Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1884-04-24
The Mprkrille Guquirer,
YORKVILLE. s. C. ::
THURSDAY MORNING, APRIL "a, 1884.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.

SUPREME COURT DECISION.
York County, plaintiff appellant and respondent vs. NJ Few
s ssp0Dde" and appellant Appeal from 0'k
In 1882, fifty-eight citizens of York county Pc
titioned the county commissioners, praying fol
the opening of a new road from EbeneZer to
Rock Hill, over the lands of defendant and 9th.
ers. After considering the petition and giving
the notice required by law, the county commits
sioners, on the 3rd of July, 1882 appointed
Messrs. E. NJ. Law, j. Miller and j. R. London
special commissioners to lay out the road and as.
sess damages.
On the 18th of July the special commissioners
reported as follows:
1--WE have laid off the road as directed, from
the west corner of the lot known as the Berry
Place." on the south side of the present road, tc
a point on the corporation line of Rock Hill
where said line crosses the line between the lands
of S. NJ. Fewell and A. H. White. The route fol
said new road has been indicated by stakes
marking the middle of road, and such trees as
are on the line have been marked as further IN
dication Of the route. The said road to extend
distance of fifteen feet on each side OF the line as
marked. We find that said road passes through
the lands of A. F. Fewell and S. M. Fewell and
we assess the damages to said parties as follows
to A. F. Fewel, $500; to s. NJ. Fewell, S25O.OO.
This report was filed on the 2lst Of August
1882, and at the same time exceptions were filed
by the defendant, and the board of county COM
missioners consented to the introduction of EVIL
dence in support of his exceptions. The excep-
tions were as follows
81. Because the compensation allowed is who'll
ly inadequate to the damage inflicted. e BE-
cause the road, as laid off, does not conform to
the provisions of law, being thirty feet wide in
stead of twenty feet. g. Because it is not the best
and shortest road between the points,
On the 18th of February, 1883, as appears by
the minutes of the board Of county commission
ers, the report of the special commissioners ap-
pointed for the purpose of laying off the road,
twas taken up and carefully examined, and it
was resolved to receive and confirm the report as
whole, the commissioners being satisfied from
the evidence taken upon the exceptions, both
as to the necessity for, and the course OF, the
road as laid out, and with the amount of dam
ages given to A. F. Fewell and S. NJ. Fewell, re-
spectively.'
From this decision of the county commission
ers the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court
on the following grounds:
81. The compensation awarded by the report
of the special commissioners is insufficient, and
against the evidence as to the true amount OF
damages and compensation. 2. Because the ROAD
laid out by the commissioners is contrary to law
as to the width thereof. 3. Because the location
is improper 4. Because said highway or road
and declared as highways, between the same
points connected by this road. 5. Because two
of the commissioners appointed by the board to
lay off said highway, were parties to the proceed
ings before the county commissioners.
At March term, 1885, of the Circuit Court,
Judge Kershaw presiding, the case was heard
upon the papers, testimony and argument OF
counsel, whereupon his Honor rendered the fol-
lowing decree:
The first ground Of appeal is that the compen-
sation awarded is insufficient and against the
evidence. The law requires that just compensa-
ton shall be made to the proprietor of lands
taken for public uses, and the preponderance OF
the testimony here raises great doubt as to
whether the sum allowed by the commissioners
is sufficient to fully compensate the defendant.
When there is so wide difference of opinion as
is manifested in the testimony, think 1t proper
to refer that question to the determination OF
Jury. 1t is very probable that the defendant
would have right to the verdict of a jury before
he could be deprived of his property but at all
events the circumstances here are such as to salts
fy me Of the propriety of taking the course sug-
gested.
AS to the objection to the width of the road,
the Act of 1925, upon which the appellant rests
his objection, was repealed by the General Stat
utes of 1872. And I find no law now limiting
the commissioners in any case, in laying off a
highway, to one of less than 80 feet in width.
If highway leading to Camden in 1925 would
reasonably require to be of that width, as may be
inferred from the law then enacted, highway
to Rock Hill, and so near to that town as this,
would reasonably require as much space, and
apprehend that in the absence OF any statute
law forbidding it, the authority to lay off high
way would include or imply the power to give it
a reasonable width. The propriety Of laying
off the highway and the necessity and pro-
priety of the location, are matters so much in
the discretion Of the commissioners that in the
absence of manifest unfairness or impropriety,
the Court would not interfere. The clrcum-
oS,,11 ID
make it proper to overturn the decision of the
special commissioners, appointed by the county
commissioners.
1t is ordered and adjudged that it be referred
to Jury at the next term OF the Court for \ ork
county upon the testimony already taken here
in to ascertain upon issue to be framed for that
purpose and submitted to them, the amount of
compensation to be allowed theappellant, Samuel
NJ. Fewell, for damages which will be sustained
by him by reason of the laying OH and estab-
iishment of the said highway, and that in all
other respects the action of the county commits
sioners and their determination of the matter
involved in this appeal, be confirmed and made
the judgment of this Court. That upon the find
ing Of the jury upon the question of damages,
the appellant have judgment for the amount by
them to be determined, upon the approval Of
the same by the Judge presiding at the rendition
of the verdict. The cost of this appeal to await
the determination Of the issue herein directed.
From this decree the plaintiff appealed to the
81. That the Circuit Judge erred in referring
the question of compensation to jury, and in
not sending it back to the county commissioners
to appoint new board of special commissioners
to assess the damages, as contemplated by law ;
or in not himself appointing said special COM
missioners for said purpose. 2. That his Honor
erred in referring the said question OF compensa-
ton to jury upon the testimony already taken
herein whereas it should have been submitted
to the Jury de noDo, or at least without any re-
striction upon the right of either party to intro
duce such testimony as he might be advised to
offer. B. That his Honor erred in not making
the Judgment for the amount of damages (when
determined) conditional upon the appropriation
of defendant land by the plaintiff or its agents"
And the defendant also appealed to the Su-
preme Court on the following exceptions to the
Circuit decree:
81 In holding that the statute fixing twenty
feet as the width of roads to be laid out with
sundry exceptions) had been repealed. 2. In
in appropriatng thirty feet in width of land for
road between Ebenezer and Rock Hill, in York
county,"
On these exceptions both parties to the case
went to the Supreme Court, and argument was
heard at the last (November) term. The follow
ing is the decision of the Supreme Court:
After reciting from the "Case" all the facts
above given, noting the essential points in Judge
Kershaws decree, and quoting entire the plain
tiffs grounds Of appeal, the Supreme Court say !:
The defendants appeal is based upon the
ground that there was error in establishing the
width Of the road at thirty instead of ftwenty feet
1 RI n