The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-05-09
The following article from the Greenvllle
News Is exnlanatory of the above dispatch.

The following article from the Greenvllle
News is explanatory Of the above dispatch.
Columbia, S. c., May 7, 1894.
The supreme court to-day heard the Flor.
ence Injunction and habeas corpus cases,
which are designed TO kill the dispensary law
OF 1893 and TO settle the question prohibiting
free LIQUOR. The court announced that IL
would render Its decision tomorrow morn
Ing. r. ,,,,a pu,,o,
seeks TO be released from custody. He was
arrested for selling LIQUOR. The injunction
case Is 10 restrain The city council OIL Florence
from Issuing licenses Tor the sale OF LIQUOR.
The latter case was given the most proni-
nence but both involved the same ques-
Lions.
Attorney Wilcox appeared for the injunc-
lion and s. A. Of eo.
argument, coutended that the Issuing OF il.
censes by the city council was contrary 70
law, because the supreme court mas decided
that while the dispensary Act. OF 1897 was un-
constitutional there was one section which
was not and that section prohibited Issuing
licenses. He contended that that section
stood as law now, although the court had not
passed upon the act OF 1889, its features were
practically the same as that Of 1892 and grant
ing that 1t was unconstitutional TO issue IL,
censes, the prohibition feature would sIill
stand. He held that the city council had no
December %, 1893, for the dispensary act OF
1898 was passed after that and superseded IT,
m this is true, then the council had no right
TO arrest and detain Brunson for violating an
ordinance which they had no right TO pass.
Mr.. Nettles repeated bis claims and quoted
authorities to show that that portion OF the
dispensary act declared constitutional! by
court must fall with the act 1t was not the
intention OF the Legislature TO prohibit the ls-
suing Of licenses alone, but that was simply
an auxiliary feature or the general and pat
ent scheme TO get the State into business as q
dealer in LIQUORS. That feature was depend.
ent upon the whole scheme and should fall
with the whole law. This being so, the city
council Of Florence had right TO issue IL
censes Just as any other town would have up-
less other laws prevented them. Another
point raised by him was that the provision
under which the city claimed right to Issue
license was found In It's charter, which was
passed December 22nd, 1893. He argued that
that act would supersede the dispensary act
of 1892, having been passed afterwards and
ouoted numerous authorities In favor OF the
proposition. He took 1t that the court would
SO hold were II not tor the act OF 1873, Whlcn
he contended was unconstitutional and VOID
and consequently had no effect upon the act
granting q charter TO Florence In which the
Issuing Of license was permitted. This being
so the charter was the last act on the WhlsKey
question which had any reference 10 Flor'
ence. and as that permitted the issuing OF IL
cense 1t was The law as far as that city is con-
cerned.
Associate Justice Pope asked Nettles nu-
merous questions during the argument. Ihe
Register will tomorrow publish NUMBER ol
affidavits from Florence showing that the
habeas corpus case is a fake and that the
court Is being imposed on. These afhdaVlE
show that BrunsOn has never been In GUS
tody. The affidavits were not read IN court