Case Name: McKNIGHT v. DYSON
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-04-24
Citations: 91 S.C. 337
Docket Number: 8192
Parties: McKNIGHT v. DYSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
8192
McKNIGHT v. DYSON.
1. New Trial—Magistrate Court.—Granting a new trial, by Circuit Court on appeal from magistrate court is not a case in which this Court can render judgment absolute, and hence not appealable.
2. Appeal—Ibid.—The Circuit Court on appeal from magistrate court has no authority to direct, on ordering a new trial, how plaintiff should conduct his case or how he should examine his witnesses.
Before DeVorE, J., Sumter, April, 1911.
Modified.
Action by H. D. McKnight against W. J. Dyson and C. D. Dyson in court of Magistrate Horace Harley. From Circuit order plaintiff appeals.
Mr. L. D. Jennings, for appellant,
cites: Witness only called and sworn is not subject to cross-examination: 58 S. C. 75; 43 Ala. 406; 14 Ark. 555. If there be error in refusing cross-examination it is cured by party calling witness as his own: 61 S. C. 292.
Mr. J. H. Clifton, contra.
Oral argument.
April 24, 1912.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an 'appeal from an order of the Circuit Court, granting a new trial in a case, in which a magistrate had rendered judgment. This is not a case in which this Court can render judgment absolute, and, therefore, the order is not appealable. Lampley v. A. C. L. Ry., 77 S. C. 319, 57 S. E. 1104; Pace & Co. v. A. C. L. Ry., 83 S. C. 33, 64 S. E. 915; DesChamps v. A. C. L. Ry., 83 S. C. 192; 65 S. E. 176; Dixon v. S. A. L. Ry., 83 S. C. 393, 65 S. E. 351; Jones v. Woodside Cotton Mills, 83 S. C. 565, 65 S. E. 819; Barker v. Thomas, 85 S. C. 82, 67 S. E. 1.
There are exceptions assigning error also, on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in ordering "that upon any future trial of this case, it is the duty of the magistrate trying the case, to call the witness, Abraham Davis, for examination and cross-examination, before the plaintiff closes in chief."
It was error for the Circuit Judge, to undertake to direct the manner, in which the plaintiff should conduct his case and examine his witnesses. The exceptions raising this question are, therefore, sustained.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is modified.