
    The State ex relatione J. Jenkins v. Commissioners of Roads of St. Bartholomew’s Parish.
    Persons required By law to work on Watt’s Cut, (Edisto Island,) are not exempt from ordinary road duty.
    The Road Act of 1825, (A. A. p. 29,) repeals all previously existing exemptions.
    The commissioners of roads have power to impose and collect fines of twenty dollars, hut no more.
    The Commissioners are authorized (A. A. 1825, sec. 12,) to assess, in certain cases, to a larger amount, But no mode of collecting is prescribed.
    Before Earle, J., at Colleton, Spring Term, 1839.
    The relator moved for a prohibition to restrain the Commissioners from collecting a fine of thirty-two dollars, imposed upon him for not making a return of his male slaves. The grounds taken in his suggestion were, 1. That the Commissioners had not jurisdiction to impose a fine exceeding twenty dollars; 2. That, by several ancient Acts of the Legislature, his hands were required to work on Watt’s Cut, and exempted from working on any other highway. (A. A, 1738, 1851, 1854, P. L. 156, 224, 237.)
    The Court overruled the relator’s second ground, but sustained his exception to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, and granted the writ of prohibition. From this decision both parties appealed.
    
      
       1721, 9 Stat. 54, § 17; 1738, P. L. 156, omitted in Stat. at Large; 1741, 9 Stat. 129, § 9; 1751, 9 Stat. 162, §§ 1, 2; 1754, P. L. 237, omitted in Stat. at Large; 1788, 9 Stat. 309, §§ 6, 7 ; 1795, 9 Stat. 368 ; 1807, 9 Stat. 426. An.
      
    
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.,

held that the exemption claimed by the relator was not authorized by the terms of the Acts referred to, and, at all events, that any such exemption was done away, as well by the general enactment, as by the repealing clause of the Road Act of 1825, (p. 29.) On the question of jurisdiction, the Court said:

It is equally clear, in the opinion of the Court, that the Commissioners have no authority to issue an execution for any fine or penalty exceeding twenty dollars. By the A. A. 1825, each Board of Commissioners was constituted a Court, for the trial of persons charged with any default, for which fine or penalty was imposed by that Act, not exceeding twenty dollars; and their power to award execution was expressly limited to the same amount. By A. A. 1826, sec. 27, (p. 31,) the section of the Act of 1825 just referred to, was repealed, but the same authority to hear and determine in cases of default, when the fine, penalty, or forfeiture does not exceed twenty dollars, was conferred on three Commissioners, who were likewise empowered to issue execution therefor. Their jurisdiction is expressly limited to twenty dollars, and they cannot impose any larger sum. In what manner the Commissioners shall proceed to enforce the road laws when the fines and penalties shall' exceed twenty dollars, we are not called upon to decide. The Legislature has' not prescribed any mode of proceeding; and whether the Commissioners shall prosecute by indictment, or bring their action of debt, is left to themselves to determine. And this is rendered the more remarkably by Section 12 of the Act of 1825, which provides that, if any inhabitant shall refuse or neglect to make a return to the Commissioners, of the number of his male slaves, liable to work on the roads, when called on to do so, the Commissioners shall be authorized to make an assessment on such defaulter, of four dollars for each slave so withheld; and they may do this from the best information they may be able to obtain. Such assessment may amount in some instances to a hundred, or several hundred dollars. Yet their decision seems intended to be final and conclusive, for no appeal is allowed. And I suppose they were left without the power to enforce their decision, unless by bringing their action, in order to enable the defaulter to submit, his case to a jury — on the trial of which, I apprehend, the assessment made by the Commissioners would not be gainsaid or controverted. It is a strange anomaly, only pointed out, as in the case of Priester, (supra, p. 103,) to enable those whose province it is to supply a corrective.

See Act of 1841; 11 Stat. 160 ; 5 Rich. 279. An.

As to new Town Cut, 2 Sp. 402 ; 3 Strob. 380. An.

Cam, for the relator;

Clarke, contra.

The Commissioners having made their assessment, had no power to proceed farther; and, in issuing execution for thirty-two dollars, we are constrained to hold with the judge below, that they exceeded their jurisdiction, and that the prohibition was properly awarded, restraining the collection of more than twenty dollars.

The whole Court concurred. 
      
       9 Stat. 560, §10, 566, § 31. Ante, 95. An.
      
     
      
       9 Stat. 570. An.
      
     
      
      
         9 Stat. 560. An.
      
     