The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-05-23

case, the decision in which was render
ed orally not loug since. at which time
the Chief Justice stated that the opinion
would be written out in full and filed
later. The opinion is as follows:
The State of South Carolina,
In the Supreme Court.
April Term, 1894.
S. L. Barringer, ct al, VS.. The City
Council of Florence, ex parte J.
Ellis Brunson. Opinion. McIver,
c.. j.
These two cases instituted in the ORR
eiual jurisdiction of this court though
not involving the anne questions. were
heard aud will be considered together.
The sole question presented by the
case first named is whether the city
council Of Florence has any authority
to grant licenses for the sale Of spir-
ituous liquors. within the corporate
limits Of said city. Inasmuch as this
court has twice decided-6rst in the
case of the State vs.. Town Council of
Chester, II S. E. Rep. 752, aud next
iu the case of Mccullough vs.. Brown.
10 S. E., Rep, 458-that so much of
the Act Of 1892 entitled can Act to
prohibit the manufacture and sale Of
intoxicating liquors as a beverage.
within this State except as herein pro-
vided, approved December "a, 1892,
as forbids the granting Of any license
for the sale Of spirituous liquors beyond
the date therein designated. that is
30th of June. 1898. is constitutional
and valid, it follows necessarily that the
said city council would have no. author
ity to grant such a license unless by
some subsequent valid Legislation, it
has been r~einvested with the power so
to do. This, as We understand it. is
not, and certainly cannot be disputed
It is urged, however, that by ''An Act
to amend an Act entitled An Act to
incorporate the city Of Florence"
approved 22d December, 1893. the
said city council has been r%e.iuvested
with the power to grant licenses for the
sale Of spirituous liquors within the
corporate limits of said city. The
fifth section of the Act just mentioned
does purport to confer such a power
upon the city council Of Florence bit
it is upon a certain condition which
has not, apd cannot be complied with,
under the present condition of the Law;
for in the proviso to that section it is
expressly declared that in no instance
snail the price Of such license be fixed
at a less sum bar is established by the
laws of this State. Now as there is no
Law Of this State fixing the price Of a
license for the sale of %spirituous liquors,
and on the contrary the law Of the
State, at the time of the passage Of the
Act amending the charter of the city
of Florence. absolutely forbids the
granting of any such license, it follows
necessarily that the power purportlng 70
be conferred upon the city council of
Florence cannot be exercised, because
the condition upon which such power
vas conferred, cannot be complied With.
1t cannot be claimed that resort may be
had to section 1886 of the General Sta
tutes, in order to ascertain the price of a
liceusefor the sale Of spirituous liquors, as
established by the laws Of the State, for
the very Obvious reason that such sec
ton is so clearly in conflict with that
provision in the Act Of 1892 above
referred to, which has been declared
constitutional, as to deprive such Sec
ton of all force as law.
Besides it car scarcely be supposed
that the Legislature, by the provisions
Of the fifth section Of the Act, amending
the charter Of the city of Florence, in
tended ever if they had the power to
do SO, Gas to which we do not now pro.
pose to express an opiuiou) thus to dis
crimioate in favor Of the city council)
of Florence, against all the other NUM-
cipal corporations in the State. We are
therefore of opinion that 20 power has
been conferred upon the city council of
Florence to grant a license for the sale
of spirituous liquors within the corpos,
ate limits of said city /; and as it is we'll
settled that a municipal corporation has
no powers except such as are conferred
by it's charter, it follows necessarily
that any attempt on the part of the said
city council to grant such a license
would be ultra wires and void.
10 the second case mentioned in the
title of this opinion the petitioner vas
arrested under a warrant, issued by the
mayor Of the city of Florence, charging
him with violating an ordnance OF said
city. as we'll as the law Of the State, by
selling spirituous liquors with the cor
porate limits ofsaid city withouta license ;
and being in the custody of the chief of
police of said city under such arrest.
was brought before this court by writ
of babeas corpus, where be has moved
for his discharge from arrest. The
.---. -1:-l L. Loe,e h1o onf1on