Case Name: J. M. Gilchrist vs. J. Edwards
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1845-01
Citations: 1 Rich. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. M. Gilchrist vs. J. Edwards.
Judges: O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Frost, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 191–191

Head Matter:
J. M. Gilchrist vs. J. Edwards.
Where a suggestion of fraud under the prison bounds Act, is tried by a jury, before-the clerk, under the Act of 1833, the party prevailing is not entitled to enter up judgment and issue execution for attorney’s and witnesses’s costs." The only costs allowed are clerk’s and sheriff’s costs.
Before Wardlaw, J. at Charleston, Spring Term,, 1844.
A suggestion of fraud bad been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under the prison bounds Act. ' It was tried by freeholders before the clerk, under the Act of 1833, (6 Stat. 491,) and the defendant acquitted. This was a rule on the clerk to shew cause why he had refused to allow the defendant to enter up judgment and issu.e execution for attorney’s and witnesses’ costs. Upon the return of the clerk stating the facts, his Honor discharged the rule. The defendant appealed.
Kunhardt. for the motion.
Cited 2 McC. 21; Hullock L. of costs, 139, 333.
Magrath, contra.
Cited 10 Wend. 420; 7 Cowen, 537.
Hunt, in reply.
The fee bill is sufficiently large to cover the case. The Act does not refer to any court, but merely provides that for a plea so much shall be allowed, for a witness so much, i&e. Why should this court be excluded ?

Opinion:
Curia, per
Wardlaw, J.
This case is very different from those which have been decided allowing costs upon issues tried in the Circuit Court, which are followed by a judgment of that court. Here was a trial before an inferior tribunal, and the 3d. Sect, of the Act of 1833, 6 Stat. 492, provides fees for the commissioner of special bail and sheriff, and directs the commisioner to issue execution for them. There is not. only a want of authority for other costs, but a strong implication that no others shall be allowed. The motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Evans, Butler and Frost, JJ. concurred.