About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Transcript 1 (1972-1973)

handle is hein.barjournals/tscb0017 and id is 1 raw text is: A News Publication of The South Carolina Bar Association JUDICIAL REFORM It's amazing what good hard work, long hours, intestinal fortitude and faith in a cause can do. Sonic three odd years ago when Stumpy McLeod appointed the Ad to #: Committee on Judicial Reform, 1 don't believe any of us thougit so much could be accomplished in such a short period of time. Judici-0 Reform in other states appears to have required anywhere from 15 to 100 years for its accomplish- ment. The Ad lloe Committee, consisting of Ilarold Jacobs, Jay McKay and Claude Scarborough went to the Chief Justice as Chairmen of the Judicial Council to get official approval of the project. The Chief Justice and all of the justices and judges of South Carolina gave their whole-hearted support. This resulted in the application for funds from the Law Enforcement As- sistance Administration, the creation of the Judicial Reform Committee of the Ju- dicial Council, the search for and ulti- mate selection of an organization equipped to conduct the comprehensive study nec- essary to determine the areas in which judicial reform were needed and a com- prehensive study by the Committee of our Constitutional provisions and the proposed revisions. The Institute of Judicial Administra- tion undertook the study of our court sys- tem and their exhaustive report makes fascinating reading for anyone involved in the administration of justice in South Carolina. As a 'estilt of the sttdy, it be- came apparent that South Carolina needed a flexible Judicial Article of the Constitti- tion which wotld permit our court system to keep pace with the constantly shifting case loads in the several counties and the rapidly changing growth and population now occurring in sonic areas of the State. The study disclosed those areas of the State which had court terms prescribed by statute which were seldom used, and other areas of the State where there was a backlog of cases bet.,tse inadequate terms of Court had been provided. It showed a lack of uniformity in the records system used in the Courthouses throughout the State. In order to permit the Courts of South Carolina to operate as a single sys- tem, it appeared necessary that a single agency should have authority over the cn- tire system and be responsible for its ef- ficient operation. Logically, this agency should be the Supreme Court with exec- uitive authority vested in the Chief Jus- tice. It followed that it would be necessary to have an Administrator operating tinder the Chief Justice to supervise the adminis- trative functions of tle court system. It was obvious that wide popular support would be necessary to enact a new, flexi- ble Article of the Constitution. For this reason, the Committee on Judicial Re- form convened a Citizen's Conference for Modernization of South Carolina Courts in Columbia in March of 1972. One htn- dred and fifty leading laymen and lay women from all parts of the state and all walks of life were invited to this three day meeting. Distinguished experts from other parts of the country were brought to ex- plain the concept of judicial reform at this meeting. An outgrowth was the creation of a citizens group known as Court Update. The work of the Committee over the past three ye irs has, of course, been con- centrated on explaining the need for a flexible Judicial Article and a central ad- ministrator tinder the Chief Justice to the members of the South Carolina Legisla- ture. While this effort was not without its trauma, the success of the efforts of the Committee can best be understood by look- ing at the vote in the Senate of 37-0 in favor of the flexible Judicial Article and the favorable vote in the House on the first reading of 91-0. In November the people of South Caro- lina will have an opportunity to vote on a Constitttional Article which will pave the way for the most significant improve- iment in administration of justice in South Carolina in the past hundred years. Tle several members of our Association who took long hours from their practice to make this a reality deserve not only our whole hearted thanks, but otr active sup- port of the measure between now and No- veiiber. I ask all of you to use your in- fluence in your community to tirge the people of South Carolina to vote in fa- vor of the proposed Judicial Article in November. Sincerely, Robert R. Carpenter The President's Letter AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 1972 CLAIM AND DELIVERY Act 1573 of 1972, which was recently passed by the General Assembly of South Carolina and signed into law on July 17, 1972, by Governor John C. West, sub- stantially changed the claim and delivery proceedings in the magistrate's court and in the circuit courts. Act 1573 of 1972 amended Sections 10-2504, 10-2505, 10- 2507, 43-173, 43-175, and 43-181 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, and added Sections 10-2507.1, 10-2507.2, 10-2507.3, 1)-2507.4, 10-2507.5, 43-185, 43- 186, 43-187, and 43-188 to the 1962 Code. The Act was a result of the recent deci- sions of the United States Supreme Court in the companion cases of Fuentes, et il v. Shevin and Parhan et al v. Cortese, 40 Law Week 4692, in which the Supreme Court struck down a major portion of the claim and delivery statutes of Florida and Pennsylvania. Although there are some differences in the procedures to be followed in the magistrate's court and in the circuit courts. the substantive changes in the proceedings of both courts are as follows: 1. The defendant after notice has right to a hearing prior to the seizure of the property in question if he makes a demand for such hearing within five days. If he makes no demand within this time limit the court shall direct tile constable or the sheriff, as the case may be, to seize the property and keep it to be disposed of ac- cording to law. The purpose of the hear- ing is to protect the defendant's use and possession of the property from arbitrary encroachment and to prevent tnfair or mis- taken deprivations of the property. It. There are two situations where the property may be seized prior to the notifi- cation and hearing mentioned above. They are: a. When a person in possession of per- sonal property has waived the right to a preseizure hearing. In order for any waiver to be effective, the plaintiff by affidavit must show unto the court that the defen- dant has in writing by contract or separate written instrunent, voltntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived his right to a hear- ing prior to the repossession of the per- sonal property. The waiver must be con- spicuously displayed in the contract and (Contihtied on Page 3)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most