeding under the common law?
Mr. Ma5rathI submit that all tho cited show that
where any Court in Il matter ofcommon law jurisdiction
proceeding according TO the law prohibition
lies.
Judge WillardTakng the spiritual Courts and tho
OF Admiralty as type of Courts not proceeding according
the course of law you find any instance where
prohibition allowed to Court proceeding according to the
course OF common law msconstrction the
other words not this authority allowed shut the
in
Courts?
Mr. Magrah-Undoubtcdy it intended that the King
Courts should be protected against the Popes Courts
this and also in the supposed aressons the Admiralty pro-
btlon was at first most actively employed But the remedy
afforded III relation to these Courts found useful in any
other Court Which misconstrcd Act OF Parliament and
therefore did not properly exercise its jurisdiction.
As was sad IN NathanS the Courts South
have found occasion enlarge the cicl prohb
on and Jonr llonora exclude from view
TO the constitution the authority conferred upon tribunal
desgned made most extensive for supervisory
al other Courts III this State' power least great
extensive as that conferred upon any similar Court the
United States The language is emphatic. "The Supreme
Court shall 'ays Chat is at all times and in any stage Of the
proceedings have issue inuncon
such other original and remedial ws may he necessary
give general supervisory control over all other Courts
State Now, II prohibition mode whereby this