Case Name: William Hasell Gibbes against William Boone Mitchell
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 2 Bay 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Hasell Gibbes against William Boone Mitchell.
Judges: Waties, Bay, Johnson, and BRevahd, for the motion ; GrimKe and Trezevant, against it.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 467–470

Head Matter:
William Hasell Gibbes against William Boone Mitchell.
Columbia,
1802.
All points oi‘ law arising; in the upper di * vision of the state are to lie argued at Co-lambía, and all points of law arising iu the lower parts of the state are to be argued at Charleston.
This is to be considered as a standing rulein future.
DEBT on bond. ■’Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for siew trial.
This was a case tried at yacksonborough, in Colleton district, and brought up and placed upon the. docket or paper of causes for argument at Columbia.
Mr. Simons, of counsel for plaintiff,
moved, that this case should be struck off the docket at Columbia, and transferred to the docket of causes in the court of appeals in Charleston, on the ground, that as Colleton district is' on the sea-coast, in the vicinity of Charleston, the merits of the motion ought to be argued there and not at Columbia.
This case was only important, as the present motion was the means of bringing forward and settling an important point, relative to the administration of justice in this state, which had been frequently agitated, but had still remained undetermined.
It turned upon the construction of the third section of the. tenth article of the constitution, which declares, “ that at “ the conclusion of the circuits, the judges shall meet at “ Columbia, for the purpose of hearing and determining all “ motions for new trials and in arrest of judgment, and all “ points of law which shall be submitted to them there; and “ that from thence they shall proceed to Charleston, to hear “ and determine all motions for new trials and in arrest of “judgment, and all law points which, might be (in like “ manner) submitted to them there.”
This article in the constitution, he concluded, evidently contemplated two places ill the state for the ultimate and final hearing and determining of all disputes, and,to which the citizens of Carolina, in the last resort, were to appeal for justice upon the true construction .of legal principles. This point, he observed, had repeatedly been before the judges, but no ultimate decision had ever yet taken place, and indeed there had been a great diversity of opinion among the gentlemen of the bar upon the subject; some holding they had a right to argue their cases either at Columbia or Charleston, as they pleased, that it was entirely optional with the party appealing from any decision, to carry such case to either of these tribunals, as he thought proper ; others, that the article in the constitution, had in view the convenience of the citizens in the upper and lower divisions of the state, and therefore directed and ordained, that there should be two places in the state for the sitting and holding this court of appeals ; one at Columbia, for the convenience of the suiters in the upper country, and the other at Charleston, for the convenience of suiters in the lower division.
Amidst these conflicting, opinions of parties and their counsel, causes from the upper extremity of the state, had been carried down to Charleston, near three hundred miles, to be argiied; and in like manner, causes from the seacoast had been taken up to Columbia for a final determination, which had occasioned much inconvenience, trouble and expense to suitors, and all others concerned in the causes ; and what made the trouble and inconvenience the greater, was, that the counsel best acquainted with the nature of the merits, seldom could attend at so great a distance to argue the cases, by which means, new counsel on both sides were to be retained and instructed to the great delay, as well as expense of the suitors on each side of the question. For these reasons, he said, it was high time that some determination should be made on the point, that the citizens might know with certainty where their law cases were to be determined.
Mr. Falconer, against the motion,
contended, that as the article in the constitution was silent upon the subject, the citizens had a right of taking their causes, or making their appeals from the inferior courts to either of those grand tribunals of appellate jurisdiction, which they thought pro per ; there was no article in the constitution, he said, to control, or abridge this right or privilege, and therefore the citizens were at perfect liberty to carry them either to Charleston or Columbia, as they thought proper ; and it was not in the power of the judges to refuse to hear any case submitted to them at either place, or to order ov direct the party bringing forward the motion, to transfer or argue it elsewhere.

Opinion:
A majority of the Judges, after hearing the arguments, were of opinion, that they had no authority in the smallest degree to abridge the right of appeal, which every man had to the supreme tribunals of justice in our country ; but at the same time had no doubt, that they had a right to regulate the mode and manner of bringing forward those appellate cases, in the manner most congenial to the spirit and design of the constitution, and the ease and convenience of the citizens in every part of the state.
It was evident, they observed, that this article in the constitution, creating the court of appellate jurisdiction, had in view the ease and convenience of the inhabitants of the upper and lower divisions of the state, by ordaining that this court should be held in two places for the despatch of business. If this had not been the case, the framers of the constitution, would most unquestionably have directed it to be held in some one fixed place where the best libraries were to be found, and the greatest degree of information upon all legal subjects could be procured ; and, however desirable this latter establishment might have been either to the gentlemen of the bar, or even to the judges themselves, they wisely preferred the accommodation of the citizens at large. It was for their benefit and advantage that this arrangement in the administration of justice was originally intended, and it is the duty of the judges to carry this intention into execution as far as it is practicable, and to prevent as much as in their power, the citizens in any case from harassing each other by taking Gauses from the upper coun try to Charleston, or from the lower part of the country up to Columbia for argument, unless by the consent of both parties. They were therefore of opinion, that in future, all the appeal causes in the upper and middle divisions of the state, that is to say, all those arising in the northern, southern, middle and western circuits, should be carried to Columbia for argument, as the most convenient and central place for that purpose ; and that those arising in -the eastern circuit, or lower division of the state, should be taken to Charleston for a final hearing and determin tion, being the most convenient and central position in the lower part of the state ; and that this should be a standing rule and regulation for the bringing up of appeal cases to the constitutional court of appeals in future, unless in cases of mutual agreement to argue them either at Columbia or Charleston, in which case such agreement to be binding on the parties.
It was therefore ordered, that this cause be struck off the docket at Columbia, and transferred to the paper of causes for argument at Charleston.
Waties, Bay, Johnson, and BRevahd, for the motion ; GrimKe and Trezevant, against it.