State v. Duncan
Citation | 22 S.C. 87 |
Parties | STATE v. DUNCAN. |
Decision Date | 21 December 1884 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
STATE
v.
DUNCAN.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 21, 1884.
From an order made by two trial justices discharging a prisoner under a habeas corpus proceeding had before them, an appeal cannot be taken direct to the Supreme Court. MCGOWAN, A. J., dissenting.
This was an appeal by the state direct to this court from an order made by two trial justices of Spartanburg County, discharging the defendant, Worth J. Duncan, who had been brought before them under a writ of habeas corpus, he being in the custody of the sheriff, charged with breach of trust with fraudulent intent. The order of discharge bears date February 2, 1884. The only question considered by the court not having been raised by exception or in argument, a fuller statement of the case is unnecessary.
Mr. Solicitor Duncan, for appellant.
Mr. J. S. R. Thomson, contra.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MR. JUSTICE MCIVER.This is an appeal on behalf of the state from the order of two trial justices discharging the defendant without day, who had been brought before them under the provisions of the habeas corpus act. It appeared from the return to the writ that the defendant was in custody under a warrant of commitment for breach of trust with a fraudulent intent.
The preliminary question presented in this case is whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The
[22 S.C. 88]
constitution (art. IV., § 4) provides as follows: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases of chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such regulations as the general assembly may by law prescribe.” Now, as it is manifest that this is not a “case of chancery,” and as the constitution does not confer jurisdiction upon this court for the correction of errors at law in general terms, but only “under such regulations as the general assembly may by law prescribe,” it is necessary to ascertain what regulations the general assembly has by law prescribed, under which this court has power to correct errors at law. These regulations are to be found in section 11 of the code of 1882, which provides as follows: “The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review upon appeal: 1. Any intermediate judgment, order, or decree, involving the merits in actions commenced in the Courts of Common Pleas and General Sessions, brought there by original process, or removed there from any inferior courts or jurisdiction, and final judgments in such actions,” &c., the remainder of the section being immaterial to the present inquiry.
Now, as these regulations provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial