The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-02-27

against him he loses the whole We understand that We DO not
claim that we can take land without Judgment the contrary
affirm that if be against shall sacrifice all have
pended upon land Yet take that risk If the Judges are to
fail in duty and be frightened out of rope because ann chooses
to make road in defiance of law what the OF W!
Johnston chooses go and build his line upon t5nd he
South Carolina Railroad and your Honors to the conclusion that
he acted without warrant OF law he must take he
therefore, say may please the Court that it an idle camor WHICH
has raised and which should give no concern
proceed show that your Honors have nothing to DO WIN
this case in its stage although you have much to DO WIFI
the end The Judgment of the Court must be reached by a"
by invention convnce not by short cuts Your Honos WI
bear in mind that it but recently you have taken your P
that bench system Of jurisprudence has been
bchooves YOU to lay the foundation securely and to AVOID creating
peccdcn that may work ncalcuabe mischief hereafter
party cannot make appeal as rapidly ne desires anu
some newly nventert facilitate his object you are not
accede that request and permit process which
authorized by the constitution and the law which your
attempt made by friends the other side renas e ah
dent of nv early experience client came into my office with
the complaint that had away with some Oh Ills negroes anu
inquired could not find way to catch and Dn e man @ 0s, @ he
down in Georgia have writ that called the CORN" 0 anu
the moment you put into the clerks office there not man 10
whom refers who will quietly walk into JAIL deliver hmSef up
and beg for Gods surrender everything that wanted
strikes that it something like corn" OogS WHICH ieu
But to nrocced with the argument shall maintain three PROPOSE
ons6rs that upon the case by the plaintiffs this Court could
not act by uohon secondly that they not entitled to pre-
mnary trial. that the preliminary trial not matter OF M mGt '
case; and thirdly that if such preliminary trial De ha inc
and Augusta Railroad Company have right condemn the land
Now the two last propositions consider mere matters Oh
Time would be wasted such an argument anu sna M
not touch upon them very eboatey The first proposition the
question your Honos decide On the case made by this
can you issue writ of prohibition Your Honos will perceive that
the constitution of 1868 very careful in the distribution OF powers IN
the iudco dpartmen Referring article four of that instrument
will be found that the judicial power OF this State vestea IN e
Supreme and Circuit Courts namely Court OF Common
Pleas having civil Jurisdiction and Court of General Sessions with
jurisdiction only in Probate Courts and in Justices OF the
Peace" Section declares that "he Supreme Court shall nave
appellate jurisdiction only in cases OF chancery and sna
Court for the correction of law under such
the General Assembly may by law prescribe: Povded the saa
Court shall always have power to issue wrs OF
n quo aeurano haJe corpus and such other original and rene
dial may be give general supervisory
over all other Courts in the STATE . ?, .
1t will be observed prohibition mentioned in that section
Tn the fifteenth section of the article however the
as follows "The Courts of Common Pleas shall have exclusive u
dction all of divorce and exclusive original JURISDICTION
all civil and actions dcto which shall not be cosaD
before Justices of the Peace and appellate jurisdiction In all such
may be provided by law They shall have power TO
wrs of manamu prohibition, e aeas and all other Wrlts
which may be necessary carrying their powers fully into effect
Your Hcnors will therefore power issue this writ
not given to the Supreme Court but the Circuit Court and you
are asked to assume jurisdiction only by virtue of the hrSt
junction. nandam@ quo ''a'rd" haOea corpus anu ucn
original and remedial w be necessary to give it general
supervisory control all other Courts in the State
Tie proposition that the writ of prohibition belongs to the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court according to the clear declaration OF
the denied the Supreme Court is exclusive IN
the Circuit Court You hear when but cannot
of originally although you have power to issue such
be necessary general supervisory control over all other
Courts in the State. ...
dco this writ under that article of the constitution there
be further legislation The act to organize the Supreme
Court is distinct this subject tor it declares that ach OF e
Supreme Court shall have power to administer oath
issue wrs of injunction andam quo scarrao haoeas corpus
and other remedial according to the principles and course ot
common heretofore existing the State of South Carolina which
hereby declared be of force far applicable and not nco
sistent with the constitution"
The Legislature therefore have directed the m and cannot
that under the constitution writ of prohibition necessary to
keep supervisory control other Courts the State and
quenty that may issued without further legislation But the most
important proposition that this writ of prohibition not necessary
and does not within the description this Act the Legislature
Now may please your Honos necessity shown in various ways
but think the absence of necessity concsvey shown In one
When you demonstrate that certain things have on IN certain
without the neposon c certain other thing tor hundrecs
of years you prove that that ~ thing not at all necessary And
defy counsel the other side find case in which in an Appeal
Court writ of prohibition originated In all the books from
King Edward the Coneso this time be found
which writ of prohibition has issued from this Court 1t always
issued from the Court below further There are States IN TINS
Union where the expressly given to this Court In
the laws of Massachusetts the the Supreme Court
State ws of prohibition all inferior Courts tor the further
Justice but cse Mr. Nathan Dane IN his Treatise
the Law reoected in which this power has been exe
ced He adds C Danes American Law, 336 And but one
found which prohibition has issued IN any OF
the United States that Pnsy much considered
In that this writ issued the District Court The case
libel for damages of capture OF vessel as prize
by begerent power which vessel alleged to be neutral
American property the vessel having been carried a ~ OF
place of safety, belonging to the captors.
Your Honors doubtless that in England no such writ
issued for Lord Coke during the heat OF controversy with the
Courts of Admiralty claimed such authority between the
Courts of law jurisdiction He only claimed to exercise this
authority the Courts administering maritime and canon law
You have therefore, facts namely that in England no writ
prohibition issued from Appellate Courts and in the United
States in two States where the power the writ existed