The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-06-10
TRIAL JUSTICES.
THEIR APPOINTMENTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
An Important Decision.

The following decision has been made by
his Honor Judge Green:
THE STATE EN- REL. HUDSON vs.. hULKAI-
PROHIBITION.
An application for prohibition was made In
the case to restrain the sheriff from executing
n Judgment rendered against the relator for
the sum of elghty-three dollars.
The application was basel upoa the ground
that the act of Assembly authorizing the ap-
pointment OF magistrates with jurisdiction,
such as Is gven by that act, Is In violation OF
the constitution OF this State. 1t was contend
ed at the argument, that the act referred TO
was violaiive Of divers provisions of the con-
stitution: but from the view which have
taken, it will only he necessary to advert to
single one.
The first section of article 4th provides:
srrhe judicial power OF this State shall be vest
ed in a Supreme Court; In two Circuit Courts.
to wit Court of Common Pleas, having civil
Jurisdiction; and Court OF General sessions,
with criminal jurisdiction only; In Probate
Courts, and in Justices OF the Peace. The
General Assembly may also establish such mll-
nicpa and other inferior courts as may be
deemed necessary" The twenty-frst section
of the same article declares that "a competent
number of justices Of the peace shall be chosen
In each county, by the qualified electors
thereof, in such manner as the General Assem-
bly, may direct; they shall hold their offices for
o term of two years, and until their successors
are elected and qualified. They snail reside. .
&c, land be commissioned by The Governor. y
The 22d section of article 4th defines the ju-
risdiction of justices: justices Of The peace,
Individually, or two or more Of them Jointly,
as the General Assembly may direct, nave
original Jurisdiction in cases OF bastardy, and In
all matters OF contract and actions for the re-
covery of fines and torfeitures, where the
amount claimed does not exceed one hundred
dollars, and such jurisdiction as may be pro-
yided by law In actions er delicto, where the
damages claimed do not exceed one hundred
dollars. and prosecutions for assault" and so
forth.
Thus by the constitution the jurisdiction OF
Justices of the peace is defined, the source
from whence they shall receive their power Is
pointed out, and the tenure Of their ollice
If we rccur 10 the legislative act in ques-
ton it will be found that the jurisdiction con-
farred upon the magistrates Is precisely that
given by the constitution to justices OF the
peace. except the amount named IN the act IS
ninetv.nine dollars Instead of one hundred,
and that the court established by that act Is a
substitute for that provided by the constitll-
tion. The first section of the act expressly
declares that until the organization Oh tile
courts contemplated by sections Il, y anu Is
of article 4tll of the constitution, the Govern
or is hereby authorized, empowered and re-
ouired to appoint suitable number OF ht and
discreet persons in each county to act as
magistrates of such county"
Here then we have officers unknown to the
constitution, not elected by the people, with
ont a fixed term of office, appointed and re-
moved at the will OF the executive, admins
terng that Jurisdiction conferred by s the con-, on.
elected by the people, and have fixed term
of Office Independent OF the Executive.
Is it constitutional for the Legislature to
make this substitution? Can that body SO
change the organic law of the land? In my
opinion they cannot and the act by which The
attempt las been made is in plain violation OF
the constitution.
It follows that the magistrate had no juris-
diction in this case, and the sheriff and officers
acting under or by virtue OF his authority arc
ment into execution.
(SiTned.) JOHN L. GREEN.