State v. Higgins

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMcIVER
Citation51 S.C. 51,28 S.E. 15
Decision Date23 October 1897
PartiesSTATE v. HIGGINS.

28 S.E. 15
51 S.C. 51

STATE
v.
HIGGINS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 23, 1897.


Constitutional Law—Unjust Discriminations— Special Laws—Game—Arrest—Warrant.

1. Acts 1896, No. 98, prohibiting fishing for profit in two counties by citizens of other counties without license, and without limitation upon the fishing rights of residents of such two counties, is an unjust discrimination, and repugnant to Const, art. 1, § 5, providing that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the law.

2. Pish should be classed with "game, " within the meaning of that word as used in Const, art. 3, § 34, prohibiting the enactment of special laws for the protection of game.

3. Acts 1896, No. 98, making it unlawful for a citizen of one county to fish for profit in the waters of another county without license from said county, and limiting the provisions of the act to two counties, is a special law, and repugnant to Const, art. 3, § 34, subd. 11, prohibiting the enactment of special laws where a general law can be made applicable.

4. Where, from the papers accompanying the sheriff's return to a writ of habeas corpus, and referred to in his return, it is manifest that the warrant under which defendant was arrested was not supported by oath or affirmation, the arrest will be held illegal, under Const, art. 1, § 16, forbidding the issuing of any warrant except when supported by oath or affirmation.

Habeas corpus by Peter Higgins. Prisoner discharged.

Huger Sinkler, for petitioner.

C. P. Townsend, for the State.

McIVER, C. J. This was an application, addressed to this court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, by the defendant for a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the sheriff's return to the writ that the defendant was committed to his custody "by virtue of an order of arrest for the violation of Act No. 98, Laws of 1896, in that, being a citizen of the county of Charleston, he did catch fish for profit in the waters of Berkeley county, to me directed, a copy of which annexed I transmit to you." The only question made at the argument of the case was whether the act mentioned was in violation of the constitution. It was contended on the part of the defendant that the act in question violated two of the provisions of the constitution which went into effect "from and after the thirty-first day of December in the year of eighteen hundred and ninety-five." These two provisions are: First, section 5 of article 1, which reads as follows: "The privileges and immunities of citizens of this state and of the United States under this constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws;" second, section 34 of article 3, which con.

[28 S.E. 16]

tains, among others, the following provisions: "The general assembly of this state, shall not enact local or special laws concerning any of the following subjects or for any of the following purposes, to wit: * * * To provide for the protection of game. (2) In all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Mills Mill v. Hawkins, No. 17312
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 19, 1957
    ...shall remain unaffected by this chapter'. We are not concerned here with inquiry as to whether, as was indicated in State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L.R.A. 561, Article III, Section 34, Subdivision IX prohibits enactment of a special law on a subject as to which a general law wo......
  • Ex Parte Hollman.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1908
    ...are imprisoned without authority of law. While the point was not discussed, this must have been the view of the court in State v. Higgins, 51 S. C. 51, 28 S. E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561, and Ex parte Keeler, 45 S. C. 537, 23 S. E. 865, 31 L. R. A. 678, 55 Am. St. Rep. 785, for the court consider......
  • McDowell v. State, No. S-2732
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 22, 1989
    ...residents of the territory embraced in the legislation. Hayes v. Territory, 2 Wash.T. 286, 5 Pac. 927. In the cases of State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L.R.A. 561, and Harper v. Galloway, 58 Fla. 255, 51 South. 226, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 794, 19 Ann.Cas. 235, the question here involv......
  • Harper v. Galloway
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 10, 1910
    ...county the equal protection of the laws of the land and such section 8 is inoperative as to residents of this state. State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561. See, also, In re Ah Chong (C. C.) 2 Fed. 733, 6 Sawy. 451; Ex parte Knapp, 127 Cal. 101, 59 P. 315. In the case of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Mills Mill v. Hawkins, No. 17312
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 19, 1957
    ...shall remain unaffected by this chapter'. We are not concerned here with inquiry as to whether, as was indicated in State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L.R.A. 561, Article III, Section 34, Subdivision IX prohibits enactment of a special law on a subject as to which a general law wo......
  • Ex Parte Hollman.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1908
    ...are imprisoned without authority of law. While the point was not discussed, this must have been the view of the court in State v. Higgins, 51 S. C. 51, 28 S. E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561, and Ex parte Keeler, 45 S. C. 537, 23 S. E. 865, 31 L. R. A. 678, 55 Am. St. Rep. 785, for the court consider......
  • McDowell v. State, No. S-2732
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • December 22, 1989
    ...residents of the territory embraced in the legislation. Hayes v. Territory, 2 Wash.T. 286, 5 Pac. 927. In the cases of State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L.R.A. 561, and Harper v. Galloway, 58 Fla. 255, 51 South. 226, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 794, 19 Ann.Cas. 235, the question here involv......
  • Harper v. Galloway
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 10, 1910
    ...county the equal protection of the laws of the land and such section 8 is inoperative as to residents of this state. State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 28 S.E. 15, 38 L. R. A. 561. See, also, In re Ah Chong (C. C.) 2 Fed. 733, 6 Sawy. 451; Ex parte Knapp, 127 Cal. 101, 59 P. 315. In the case of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT