The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1895-07-18
THE %ICH CASE.
n Supreme Court Decision Of I'm
porianCe to Towns and Cities

| pOriance to Towns and Cities.
In the case of the City OF Greenville
against Constable Eichelberger, the
Supreme Court has sustained Judge
Watts, who reduced fine imposed by
Mayor Williams, of Greenvjlle. AS
the matter will prove important to
other towns and cities, summary of
| the views expressed by the members
of the Supreme Court is herewith
, given:
Justice Gary in delivering the opin-
ion Of the court 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, XIX Statute, y. 100, it is Drovid-
ed that Tho Mayor and Aldermen of
said city are hereby scvcrally and res
pectlvcly vested with oil the powers of
Trial Justices in this State, with in the
limits OF said city, to try and punish
all persons charged with violation OF
the ordinances OF said city
Under the case of City Council OF
Charleston vs.. Brown, 20 S. E. r., 5G
and the author tiles upon which that
case was decided, it clearly appears
that the Mayor exercised the powers
Of Trial Justice when he tried said
u
which he had the power to inilict was
limited by the ordinance aforesaid.
"SectiOn 66, Code Of Criminal Pro-
cedure, provides that, Every person
convicted before Trial Justice of any
Oifcnse whatever and sentenced may
appeal 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
prescribed.'
"Section II provides that the said
appeal shall be heard by the Court Of
General Sessions upon the grounds of
exception made and upon the papers
hcrcinbeforc required, and without the
examination OF witnesses in said court
And the said court may either confirm
the sentence appealed from, reverse or
modify the same or grant II new trial,
as the said court may seem meet and
conformable to law
" IT. thus appears that the statute in
express terms cOnfers upon the Circuit
Judge the power to modify the sentence
appealed from. The only limitation
upon his power is that it must be, as
to the said court may seem meet and
conf0rmable to law
"There is certainly nothing in the
case showing that the modification
OF the sentence by the Circuit Judge
did notsccm to him meet and conform
able to law
cit is the Judgment Of this court
that the order appealed from be con
firmed."
Justice Pope flies !. separate opinion
giving his reasons as follows for sus-
tanning Judge Watts:
"After quoting the section in refer,
encc TO appeals to the Circuit Court
says: This section shows very plainly
that the Legislature Of this State ncv.
er intended to give such unlimited
powers 10 these officials as would en-
able them to impose sentences upor
persons charged before them with in
traction of city ordinances out OF all
proportion to the oifcnses us made on
by the testimony; in other words tt
clothc them with unbridlcd discretion
as to their sentences.
Judge Watts had all the testimon,
before him and he but exercised one
OF the rightful powers of his higl
0ifice when he reduced this sentence
Ii the testimony convinced him tha
The Mayors sentence was excessive
agree with Mr.. Justice Gary tha
the judgment below should be af
lirmed."
The Chief Justice disscnts to bot,
J views and his reasons are given in par
as follows:
Even conceding that the Mayor wa.
acting rs q Trial Justice Ia matter
, which may admit OF question: and tina
in appeals from q Trial Justice, the
Court of Sessions may either confirm
the sentence appealed from, reverse o,
modify the same, or grant new trial
rs to the said court may seem NEE
and conformablc to law yet | do no
think the language quoted can be prop
crly construed as comforting righ
OF appeal from the exercise Of mere
discretion by the inferior tribuna
: within the limits prescribed by law
, The we'll settled rule undoubtedly il
that there is no appeal from the cxcr
, else OF discretion conferred upon TIL,
t tribunal from which an appeal i
sought to be taken. Indeed, do no
: see how the exercise of discrctiO
can afford any ground for appeal 70
0 as Is said in the case just cited: 1
= ia hound by no rnle except the goo