The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-23
THE COLUMBIA CLUE.
Judge Hudson Decides that it Must Pay the
City Liquor License.
THE State, l7th.l

The Columbia llID has oeen adJuug-
ed liable to the regular city liquor IL
cense. Yesterday City Attorney }
r. Rhett drew up the order Of d. .ee
in the case and presented it to Judge
Hudson. Some changes were ordered,
and these being made, the order was
presented again last evening and the
Judge affixed his signature. AS the
matter is of much Importance, the full
text of the decree is given below:
The State ex-relatione Columbia Club
VS.. Hon. +. w. McMaster, Mayor of
the city Of Standardization for a
writ of prohibition.
The plaintiffs duly Incorporated
social club, which out Of its common
fund purchased liquors in the name Of
the club, and kept the same for the
benefit of all its members. These Ii
quors were kept with other supplies Of
the club in the buffers pantry, or in the
appropriate place therefor. There was in
the club 20 liquor or wine room special
ly, exclusively to which the members
had the right to visit and drink espe-
cialfy. Any member of the club, in
the club house, could give an order
to his servant, or his attendant, or the
steward within, or verbally at bis op'
ton, and the liquor so ordered was
served to him. He, then, at the time
it was served, paid for it to the steward,
or signed memorandum check which
was written out and he paid for it
afterwards or charged against his ac-
count which was furnished to him at
the end of the month. No one but a
member could pay for such liquors so
! ordered. A member could bring non
resident friend. Except in this way,
no one but member could be admit
ted. This disposition of the liquor was
not for the purpose of making a profit
out of a member-for the purpose Of
evading the law. The club had no
license to sell liquor.
In South Carolina there is simple
law in regard to licenses and sale Of Ii
quor, to wit: 1t is prohibited absolutely
throughout the State, except in incor-
porated towns and cities, and then
only when a license was granted bythe
authorities of the place.
The main question in this case IS
whether the disposition by the plain
tiff of liquors in the manner hereinbe-
fore indicated was in contravention OF
the statutes? Was it sale of the pro-
hibited article? This question has been
much discussed in the courts of other
States. They are widely divergent. l
make no attempt to reconcile them,
preferring to rest my decision on the
case of the Stale. Mayor, etc., of the
citv of Newark VS.. the Essex Club, Su-
preme Court of New Jersey, November
II, 1890, American Digest 769. This
case is similar to the present and IN 1t
is discussed the conflicting cases.
Without going into that discussion,
that case rests its reason much on the
case of ,he State vs. Lockyear, 9o \.
c., 633, and decides that the transac-
ton mentioned constituted a complete
sale of liquor, having all its elements,
and decided the case against the Essex
Club.
hold that the facts mentioned IN
this case constituted a sale of liquor by
the club, and that the club is liable TO
pay license to the city of Columbia,
and therefore the plaintiff is not entl-
tied to the writ of prohibition and the
proceedings must be dismissed, and it
is 50 ordered.
J. H. HUDSON,
April Is, 1891. Presiding Judge.
Attorney Allen J. Green, who is rep
resenting the club, was asked lasteven'
ing what the club would do now. He
| IL .l,,S - l,,r +.p dave after the