Case ID: sc_42/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gary. Mr. Chief Justice McIver.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MELCHERS v. BATES.
    1. Case Criticised — Dispensary Act. — The decision of this court in State ex rel. George v. Aiken, ante, 222, followed; and the court refused to grant an injunction to restrain the State Treasurer and the State Commissioner under the Dispensary Act from paying out any moneys, or doing any other acts under that statute.
    This was an application to this court in its original jurisdiction by Theodore Melchers and F.W. Jessen, citizens and taxpayers of the State, for a writ of injunction to restrain W. T. C. Bates, State Treasurer, from paying out moneys for expenses of the State Dispensary, and D. H. Traxler, State Commissioner, from purchasing and disposing of liquors. This case was heard together with the next case ante.
    
    
      Messrs. J. P. K. Bryan and Mitchell & Smith, for petitioners.
    The Attorney General, contra.
    October 11, 1894.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an application to this court, in its original jurisdiction, for an injunction to restrain the defendants, as State officers, from enforcing the provisions of the act of 1893, known as the Dispensary Act, on the ground that it is unconstitutional. This case was heard in connection with that of the State ex relatione J. V. George and G. T. Holley, appellants, v. the City Council of the City of Aiken, respondent, ante, and is ruled by the decision in that case, which has just been filed.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this court, that the petition be dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice McIver.

I dissent. As this case was heard with the case of The State ex rel. George et al. vs. The City Council of Aiken, and, as I understood, the two cases were to be finally disposed of, and the opinions filed at the same time, I feel at liberty to dissent in this case upon the same grounds as I did in the case of The State ex rel. George et al. vs. The City Council of Aiken.