
    Martin Roddy vs. John Aitken; Francis O’Neill vs. Same.
    The City Court of Charleston has no jurisdiction in cases of attachment.
    BEFORE HIS HONOR J. AXSON, RECORDER, CHARLESTON, 1837.
    This was a motion to set aside the writs in these cases, on the ground that the City Court of Charleston had no jurisdiction in cases of attachment. To sustain the motion, the case of Tolman vs. Thompson, 2 M’Oord, p. 43, was relied on as conlusive authority.
    
      The plaintiffs contended that .'under a proper construction of the several Acts of the Legislature in relation to this tribunal, it bad full power and authority to issue process of attachment- that the reasoning in the case of Tolman vs. Thompson was not satisfactory, and the question decided by it might properly be submitted to the Court of Appeals for its re-consideration.
    His Honor regarded the point as already expressly decided by that case, and granted the motion in both cases.
    The plaintiffs appealed from bis decision, on the following grounds:
    1st. Because a point of practice, although ruled by the Court of Appeals, may be questioned, and again submitted to it for re-consideration ; and more especially where, as in the case of Tolman vs. Thompson, the case made was fictitious.
    2d. Because the case of Tolman vs. Thompson, was ruled upon the erroneous supposition that it was a question of jurisdiction, when, in fact, it was a question of practice only.
    3d. Because the Acts of Assembly of 1801, creating this Court, and those of 1818 and 1821, defining the powers of the Recorder, and the rights of the suitors, are pro tanto virtually repealed by the said case of Tolman vs. Thompson.
    
    4th. Because it is the right of the suitor in the said Court to sue forth the process of attachment, in order to bring into Court bis absconding or absent debtor, whenever such debtor' is liable to the jurisdiction of the said Court.
    5th. Because the defendant in these cases was liable to the jurisdiction of this Court, and absent from the State, and could not be served with ordinary process; all of which could have been proved on the trial of the cases, bad they been suffered to proceed to trial.
    McCready, for appellants.
    
      Yeadon and McBeth, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

This Corrrt has looked into the report of the Recorder, and have referred to the case of Tolman vs. Thompson, 2 McCord, 43, which decides the very point involved in these cases; and not being disposed to review tbat case, the motion in these cases is concluded and is dismissed.  