Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1892-07-07
An Interesting Decision.


w give below the full text OF the de-
cision of Judge Norton in the cases Of
the State against G.. w. Eaton and II. D.
A. Biemann, for retailing liquor without
a license. The defendants were arrested
CD warrants issued by Trial Justice Hern-
don, bottomed on an order of Judge
Hudson referring the presentment OF the
grand jury to him with directions to
bind over the parties and take the testi-
mony of witnesses for the use of the So
licitor.
When arrested Eaton, acting under the
advice of his attorneys, Thompson Il
Jaynes, and Biemann, under that of
Stiblng x Sllclor, refused TO enter into
recognizance for appearance in the SEES
sions Court. and applied to Judge Norton
for their discharge under writs of hdbeds
corpus, on the ground that the said war
rants were illegally issued. The hearing
was had before Judge Norton at his
chambers at Walhalla on Saturday, June
%. the arguments on behalf of defend
ants being made by r. 7. Jaynes, Esq,
and Maj. VIM. J. Stribling, while Maj. S.
P. pendy, representing Solicitor Ansel,
argued the cases on behalf of the State.
Judge Norton held the matter under
consideration until Wednesday, June %,
Oh which day he rendered the decision
below. AS the points %adjudged are new,
ard the decision annuls a practice pretty
generally INDUCED in by Solicitors
throughout the State, we give the full
text Of the decision. Judge Norton says:
These cases come before me on writs
of hobeas corpus, by which it is sought to
have the defendants discharged from the
custody of the Sheriff. The grounds on
which the discharge is asked being the
in each case, they are, by consent,
heard together, and this order is, there
fore, made to apply to both he cases
above stated.
1.-The defendants were presented by
the grand jury at the October term 1891
of the Court of General Sessions for
Oconee county for the offence above
and at the February term 1892 an
order was signed by His Honor J. II.
Hudson directing f. L. Herudon, Trial
Justice, to have the defendants arrested
and bind them over to appear at the next
term of the court and take the testimony
for the use of the Solicitor. The Trial
Justice in obedience to said order, with
out any sworn information before him,
the warrants of arrest and the de-
PENDANTS are now in custody Hereunder.
Defendants counsel deny the validity of
the warrants so issued. This raises a
novel question, and on which the Court
finds but little authority that renders
much assistance in its solution. But
there are certain well defined general
principles, the correct application of
which, will lead to a proper decision.
"Our system of government comprises
three distinct OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES,
legislative and judicial, which, while CO.
ordinate, are yet independent in their
respective spheres. But the division does
not stop here. In each department there
are various subdivisions just as independ-
ent of each other as the different de-
partments themselves. Our system of
courts, which comprises the Judicial de-
partment. is a beautiful one and well
adapted to the full attainment of the
ends of justice in all the complex aff"irs
of human life. But the highest accom-
plishment of these ends will be attained
by preserving the independence Of each
separate tribunal, which is clothed with
discretionary powers, otherwise it IS easy
to see that the orderly administration Of
Justice would 5eco12e marred and proba-
bly, corrupt.
SIN criminal matters the Sessions
Court has only appellate supervision and
control of the Courts of Trial Justice
and can in no way interfere with the dis
with which the inferior courts
are clothed by the Legislature, whether
it be upon the trial of a cause of which
it has jurisdiction or the hearing of a
preliminary in a case to be sent up for
trial.
"Section $50 of the General Statutes
provides that 'All proceedings before
Trial Justices in criminal cases shall be
commenced on information under oath,
setting forth, &C., upon which,
and only which, shall a warrent of arrest
issue This seems to be mandatory and
imperative. And the expression and
only which seens to have been inserted
for the express purpose of prohibiting
these inferior courts from depriving any
citizen of his liberty until some fellow
citizen has taken the responsibility of
swearing before him that a crime has
been committed. It is contended By the
State that the presentment by grant nry
is equivalent to this information under
OATH. How can this be? The grand
jury is a part of the machinery of the
Sessions Court and has no connection
whatever NTH the court of Trial Justice.
1t is again centended that the Sessions
Court has ordered it and this justifes
the issuance of the warrants. It is diff
cult to see in the face of the plain provis-
ion Of Law above quoted what authority.