The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1895-07-26
TRYING HABEAs CORPUS.
The State Makes q Move to Have Lafax
and Other Constables, Jailed by
Judge SimontOn. Set Free.

The State authorities have not been
remaining as inactive in regard to the
cases of the constables jailed by order
of Judge Simonton for contempt of
court IN seizing liquor in violation of
his order of injunction, as has been be-
lieved. When the constab1es went to
Jail, the States attorneys announced
that they would have to serve their
sentences. Now, however, every pos
sible effort is being made to have them
released
Attorney General Barber on Friday
returned to Columbia aud then it be-
came known that he had been to Sor-
rento, Me. where Chief Justice Fuller
of the United States Supreme Court,is
spending the summer and that few
days ago he had presented to the
Chief Justice petition for habeas
corpus in the case of Lafar, the con-
stable who is confined in the Richland
JUL. OF course, the case of Lafar is
taken up, because, the decision In that
will govern all the other cases.
Attorney General Barber stated that
the petition he had presented to the
Chief Justice was substantially the
same as that presented to the United
States Supreme Court in the case of
Constable Beach. except that they are
taking in the amendment made to the
bill of complaint by Attorney Bryan.
He stated further that he intended to
go to the very last ditch in all these
liquor cases.
THE PETITION.
The petition presented is very long,
but the following is the way it con-
cludes, giving in brief form all of the
grounds upon which the writ is asked
for:
l. That the United States circuit
Judge was without jurisdiction and ex-
ceeded his authority in granting the
order of injunction, in the above eDti-,
tied case, and the disobedience of
void order, or SO much of it as may be
void, cannot be punished as for con-
tempt.
9. That the party filing the petition
in this proceeding of attachment for
contempt was not a party to the rec.
ord, and the petition is insufficient to
authorize an attachment for contempt,
30 far as he is concerned and should
be quashed.
s. That the Injunction is in fact q
final one, broader than the prayer in
the bill for the temporary injunction,
and is void, insofar as it enjoins the
beizure of ales, wines and liquors of
other persons than the complainant,
and n violation of so much of it as is
void cannot be punished in this pro-
ceeding.
4. That the order of injunction is
indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous
and difficult of construction and under
standing, and is not such an order as
will authorize punishment by way of
contempt proceedings or its violation,
especially when a copy of it was not
served upon two of respondents.
5. That the respondent was not
party to the original bill in the case,
nor agent nor servant of, nor cocoon
spirator with any of the defendants
named therein, and cannot be punish
ed for violation of the injunction
until after service of the writ upon him.
6. That the respondent. State
constable under the dispensary law of
South Carolina, is required to enforce
the law, and in the discharge of his Of
fetal duties has not wilfully and def
autly disobeyed the order of injunc-
tion, but has acted concientiously to
the best OF his knowledge and ability,
and, if there has been any techical vi
olation of the order, it has been the
result of honest mistakes on his part,
arising from the uncertainty of the
order, for which he should not be pun
ished, especially when so difficult and
delicate duty has been imposed upon
him of determining when liquors are
imported for personal use and con.
sumption.
7. That the question of the authority
of the circuit court to grant the order
of injunction has been submitted to the
Supreme Court of the United States in
n hnbens corpus proceeding, and that
court has ordered the filing of the pc
tition, which decision practically rem
ders uncertion at least the validity of
the Injunction, and respondent ought
not to he punished for contempt for
its violation, before the final decision
in the habens corpus proceeding that
action should ut least be suspended
until such decision. as irremedinble in
Jury might otherwise result
g. That the circuit Judge exceeded
his authority in adding Imprisonment
until the rcturu of fine hnuor spiyr1 NC