
    William Rowe, Esq. Sheriff of Orangeburgh District, ads. The State.
    
      Columbia,
    
    
      Nov. 1804.
    The govern* or’s pardon will not discharge the moiety of a fine for negro-killing, -which goes to the informer, although he may remit the moiety which goes to the state;
    THIS was a case upon a rule on the sheriff of Orange-burgh district, to shew cause why he had not paid over the moiety of a fine for killing a negro by undue correction, 25/* sterling to the informer who carried on the prosecution against a defendant, one yames Kelly, who had been convicted of the offence.
    In this case the defendant Kelly had been convicted of the above offence by a Jury of Orangeburgh district, and fined by the court 50/. sterling, agreeably to the terms of the negro act; one moiety whereof goes to the state, and the other to the prosecutor or informer. The solicitor, Mr. Colcock, had directed the clerk of the district court to issue an execution to the sheriff, for levying and collecting this fine, together with the costs of the prosecution. The sheriff upon being called upon by this rule to shew cause why the money had not been collected and paid over for the use of the state, and also to the informer, agreeably to the act, produced the governor’s pardon for the whole, as well for the share or moiety which went to the informer* as for the other moiety, which went over to the state; when the presiding Judge (Bat) made the rule absolute against the sheriff, as to the moiety which went to the informer, and all the costs and charges, on the ground that the governor had no right to intermeddle with the moiety which went to the prosecutor, any more than he had to release money received on a bond or note, by a third person, in the court of common pleas.
    This was therefore amotion to reverse the decision of the circuit court at Orangeburgh, and to discharge the rule against the sheriff. When, after due consideration, the judges were unanimously of opinion, that the governor had no right to remit any fine or forfeiture specifically appropriated, or otherwise directed by law. That the 7th section of the 2d article of the constitution of the state, was express and positive on the subject. The words are, “ he shall have power to grant, reprieves and pardons, &c.j&c. and to remit lines and forfeitures, unless otherwise directed by law.” These latter words are restrictive of the powers given to the governor on this head, and interdict him from remitting or interfering with any fine or forfeiture whatever, given by law, or appropriated or set apart for any specific purpose whatever; but they leave him at liberty to remit and discharge all unappropriated fines and forfeitures which he may think proper.
    With regard to the fees due to the officers of the court, they were vested rights by law, as much as the moiety of the fine to the informer or prosecutor, and equally beyond the reach of the governor’s power of resmsdon or releasing.
   The rule to reverse the decision of the circuit court was therefore discharged, and the rulé against the sheriff of Orangeburgh confirmed, to pay over the moiety of the fine, gSi. sterling to the prosecutor, and all the costs of the pro» secution to the officers of the court.

N. B. This article in our constitution is conformable to the old principles of the common law, which allows the king' the right of pardoning forfeitures, &c. but not so as to affect private rights properly vested in third persons by law. The crown cannot defeat an interest legally created, 2 Duma ÍS* East, 569«  