The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1915-06-25
POWERS GRANTED MAGISTRATES
Attorney General Peoples Renders
Decision in Answer to Letter
From Magistrate Prayer.
Columbia Record, 23rd.


H. Peoples, attorney general, a mag
istrate has no authority to either sus-
pend or reduce sentence of convict
ed person, and he further states that
t.ere is a doubt in his mind as to
whether or not a magistrate has any
right whatsoever to grant a new trial
in criminal cases tried before him. "
The opinion was in answer to letter
from Magistrate L. M. Player of New
berry.
The following are excerpts from the
opinion:
"In reply thereto I will say that
can find no statute giving a magis-
trate power to suspend sentence.
By the act OF 1912, page 773, the cir
cult judges are empowered to suspend
sentence in certain cases, but this
does not apply to magistrates.
Further answering your letter, I
will say tat ip my opinion a magis-
trate has no power to reduce 4 SEN
tence that is imposed by hin: Such
power is only vested in the governor,
as will be noted by reference to Sec
ton 9S8 of the criminal code Of 1912.
GAS to your right to reopen the
case or grant new trial on after
discovered evidence, l will say that
at this time you clearly have no right
or authority to do SO; in fact, there
is doubt in my mind as to Whether or
not magistrate has any right what
soever to grant new trial in crimi-
nal cases tried before him. There is
nothing in the criminal code giving a
magistrate such right. The right Of
appeal is allowed and by section SO
of the criminal code circuit courts are
empowered to grant new trials in Ger
tain criminal cases, but this section
does not apply to magistrates.
"The only authority by which mag
istrates would have to grant a new
trial is contained in subdivisions II
and 18 Of section 81 of the code of
civil procedure. These sections en-
power magistrates to grant new trials
for reasons for which new trials have
been usually granted in the courts of
law in this State; but, at the same
time provide that no motion for new
trial shall be heard unless made with
in five days after the rendering of the
judgment.
"If we take it for granted that the
sections of the law just quoted apply
to criminal cases, a magistrate would
have no power or authority to grant
new trial on after-discovered evil
dence, or any reason whatsoever, after
the expiration of the five days. This
question has been clearly and definite
ly decided by an opinion of the South
Carolina supreme court, rendered by
Mr.. Justice McIver in the case Of
Sans VS.. Hoover, 33 S. c., 4O1, in
which the court said that the proce-
dure sought in that case could not
have availed the defendant anything
as the time limited for making mo-
ton for a new trial before the trial
Justice upon any ground had already
expired. The power of trial justice
to grant new trial for any cause be-
ing derived solely from the statute
which limits the time within which
such power may be exercised, We do
not see how any court could disregard
such limitation. This may be very
unfortunate, as the alleged new eVl-
dence may not be discovered until
after the expiration of the time pre-
scribed by statute within which mo-
ton for new trial before trial JUS
tice may be made. 1t may be causus
omissus, but this court has neither
the authority nor the disposition to
undertake to supply omissions in a
statute, whether supposed or real"
Gas indicated, further along in the
same opinion, a different rule applies
in the circuit courts where there is no
time limit within which a motion for
a new trial may be made. In the case
of magistrates courts though the mo-
ton must be made within the time
prescribed by the statute.
''In my opinion you had no right
~. ao,o ,,o5a, consideration tn SllS-