Case Name: Thomas Singleton against The Commissioners of the Charleston Tobacco Inspection
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1797
Citations: 2 Bay 105
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Singleton against The Commissioners of the Charleston Tobacco Inspection.
Judges: Present, Burke, Grimke and Bay.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 105–108

Head Matter:
Thomas Singleton against The Commissioners of the Charleston Tobacco Inspection.
Charleston District,
1797.
In cases of HcS'yCb>-" commission ers of tobáceo inspection the gainst an in-spec! or should he «pociiw, and all the witnesses ought to be on oath, that the court may judge of the reasonable grounds of ;t removal from office; otherwise, a mandamus will lie to restore him to office.
UPON a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, to restore the plaintiff to the office of inspector of tobacco, from which he had been removed.
It appeared by the book of proceedings kept by the board oi commissioners, that the plaintiff, Mr. Singleton, had . 1 r 1 • rr r ■ Oi" , been removed from his office of inspector of tobacco, at the Charleston warehouse, which he had held for many years. The charges against him, as appeared by the minutes en-' tered in their book, were three:
1. Drunkenness, so as to be incapable of performing his duty.
2. Passing unmerchantable tobacco.
3. Keeping money in his hands for tobacco sold by him, and not accounting fqr it.
The two first charges were denied, but the third was partly admitted to be true by the plaintiff, to wit: that he had sold tobacco and kept the money in his hands, which he was ready to account for, when called upon for that purpose, by the persons entitled to it.
Thfe commissioners justified their proceedings under the act of the legislature, for regulating the inspection of tobacco in 1785, which authorizes them to “ appoint inspect- “ ors, and in cases of neglect of duty, in not giving proper “ attendance, or any malpractice, to remove them at plea- “ sure, and appoint other fit and proper persons in their “ room and stead.” In pursuance of the powers given them by this act, they alleged, that they had proceeded to call the plaintiff to an account, and to examine witnesses as to the different charges against him, all of which they said Had been proved to their satisfaction ; and therefore it was, that they had removed him from his office, and appointed another in his place.
The plaintiff, in reply, alleged he had been illegally displaced by the commissioners, inasmuch as the charges were not furnished him in writing ; he did not know them till he was called upon to answer them ; there was no time or place mentioned, when and where the supposed malpractices were committed, and that the witnesses on whose testimony he was removed, were not sworn to tell the truth against him. As1 to the third and last charge against him, he insisted the commissioners had no authority to call him to an account about it; for by the act, the inspector is authorized to give small notes, for small parcels of good tobacco sold after the bad is picked out; which notes he is authorized to pay to the holders, when produced after the same is sold and disposed of, and that he has always been ready and willing to account to the holders of such notes, whenever they should be produced.
See the case of Geter v. The Convnis-doners of the Cumpbeihown Tobacco hi-SpdCtioilTOai'C-home3 where all these principles are very fully laid down, in Mag's JRep0 voi. 1. p. 354-Miley's edit.
After hearing arguments for and against this motion, the court held that wherever a statute created an office unknown to the common law, and appointed commissioners to superintend such office, with certain specified powers ; they were bound in the exercise of such powers, to pursue them strictly, and to conform to common law rules, as nearly as possible ; particularly in summary convictions, without the intervention of a jury. That the officer whose conduct was to be inquired into, should have certain specific charges exhibited in writing against him, and a reasonable time allowed him, in every such case to prepare for his defence. All witnesses for and against him, ought to be on oat to declare the truth ; and the substance of such examin.dons should be taken down in writing, in order that the rr urt might be enabled to judge, whether (in case of their proceedings being called in question) they were justifiable or not, in their proceedings. In the case now under consideration, as far as respects the two first charges, these rules were not observed; but the inquiry and examination into the inspector’s conduct, appears to have been precipitate, and none of the witnesses against him were on oath, nor was the substance of their testimony minuted down or taken notice of in their proceedings, that the court might judge whether there were reasonable grounds for his removal or not: and as to the third and last charge, that of not paying over moneys in his hands, arising from the sales of tobacco, he cannot be said to have committed any offence, unless he had refused to pay off some one or other of the small notes to the holders, on demand by them, or their lawful agents made for that purpose.

Opinion:
The rule for the mandamus to issue to the commissioners, to restore the plaintiif, was made absolute.
Present, Burke, Grimke and Bay.