The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1895-07-17

|contrayenticn Of the i3lii., llth and 18th sec
tionS of the State Constitution.
These rights guaranteed by the sections are
confined to criminal prosecutions Contempt
proceedings while they may be criminal IN
their nature, are not Of themselves criminal
actions or prosecutions. They are incidental,
and may occur In any action. civil or Grim
inal and neither the constitutional right TO
be tried by jury, nor to be confronted win
the witnesses. nor any other rights mention
ed in these articles, exist In such proceed
ings-State Mitchell. -. \. W. R., 1863,
1t is further contended. that the defendant
cannot be adjudged guilty Of contempt until
he has been convicted oI maintaining Il liquor
nuisance and an order Of Injunction granted
before conviction is Il dullity.
The DIspensary Act provides, that the party
when charged with the offense, and while tne
case is pending in the Court of Sessions, may
be enjoined from continuing the nuisance,
and can be punished for contempt lor Hlola-
ton of the order In this proceeding. IL APP
pears that the criminal case is pending
against the defendant, and the order Oh ~
junction is authorized in such eases. Inc
equity doctrine that there must oc conVlc-
tiOn before abatement OF 4 nuisance, mas pten
changed by the Statute, and the eases clteu
by counsel to establish this doctrine are
inapplcable.
junction restrains Il criminal proceeding, ana
for this reason is nullity. -
In fact it does not do so. The equity doc
triue invoked could have no application 10
pressly by the Act upon the Circuit Judge
Is tile order of injunction granted by Judge
Benet void: In contempt proceedings II is
competent for party to show that the order
was void for want Of jurisdiction IN the Juuge
or the court to grant II.
The order Is granted in exact conformity 10
the provisions and requirements OF the DIS.
pensary Act. and is valid un less the section OF
the Act Is unconstitutional. This section IS
very nearly like the 18th section of the Act OF
Kansas relating to Intoxicating liqnors. In
the case of Mugler vs.. Kansas. ~ U. -, CO..
the Supreme Court OF the United States sus-
tanned the constitutionality OF the Kansas
Act, relating TO granting injunctions and con-
tempt proceedings.
In Iowa a similar law mas Deen helu 10 oe
constitutional by the Supreme Court OF that
State.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina in
Aiken VS.. George has also held the Act To De
constitutional. -
| feel constrained TO hold that section % OF
the Act Is constitutional, and that Judge Ben
ct had jurisdiction TO grant the order oi In
junction.
tion after IL was granted. When an order OF
Injunction is made, IL must be obeyed.
"Where one is served with an order appa-
rently valid, he must obey 1t, or at once move
to correct 1T, and on motion to commit him
for ontempt in disoheying the order, the on.
ly issues to be considered are the excuses for
disobeying II, and the regularity OF the pro-
ceedings had under the order oy the party
tempt."-Hllton VS.. Patterson, Is Abb. A5.
"An order for an injunction, etc, etc, now
ever enormously or irregularly OBTAINED,
must be implicitly observed so long as II eX,
lists. A party affected by II cannot disregard
it or treat IL as nulity. but must have IL dis
charged on proper application. A man VINO
does not obey II to the letter. so long as IT. en-.
lists, is guilty Of a contempt" ETC., etc.-kerr
on Injunctions, 63S.
The question is, has the defendant violated
the injunction? 1t is insisted by him thai,
ftar ,a mi nr1a UrQntRn-
sold his interest to his brother, Henry Shep-
pard, and has no connection whatsoever with
the place restrained. am satisfied that the
sale made by the defendant was a shnm, and
That this defense has suggested ITSELF as a
dernier resort.
All the witnesses testify that he has been
about the place day and night since the al
legged sale and defendant does not deny this.
lam also satisfied that intoxicating liquors
have been sold in the place OF business re-
strained. since the granting OF the order OF m
Junction by the defendant, or with MS KNOW
edge aud consent and a case OF diSooeulence
of the order of injunction Is clearly eStao'
tablshed. II is therefore adjudged and Or
dered that the said Wm. Sheppard Is guilty OF
contempt of this court.
creed that for the violation OF said order OF
injunction, the said William Sheppard pay
fine OF two hundred dollars (S2O0O0) and be
confined In the State penitentiary at hard Ia
Dor for the period Of eight (S) months
ID. A. Townsend, Circuit Judge.
ORDER OF ARREST.
Under this decision the following order, di-
rected to Constable Speed. was issued:
Under the decree this day rendered In the
above entitled case. and filed in the office Of
the Clerk Of this Court, you are hereby direct
ed and commanded TO arrest william Shep-
pard, mentioned in said decree, and commit
him to the authorities OF the State peniten-
tiary, who are hereby authorized and direct
Ell 10 receive him, for the purpose OF serving
a sen ntence of eight (S) months imposed upon
him by said decree for the reasons therein
stated.
1t is ordered further, That you make re-
turn of your proceedings hereunder and file
the same with the said decree.
d. A. Townsend, Circuit Judge.
Attest: E. r. Arthur, G. G. Z. Z. r. Z.