
    
      The State, ex rel. of J. Harrison, vs. Jeremiah Cockrell, acting as Sheriff of Fairfield district.
    
    Where a sheriffs election has not been contested before a court of managers, an information will not lie, to oust him of his office, on the ground that the election was held two days instead of one.
    The validity of such an election must, in every case, in the first instance; be decided by a court of managers; and their decision, on questions of fact, will be final, though on questions of law it may perhaps be corrected.
    
      Before EvaNS, J. at Chambers, Columbia, May, 1845.
    Motion for leave to file an information against the defendant, to inquire by what authority he exercised the office of sheriff of Fairfield district.
    The report of his Honor is as follows.
    “Some time in August last the clerk of the court, under the Act of 1839, ordered an election for sheriff of Fairfield district. The poll was kept open two days, in the same way as is required for members of the Legislature. At this election the defendant Cockrell had the greatest number of votes; but the election was contested, on various grounds, and among others on the ground that the election was held two days instead of one. The matter was carried before Judge O’Neall, on an application for a mandamus, who decided that the Act of 1839 had not altered the former law as to the number of days on which the election for sheriff should be held, but granted the mandamus on other grounds. Subsequently, another election was held in the same way, and the defendant again had the greatest number of votes. There was no contest, and the managers certified the election, and he was commissioned, and has been in discharge of the duties of his office since October or November last.
    “At the last session the Legislature passed an Act declaring that the intention of the Act of 1839 was, that the election should be held only one day, and this application is now made, I suppose, in consequence of this declaratory Act, with a -view to declare the sheriff’s commission void, on account of this objection to the election.
    “The Act of 1839 is certainly very obscurely worded, and might well receive the interpretation put on it by Judge O’Neall, but in the view I take of the case, it is not necessary I should decide that question, nor the effect of the declaratory Act passed at the last session.
    “The Act provides a tribunal for the decision of all questions in relation to the validity of the election. When there is a protest, the managers are to assemble, and decide the grounds of the protest, and the Act declares that their decision shall be final and conclusive. I have no doubt the managers were competent to decide this question. If the objection was not made according to the provisions of the Act, it cannot be raised in any other form. If it had been, and they had decided it, no appeal would lie from their decision, for none is given by the Act; but on the contrary, the Legislature clearly designed to put an end to all such controversies, by establishing a special tribunal for their decision, with an express declaration that their decision shall be final.
    “Motion refused.”
    The applicant appealed, on the following grounds.
    1. Because the decision of the managers is only final upon questions of fact within the sphere of their authority, and if they err upon questions of law, their errors may be corrected by the superior courts of law.
    
      2. Because if the managers violate the election law in conducting the election, it is void, and their decision in their own favor cannot cure the invalidity of the election.
    3. The election, as conducted in this case, was utterly void, as contrary to law, and the defendant has no legal right to the office he holds.
    Boyce, for the motion.
    McCall, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

It was certainly within the powers of the Legislature to prescribe, by law, the mode in which the validity of all elections shall be decided, and it is clear that this has been done. The 5th section of the. Act of 1839 declares the manner in which one contesting the sheriff’s election shall proceed. Notice must be given, on the last day of the election, of the grounds of exception, and the managers are required to hear and determine the validity of the election, “and their decision shall be final.” No notice was given to the managers, there was no contest, and consequently no decision, and if this motion had been granted, the effect of it would be to substitute a judge.for the court of managers appointed by law to decide. I take it to be clear, that the validity of an election, in all cases, must, in the first instance, be decided by the court of managers duly organized according to law. All questions, whether of law or fact, must be submitted'to this tribunal. Their decision on questions of fact must of necessity be final, as no appeal is given ; but I do not mean to say that their errors in law may not be corrected by certio-rari, or such of the prerogative writs as may be best suited to the case. The effect of granting the rule in this case would be not to correct the errors of the court of managers, but to substitute a judge at chambers in lieu of that tribunal established by law. A judge of the Superior Court may have power to correct the errors of an inferior court, but he has no right to decide, in the first instance, those questions which are within the inferior jurisdiction.

The motion is dismissed. •

RichardsoN, O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred, 
      
      
         11 Stat. 25.
     