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.
1.-THE State, 17th.l


ed liable to the regular city liquor IL
cense. Yesterday City Attorney John
T. Rhett drew up the order of decree
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. F. w. McMaster, Mayor of
the city of Standardization for
writ of prohibition.
The plaintiff is 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 IL
quors were kept with other supplies of
the club in the buffers pantry, or in the
appropriate place therefor. There was in
the club no liquor or wine room special
ly, exclusively to which the members
had the right to visit and drink espe-
cially. 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 his 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 a non
resident friend. Except in this way,
10 one but member could be admit
ted. This disposition of the liquor was
not for the purpose of making 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 license was granted by the
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 coutravention 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. I
make no attempt to reconcile them,
preferring to rest my decision on the
case O.: the State, Mayor etc., of the
city Of Newark VS.. the Essex Club, Su-
prene Court of New Jersey, November
II, 1890, American Digest 769. This
case is similar to the present and in it
is discussed the conflicting cases.
Without going into that discussion,
that case rests its reason much on the
case of he State VS.. Lockyear, 95 n.
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 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 enti-
tied to the writ Of prohibition and the
proceedings must be dismissed, and it
is so ordered.
J. H. HUDSON,
April Is, 1871. Presiding Judge
Attorney Allen J. Green, who is rep
resenting the club, was asked last even
| ing what the club would do now. He
said that it had ten days after the
court adjourns to act, and he could not
say what would be done. That was for
the executive committee of the cub to
decide, and it would have to hold a
meeting. 1t is generally understood,
however, that the club will appeal to
the Supreme Court, and that the points
of appeal will be very much the same
as those presented in the court Of Conn.,
mon Pleas. 1t is said that the club, If
forced to pay the heavy license without
doing a regular liquor business, may
decide to close its doors.