¶1The only ground for the prohibition in this case, was the want of a written lease. The magistrates in answer to the rule to show cause, merely certified their proceedings, and require the court to determine the question upon a view of these proceedings. They do not shew that there was any written lease, nor was it even pretended. Indeed the return was a tacit acknowledgment that the allegation in the suggestion was true. The prohibition, therefore, was properly granted; for magistrates have no such jurisdiction, except where there is a written lease. The motion must, therefore, be rejected.
7 S.C.L. 762
Martin v. McMurphy
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 15, 1816
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1816-04-15
-^u^e to shew cause why a prohibition to stay the proceedings of certain magistrates acting under the act of 1812, for the relief of landlords should not be oTanted. . , In this case there was no written lease, and the court ordered the prohibition.
Decided 1816-04-15