The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-08-26
/, THE AIFprED 0IrY oEFI0ERs.
HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FOR
MANDAMUS. H
Decision OF ohief Justice Moses.


The applications for mandamus and quo
wa,ranto weits. made on the 2Sth ultimo, in
behalf OF the relators. William N. Hughes, q.
P. Frazer and P. O. Guerry, against the Mayor
and strlok ]. Cooeap, - Oamplin aud Geo.,
| Addison, for ndndan,us, and Of U. N. Averlll.
roIstor, against Martin Caulfeld for quo ,oar-
ranto, was heard before Chief Justice Mosos at
Sumter. on Tuesday with the. following result:
Tho rolators Mere represented by Mr. n. D.
Lesesne. and tho respondents by Messrs. D. T.
Oorbln and r. 8. Tharin.
The plea to the jurisdiction offered by Mr.
Tharip on the Both ult. was argued by that
gentlemen, and tue decision reserved.
After argument on the rule for nnanddn,us,
which was the motion In all the cases except
that OF Mr.. .Ayerill -four inspector. the Chief
Justice etated that since the Arst argument.
no had looked carefully into tho points made
and the arguments, quoted; that the nfadavits,
whle stating that the relators, being officers
OF the corporation. had been ousted by
| force, did not affirm that tho5e Who e;eosoa
them were acting as officers ae tacto in the eev-
erai Offices, or stood in auy other light than
| mere trospassers. That tho mere forceable
taking OF the respective places Of business did
| not oust the relators from their offices. That
| IL they we're, as claimed, officers de j,tre, they
osuld still exercise their functions at any other
location. That the affdsvits m ado out no more
than an obstruction or interference. He took
occasion to express the opposition of the court
to ANYTHING that looked like resort to force
| or hoe; and the efforts Of the law, properly
dire6ted. would be strenuously interposed to
prevent the results which would follow from an
attempt 70 substitute force in the place of legal
authority. The remedy sought did not apply,
and the motion was refused.
The affidavi,s in the flour inspectors case
was sufficient to authorize the writ claimed, to
wit: Quo uarranto, and It Was accordingly or
dered.
The counsel for the relAtors stated that the
ahadayits. could be submitted in the other
casee, which weuld authorize the same writ
against the respondents II WAS, agreed that,
| on this beng done, the argument for the quo
ud,rdnto in all ths cases would be heard on
The 10Th prox. The main pent in issue will
| then be heard and decided.
The following ia an extract from the opinion
OF the Chief Justice on the plea to the jurisdio-
tion:
A preliminary objection is interpo,ed against
the motion which. as IL denies jurisdiotion TO
tne court IN the matter before 1t, must be first
determined.
In the State. OK rel. South Carolina Railroad
Company, Va. Columbia aud Augusts Railroad
Company. heard at January term 1869, it was
claimed on ths sam argument made here
that the State Court had not the power to
grant writ OF prohibition, as the authority
was exclusively, under the constitution, in the
Crimiual Court.
The objection was not sustained, and refer
nnS to that decision. we will now inquire
whe,he it was competent for one Of the
Ju slices OF the court to ISSUE the writ. The
point has been argued with ability by MI.
Iharin Tor the rsspouN6nts. aud il Is due that
tho question should be fully examined.
Ii IS In effect argued that the 9Th clause OF
the act OF september 18 1868. to organize the
Supreme Court (Stat.. p. 72,) which gives to
each Justice of-that court power to issue wrlts
OF 1'onddn,tis. quo ,1arranto. and other reme-
dial writs, ls ineousistens with the 1blh section
OF 4th article OF the constitution, which ia in
the words following, &c.. ~ ~
The learned Judge proceeds at great length,
adduclng numerous auth ,rities 10 supper. Of
his views, and concludes by oyerruling the
plea.