The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-02-27
DOWN ON THE CHAIN GANG.
EFFECT OF A SUPREME COURT
DECISION.

Trial Justices Cannot Sentence
Prisoners to Hard Labor-Twelve
Trial Justice jury.
dered decision in the case of the
State VS.. Sam Williams for the county
of Charleston, in which two very i'm
portant matters were settled. One was
the question as to the legal number Of
jurors required on jury in q trial
Justices court, and the other was the
matter of chain gangs, the court rem
dering decision which paralyzes such
institutions In this State.
Chief Justice McIver rendered the
opinion, which was concurred in by
Associate Justice MCGOWAN. Justice
Pope filed n dissenting opinion.
In setting forth the facts of the case
the Chief Justice says that the defend
ant was charged with carrying a dead
ly and concealed weapon on his per-
son; that he did not demand jury
trial, and that the judicial justice sem
fenced the defendant, Sam Williams,
to pay fine of $25 or to be imprisoned
in the county Jail and made to perform
hard labor on the public works of the
city Of Charleston, in the chain gang,
for the period of thirty days. From
this judgment tho defendant appealed
to the Court Of Sessions upon two
grounds.
First-That he cannot be punished
except upon verdict of a jury of II
men.
Second-That the trial justice had
no jurisdiction to impose greater
sentence than thirty days imprison-
ment, and so much of the sentence as
requires the defendant to work on the
chain gang is void in law.
Both of the grounds of appeal were
sustained by Judge Izlar, and from his
opinion the solicitor appealed. The
grounds of the appeal are substantially
the same as those heard by Judge
IZlar.
The Chief Justi;e devotes ten pages
of closely written matter to the discus
sion of the question of the legality of a
jury of less than twelve men, and goes
into quito an extensive history Of the
trial by jury in this State and tho con-
stitutiohal provisions in that matter,
so far as the State is concerned. He
concludes by saying: $50 that 1t
seems to us that the General Assembly
still has the power to provide for the
trial Of any person accused of an Of
fen bin the jurisdiction of trial
JUS u jury composed of a less
nv pn twelve persons, and that
tn Judge erred in holding
OF | 1t is observed that the
pr bf Section 10, of Article l,
of & o t;a vt Constitution do not seem
to contemt8 te u trial by jury, of per-
sons accuse. of the offence there pro-
vided for. but the Legislature, by Sec
tion S31 of the General Statutes, has
provided that such person shall be en-
titled on demand to trial by Jury, and
in this case it appears, from the report
OF the judicial trial justice as incorpo-
rated in the judgment of the circuit
judge, that no jury was demanded by
the defendant.
by this appeal, we agree with the cir
cult Judge that so much of the sentence
imposed by the judicial trial justice as
required the defendant to perform
hard labor on the public works of the
city of Charleston on the chain gang
was without authority of law, and is
therefore null and void. AS we have
seen above, the jurisdiction of trial
justices in criminal cases is limited by
the Constitution, Section 10 Of Article
l, to the trial of offences LESS than
felony, in which the punishment does
not exceed a fine of 500 or imprison-
ment for, thirty days" Now it is clear,
as was held in the State VS.. jenkins,
Goth S. c.. l2l, that the jurisdiction of
a trial justice is limited by and depen-
dent upon the condition First, that
the offence in question shall be less
than felony, and, second, that the pun
ishment prescribed shall not exceed q
fine Of 800 or Imprisonment for thirty
days. If, therefore, either of these
conditions are wanting in given case,
the trial justice is without Jurisdiction.
But in this case neither of these con-
ditions was wanting, for by the last act
prescribing the punishment for the Of
fence with which the defendant was
charged, it was limited, to a fine not to
term not exceeding thirty days" See
act of December, A. D., 1892, 81 Statute
SO. Now as was held in the State vs..
Hord, 8th S. c., "a, affirmed in ex parte
Bond, 8 S. c., 80, wherever imprison-
ment was punishment in whole or in
part for q common law offence, or pre-
scribcd for the violation of some statu-
tory enactment, it took effect by COM
mitment to and detention in the COM
mon Jail or the prison of the county"
This may be regarded as an authorita-
tive Interpretation of the proper signi-
fication of the term imprisonment" :"
as used in the Constitution.
Accordingly it was held IN that case
nor assault with intent to kill-could
not be sentenced to confinement in the
State penitentiary at hard labo. unless
such punishment had been described
by some statute substituting that mode
of Imprisonment in place of the one
which had always existed in the State.
In view of that decision, doubtless, the
General Assembly passed the act of
1873, now incorporated as Section 2,6l5
of the General Statutes, declaring that
I" in every case in which i'm mprisonment
is provided in whole or in part for any
crime, such imprisonment shall be
either in the penitentiary with or with
out hard labor, or in the county Jail
with or without hard labor, at the dis
cretion of the circuit Judge announcing
the sentence. But this provision by it's
terms applies only to the Court of Ses-
sions-a court of general Jurisdiction
and cannot apply to o court of inferior
and limited jurisdiction, for surely it
cannot be contended that the Legisla-
ture can by mere statute enlarge the
meaning OF the word imprisonment >
as used in the Constitution, especially
where it is there used as one OF the
limits to the jurisdiction of an inferior
court.
$50 that we think it clear that the act
OF 1885, as amended by the act of De-
cember 20, 1892, 2l Statute %, under
which the power is claimed to add to
the sentence of imprisonment the re-
quirement OF hard labor on the public
works Of city or county insofar as it
-. q r..