O'Shields v. Caldwell

• Decision Date: 05 April 1946
• Docket Number: 15824.
• Citation: 37 S.E.2d 665,208 S.C. 245
• Parties: O'SHIELDS et al. v. CALDWELL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

37 S.E.2d 665

208 S.C. 245

O'SHIELDS et al. v. CALDWELL et al.

No. 15824.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 5, 1946

J. Fred McLure, of Union, and Osborne, Butler &amp Moore, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

P D. Barron, J. R. Flynn, and MacBeth Young, all of Union, and Daniel & Russell, of Spartanburg, for respondents.

E. H. HENDERSON, Acting Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of Circuit Judge Steve C. Griffith in which he refused the plaintiffs' motion for a change of venue of the action. The motion was made upon the grounds that the plaintiffs could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in Union County, and that there is reason so to believe. Code, sections 35 and 426(2).

The case has been here once before. 207 S.C. 194, 35 S.E.2d 184. It was then determined that the Union County act of March 11 1943, 43 St. at Large, p. 1088, authorizing the paying out of certain funds, was unconstitutional. When the case comes on for trial before a jury an important question will be whether the county treasurer acted in good faith and with due care in disbursing public funds under a statute which was thereafter found to be unconstitutional.

At the hearing of the motion before the Circuit Judge the plaintiffs presented affidavits setting forth that many of the county officers, beneficiaries under the act of 1943, are antagonistic to the claim of the plaintiffs; that their influence and prestige is great; that the action is opposed by almost all the office holders of the county, with their power and popularity; that the question is involved in a political issue; and that a fair trial can not be had.

The defendant, Caldwell, strongly urged the valuable and substantial right of a defendant to have his case tried in the county of his residence, where his character is known by the jurors, especially in view of the issue of his good faith. Such right is of course subject to a change of venue on proper grounds. The defendants presented many affidavits denying that the political prestige, power, and influence of the county officers is such that a fair and impartial trial can not be had in Union County; and stating that there has been very little discussion of the case; that very few prospective jurors know anything about it; that there is no political sentiment or feeling among the citizens or possible jurors which would prevent a fair trial; that the atmosphere of the court house would not be hostile to the plaintiffs; and that an honest and unbiased jury can be obtained without any difficulty.

Judge Griffith, a full consideration of the affidavits, stated in his order that he was convinced that a fair and impartial trial can be had in Union County, and that the showing to that effect is far stronger than the showing made by the plaintiffs.

On motions for change of venue on this ground the facts are usually quite variant. Scarcely any two cases are exactly...