Case Name: Samuel Penning against William Porter
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1817-05
Citations: 1 Mill 396
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Penning against William Porter.
Judges: The other Judges concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
Samuel Penning against William Porter.
The owners of slaves who may be convicted of offences, are not liable to pay the costs of prosecu-
The jurisdiction of a magistrate is exclusive and conclusive to the amountofsix dollars, and no appeallies from the decision, if under that sum.
This was a summary process for the recovery of the sum of four dollars, paid to the defendant through mistake. It appeared on the trial before Mr. Justice CoIcocJc, at Charleston, in - Term, 181 — ■, that the plaintiff’s slave had been prosecuted (before defendant, as a Justice of the quorum) under the act of this State, called the negro act, and was duly convicted and punished. The defendant claimed and received from the plaintiff four dollars, as the costs incurred in the said prosecution, for whieh this process was brought, and a decree for the plaintiff' for the four dollars and costs. A motion is now made to reverse the decree, on the following grounds:
1st. The charge of the said Porter does not exceed the fees allowed by law; and the act establishing the fees of magistrates does not point out any other source from whence the magistrate is to be paid. The owner, therefore, is liable.
2d. That for a sum not exceeding six dollars, Justices of the peace have exclusive and conclusive jurisdiction, and could maintain an action for the recovery of this money.
3d. As the debt was recoverable before a magistrate, the plaintiff is not entitled to any costs, or more than the costs of a magistrate.
Charleston,
May, 1817.
J. P. White, for the motion.
B. F. Hunt, contra.

Opinion:
Colcock, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is very clear that the owners of slaves, convicted of offences, are not liable for the costs of prosecution, and that therefore the had no legal right to demand and receive the four dollars which he did from the plaintiff.
The act of 1799 (1 Brevard, 476) gives to the magistrates jurisdiction in all matters of contract (which is to be considered as embracing as well implied as express contracts) to twenty dollars; and the 5th clause of the act (Brevard, 24) says, where the demand is above si? dollars,, there jnay be an appeal; whence I conclude that the jurisdiction to six dollars is exclusive, and conclusive. This, therefore, in the form of an action for money had and received, was cognizable by a magistrate. It was suggested, however, that the case was brought here because, as it was a matter in which all the magistrates were concerned, they would give judgment for these fees in all cases. I have no doubt that when they shall be informed that it is the unanimous opinion of this Court, that they are not entitled to recover these fees of the owners of slaves convict, that they will not attempt tp enforce the payment of them. But should they do so, the citizen will find a remedy by prohibition, and perhaps by indictment. I am of opinion that the decree be reversed.
The other Judges concurred.