The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1911-03-29

lowing list Of civil actions, which
have been compromised. The actions
were compromised for the payment
OF money, the amount Of which is
stated opposite the names Of the de-
PENDANTS given below:
Gallagher & Burton, s11,3e5.s4;
Lanahan & Sons. $14,083.46; Grab
fielder & Co., s15,297.17; Roskam-
Gerstley Company, s3,OS6.37; Freld-
Keller Company, s1.5S5; Meyer
Pitts & Co., s3,437.50; Jack Grams
ton Company, sso2.21; American
Bonding Company. $500.
"In several Of the above cases the
defendants had presented claims
against the State, which were disal-
lowed. Such amounts are IN addi-
tion to the amount of moneys to
which reference is above made.
1.-THE Act Of 1910 authorized the
dispensary commission to make set
tlement of such claims.
Power to Offer Only.
Answering your inquiry as to that
part Of the contract entered into be-
tween the State dispensary commits
sion and Anderson, Fielder. Rountree
and Wilson, wherein 1t ia provided
that Anderson, Fielder, Rountree and
Wilson are clothed with. full power,
subject alone to the approval Of the
Attorney General of the State, to Of
fer any Of the parties involved i'm
munity from prosecution, will say:
The power to offer immunity was
given this firm, but tho power to
grant immunity, that is, to refuse to
prosecute, or, In case OF indictment,
to mol pros, was left As the law pro-
yides, in the discretion Of the Attor-
ney General. In View Of this power
Of the Attorney General, this provis-
lon was inserted in the contract.
Whether any person should not be
indicted, or If indicted. should have
the indictment against him, remains
SO far as the contract is concerned,
Just as the law provides.
"The policy Of the State to allow
immunity under the circumstances
may be fairly inferred from the ACT
Of 1905. providing for the inVestlga-
ton of the dispensary, wherein 1t is
provided that no testimony given ss
witnesses before the committee shall
be used against them in criminal
prosecution. This provision OF law
was perpetuated and became a part
Of the law under which the State dis
pensary commission was created.
Acts of 1907, page 1850 So it must
follow, independently of the law CIV
| ing such power to the Attorney Cen
eral, that such Of those whose names
are mentioned above, who testified
before the investigating committee,
or the State dispensary commission,
practically have imm unity under this
Act.
Attorney General Has Discretion.
"But aside from the manifest poll
cy OF the Legislature, as contained IN
| the above mentioned Act, the Attor-
ney General has discretion as TO
when, how and against whom to pro-
ceai in criminal cases. He has the
power to enter nolle prosequ1 .,
virtue Of his Office, independently of
the Court. (Ency. Of Law. %, pages
}275 and 27e. State vs.. Howard, IS
Rich Law, 274. State VS.. Mckee, 1
Bailey, 651). The rule is laid down
in the Mckee case that the prosecut-
ing officer may enter nolle prosequi
at any state Of the proceedings until
the jury are charged; but he cannot
do so afterwards, not at least IN case
of an Indictment for a capital offence,
and If he Is permitted to do so its ef-
feet is the acquittal Of the prisoner.
The above rule is also recognized in
Archbold's Criminal Practice, Vol
ume 1, page BIT.
"In Bishop on Criminal Procedure,
second edition, Volume /, Section
1920, It Is said: If the prosecutor
| In the English practice wishes to
make use Of one Of the defendants
az witness, the Court will permit a
verdict of acquittal to be taken at
once in his case, and thus he will be-
rendered competent. In our own
States the ready method in such cir
cumstances would ordinarily be for
the prosecuting officer to enter a mol
pros as to the defendant whose tes-
timony he wished to use.
"The following rule is laid down by
Bishop, Volume 1, Section 1,o76: In
the United States, where prosecutions
+ are Instituted and carried on by
public prosecutor, who acts directly
for the Government and protects Its
interests, there Is an evident propri-
ETY. in considering it to be within the
exclusive discretion Of this officer to
determine whether or not an accom-
plice should be permitted to turn
States evidence, as it Is sometimes
expressed with us, and whether, II ne
does, he Is afterward entitled 70 De no
further prosecuted by reason OF what
! is thus done.
ut !s not easy to say what. in act,
is the practice on this point in all the
States, but it is believed that, III
most of them, the prosecuting offlcer
acts In such eases upon his own dis
cretion, which is little, If at all, con-
trolled by the Courts.
Authorities Cited.
eThat the discretion is reposed IN
the prosecuting officer independently
of the Court in this State is shown IN
the Mckee case and others hereinaf-
te. referred to. In the case of Rog-
ers VS.. Hill, % R. l.. page 49S, it IS
said: "The practice of entering a
nolle proseoui to infornations is
very ancient, but to indictments it be-