
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1806.
    Collier v. Rogers.
    Plaintiff sued defendant before a justice of the peace, on a note for twenty dollars; on defendant’s alleging that the note was for an unsound horse, the justice, supposing that he had not jurisdiction to try the defence, awarded judgment against him for the amount of the note with costs. Held, that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace extends to twenty dollars, but not beyond that sum.
    Motion in arrest of judgment. Appeal from the decision of a justice of peace, tried in Abbeville district, before Brevard, J. The plaintiff had sued the defendant in the court of a justice of peace on a note of hand for twenty dollars. The defendant, in his defence, alleged that the note was given for an unsound horse, and -.that he had been cheated in the contract. ' The justice of peace conceiving that he had not jurisdiction to try the defence, awarded judgment against the defendant for twenty dollars, fifty-nine cents, and costs : whereupon, the defendant appealed ; and the following grounds of appeal were insisted on : 1. That the justice had not jurisdiction to the extent of the plaintiff’s demand. 2. That if he had, yet the defence set up, being the matter which concerned the contract, and the foundation of it, was within his-jurisdiction, and that he ought to have examined into, and decided on it. Upon the hearing of this appeal, the presiding judge was of opinion the justice had jurisdiction to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand, and that he was not authorized to take cognizance of the defence setup against it; and confirmed the decision of the justice.
    The motion in this court was argued by Dozier, for the defendant; and Gantt, for the plaintiff.
    To shew what jurisdiction a justice of peace had, the following acts were referred to: — A. A. 1747, P. L. 213, gave justices of peace jurisdiction in all cases, where the debt, or damages demanded, did not exceed £20 current money. The County Court act reduced the jurisdiction of justices of peace to 20s. sterling. P. L. 385. A. A. 178C, P. L. 400, extended the jurisdiction to £5, in matters of debt liquidated by bond, note, or other acknowledgment in writing; leaving the jurisdiction in other matters as- before, with right of appeal where the subject in dispute was above 20s. A. A. 1787, reduced the jurisdiction to the trial of all cases of debt not exceeding £3, with right of appeal to the County Courts. A. A. 1788, P. L. 454, the jurisdiction was extended to all cases of debt not exceeding £5. The State constitution was established the 3d June, 1790, the 6th section of the 9th article of which declares, that the trial by jury as heretofore used in this State, shall be forever inviolably pre- , served. The 2d section.of the same article declares, that no freeman 0f th¡s State shall be imprisoned or disseized of his freehold liberties, or privileges, &c., or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. The amendment to the 9th article of the constitution of the United States declares, that “ in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
    It was contended for the defendant, that at the time of the adoption of the above amendment to the Federal constitution, (1789,) although justices of peace had jurisdiction as high as £5, in that part of the State where County Courts were established, and to 20s. currency, about £3 sterling, in other parts of the State, where County Courts were not established, yet the constitution of the United States reduced the jurisdiction, where it exceeded twenty dollars, to that sum ; and that the State constitution, which secures the right of trial by jury, as used before the time of the adoption thereof, ought to be construed to relate to the general privilege before the establishment of County Courts, which increased the jurisdiction of justices in a particular part of the State, and not generally; and, therefore, that this jurisdiction was limited by the constitution to £3, (20s. currency.)
    On the other side, it was insisted, that inasmuch as a single magistrate might, when the State constitution was adopted, have exercised jurisdiction in any matter of contract not exceeding in value £5 sterling, in any part of the State where County Courts were established, (which comprehended the largest portion of the State,) and as the constitution must have been construed, immediately after its adoption, to sanction the exercise of this power, which at that time did not violate the right of trial by jury, therefore, the constitution must still have relation to the circumstances which then existed, and cannot be construed to forbid the exercise of the same power, if allowed by the legislature : and if it is not forbidden by the constitution to give justices of peace jurisdiction to the amount of £5, any where in the State, there can be no impropriety in extending it to all justices of peace, wherever situated in the State. That the legislature had thought so, since the adoption of the constitution, for by A. A. of December, 1791, it is declared, “ That all justices of the peace, where County Courts are not established, shall have the same jurisdiction that justices of the peace have «* u a where County Courts are established.” But at any rate, the justice of peace in the case under consideration had' jurisdiction to £5, for he acted in a part of the State where County Courts had been established. As to the constitution of the United States, it cannot be construed to apply to this case, but must be confined in its application to cases arising in the Federal Courts.
    
      Note. In the above case of Collier v. Rogers, the A A. of 1799, which established the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in all matters of debt, or other demand arising from contract (but in no other case) throughout the State to the extent of twenty dollars, (in conformity with the amendment of the constitution of the United State ,) was not brought to the notice of the district court when the question of jurisdiction was agitated therein; and,'therefore, the decision was made without reference thereto; otherwise, the determination of the district court would have been conformably to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, as concurred in by Waties, Bay, and Tkezevakt, Justices. For it seems to me, that as before the adoption of the State constitution, a justice of peace had jurisdiction in matters of debt (and a note of hand constituted a specialty by the County Court act of 1784,) to the amount of £5 in the largest portion of the State, it was competent for the legislature (after the adoption of the constitution) to reduce the jurisdiction, or extend it to £5, in any part of the State. As to the defence set up, although intimately connected with the contract upon which the demand of the plaintiff arose, it could not be within the jurisdiction of the justice; for by A. A. February, 1791, justices of the peace are expressly prohibited from trying any causes which sound in damages, or any action arising merely from tort, and not from contract. If they are forbidden to take original and direct cognizance of such causes of complaint, I think they cannot take cognizance indirectly of such causes of complaint, or where they arise collaterally or incidentally. This opinion (as to the first point) is now finally settled by the case •of Melton v. Ellison’s administrators.
   At Columbia, November, 1806,

all the judges present.

Waties, J.,

delivered the opinion of himself, Bay, and Tkezevakt, Justices, that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace extends to twenty dollars, and not beyond, and consequently, that the motion should be granted. Gkimke, J., adhered to his opinion in the case of White v. Kendrick, (vide vol. 1, 469.) Wilds, J., was of opinion the jurisdiction of a justice of peace ought to be restrained to 20s., old currency, or £3 sterling; — the right of trial by jury being secured by the constitution in all cases above that value, in that part of the State where County Courts were not established.  