similating their laws to those of England as near as local circumstances permitted. 

But in their deviations they and they alone in the first and his Majesty in his 
Privy Council in the last instance were the judges . . . whatever dissonance it 
[the 1745 act] may have to the laws and customs of England or how repugnant 
soever it may be to them, it is apprehended that this court can give no relief. For 
if this court has a power of judging whether the laws which the General Assembly 
made are void or not, they have a power superior to the General Assembly. But 
this is a power which I conceive this court has not. Judges in England are the 
proper expositors of Acts of Parliament when they are made, but I don't remember 
that they ever questioned the power of making laws. 34 ' 1 
The plantations are limitted and dependant governments. They have power to 
make laws, and the King has reserved to himself and his Privy Council a right of 
judging of those laws and till the King thinks fit to repeal them they continue their 
full force and obligation. This power of repealing the King has reserved to himself 
and to himself alone, with the advice of his Privy Council. But if the courts of 
America had a power to adjudge them void it would anticipate the King's judgment 
and would be two powers of repealing, which is inconsistant with the nature 
of our constitution; this would be for the courts jus dare and not dicere. It is easy 
to see the consequence of those arguments. For if this court has a power to adjudge 
our laws to be void, they have a power to dispense with them. Such a power will 
be naturally inferred and everything will be left to precarious and arbitrary will 
and pleasure. 345 
Of things void and voidable there are known distinctions. If a judgment is erroneous 
'tis not absolutely void but voidable by writ of error, but it is good and 
effectual till it be reversed. If an infant seals a deed 'tis not absolutely void because 
he may assent to it and confirm it when he comes of age or he may avoid it by 
pleading. So our acts of Assembly if they are contrary to the King's instructions or 
repugnant to the laws of England, they are not void, for the King may confirm 
them. But they continue in force untill they are repealed or made void. 340 
In conclusion the Chief Justice stated that since acts of Assembly "must bind 
and have an obligation untill they are repealed and made void by the King 
in his Privy Council," the demurrer was overruled. 347 
From this case it appears that the doctrine of judicial review of colonial acts 
had not been received in South Carolina and that its very existence was denied 
on the basis of lack of precedents of acts of Parliament voided by the courts at 
Westminster. As a corollary, the argument of demurrant was perverted into a 
3 Dyer 363b; Cornwals Case {Moore K.B. 
670); Tanistry's Case (Davis 28, 37). 
344 MS Journal So. Car. Court Common Pleas, 
237- 
345 Ibid., 237. 
s * e lbid., 237-38. 
347 Ibid., 238.