State ex. rel. Wilson v. Commissioners of Haul-over Cut

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 491

Syllabus

<p>1. By an Act passed in 1714, (7 Stat. 475,) certain persons on the S, E. side of Edisto, and all the inhabitants on Bohicket creek, on John’s Island, to the plantation of “a person named,” are required to work on Haul-over cut. In 1721, (9 Stat. 53,) the laws relating to roads and cuts were reduced into one Act, and again the Legislature designated the persons who were to work on this Cut, but described them as “all the inhabitants making use of the said Cut or Creek to come to Charleston, residing on and near Bohicket creek.” In 1751, an Act was passed for opening Watts’s Cut, on the western side of Edisto Island, by which a portion oí those living on Edisto Island, who, before, were liable to work on Haul-over, were required to work on Watts’s cut. In the Act of 1754, (7 Stat. 509,) the cutting, cleansing and keeping in repair the Cut or Creek called the Haul-over, is recited as a burthen on those of the inhabitants “obliged to do the same.” To remedy this grievance, the Act of 1754 was passed, by which the district on Edisto, whose inhabitants were in future to work on Haul-over Cut, was enlarged, but as to the inhabitants living on and near Bohicket creek, using precisely the same terms as in the Act of 1721.</p> <p>2. The relators both resided near the head of Bohicket creek, but neither used Haul-over Cut in coming to Charleston. Under the construction of these Acts, the Court were of opinion, that the relators were not liable to work on this Cut, and having been fined for neglecting to do so, by the Commissioners of the Cut, it was held that prohibition to restrain the warrant of distress, for the collection of the same, was properly ordered.</p>