The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-07-17
Gary and Pope Again.
The Decision in the Eichel'
berger Fine Case.

of the fac. that the State Supreme
Court, With the Chief Justice fling a
dissenting opinion, bad decided the
case of Constable Eichelberger, sus-
tanning Judge Watts decision, reduc-
ing the 6ne imposed BY the mayor of
Greenville 90 the constsbles for the
violation of the city ordinances.
The following extracts from the opin-
ions of the three judges will be found
of general interest. The facts of the
case are familiar to the readers of Ihe
State.
Justice Gary. in his opinion. says:
Let us then consider whether the
circuit judge had the power to modify
the sentence imposed by the mayor
..In the charter Of the city of Green
vile, 10 stat, p 109, it is provided
that the mayor aud aldermen Of said
city are hereby severally and respec-
lively vested with all the powers of
trial justices in the State within the
limits of said city. to try and punish
all persons charged with violation of the
ordinances Of said city.
..Uoder the case Of the City Council
Of Charleston vs. Brown. 20 s. E r i,
56. and the authorities upon which that
case.axas decided, it clearly appears
sha. tie mayor exercised the powers Of
trail justice when he tried said case.
The extent Of punishment which he
lad the power to iuaict was limited by
sbe ordinance aforesaid.
.sSec. 66, Code of Criminal Proce.
dure provides that Every person co.,
vie,ed before trial justice of any Of.
fense whateve, and sentenced, may ap.
peal from the sentence to the next term
Of the Court of General Sessions for the
county. All appeals from trial justices
courts in criminal causes shall be taken
and prosecuted as hereinafter prescrlb-
ed
Sec. II provides that 'tae said ap-
peal sball be heard by the Court Of
General Sessions upon the grounds of
exception made and upon the papers
herein before required and without the
examination of witnesses 10 the eaid
court. Aud the said court may either
cop6rm the Sc ensence appealed from, re.
verse or modify the same or grant
new trial. as the said court may seem
meet or conformable to law
ut thus appears that the statute, 10
express ,erus. confers upon the circuit
judge the power to modify the sentence
appealed from
- nie ouly Limitation upon his power
l. ...as it must be as TO the said court
wav seem meet ard conformable to
Jaw y
There is certainly nothing 10 the
ease showing that the modification of
the sentence BY the circuit judge does
not seem to him meet and coDformable
TO law.
sit is the judgment Of this court
chat the order appealed from be at
6rmed 4"
Justice Pope. after quoting the Sec
zion in reference to appeals to the cir
euit court, says,
This section shows very plainly
.hat the Legislature of this State never
Intended to give such unlimited pow
ers to these officials as would enable
them to impose sentences upon persons
charged before them with infraction of
city ordinances ou, of all proportion to
she offences as made out by the testl-
mons; 10 other words, to clothe them
With unbridled discretion as to their
sentences.
Judge Watts had all the testimony
before him. aud be but exercised one Of
the rigb,iul powers OF bis high Office
when be reduced this sentence, if the
testimony convinced him that the may.
er's sentence was excessive. cgree
With Mr. Justice Gary that the judg-
nent below should be affirmed"
Chief Justice Mclver, in his dissent
ing opinion says:
.sEyen concedipg that the mayor
was acting as trial justice a matter
which We may adult Of question:. and
that in appeals from trial justice the
Court of Sessions may either confirm
she sentence appealed from. reverse or
modify the same. or grant new trial.
as to the said court may seem meet and
eouformable to law yet do not think
the language quoted can be properly
construed as conferring right of sp-
peal from the exercise of mere dlscve-
ton BY the Inferior tribunal within the
limits prescribed by law. The we'll
settled rule undoubtedly is that there
is no appeal from the exercise Of dlscre-
lion conferred upoo the tribunal from
which so appeal is sought to be taken.
Indeed. | do uol see how the exercise
of discretion within the limits pre-
scribed By law can afford any ground