The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-11-05

clared to be uniawful by the act.
In the first, second and third sec
tioHs, the act declares what is forbid
den in it. Every contract, combiua-
zion IL the: form Of trust or other
wise, orr conspiracy IN restraint Of
trade orcom!nerce among the several
States or with foreign nations, is de-
clared illegal. Every person who shall
mcnopolizc or attempt to monopoilze
Or combine or conspire with any other
person or persons to monopoIize any
:,,rt Of the trade or commerce IN any
territory or the district Of Columbia,
or in restraint os trade between such
territory and another, or The District
OF Columbia or foreign nations, IS de-
clared to be an illegal act.
From the terms Of this act it will be
seen that it forbids any Individual
either by himself to monopolize or
combine, contract or conspirc with
s:uy other person to monopolizc any
part OF the interstate or foreign COM
me-ce. Illis is the essential feature of
The act. The action being onthe statute
the cause ci action must set out some
thing forbidden in the statute.
The cause Of action set forth i'll this
complaint is the seizure b.: Rankin, in
transit, Of @ barrel of beer shipped to
the plaintiff for his personal use by {,
merchant from Nichplond to Newborrv,
without any pretense of ownership or
claim Of interest il or lien upon the
sail barrel of beer: but solely by
virtue Of some pretended authority to
confscate spirituous, malt or vlnous
liquors consigned to private persons IN
South Carolina.
That Rankin after the seizure had
1ac barrel sent to tic defendant. Mix
&,n and that Nixon received and pre-
s;lrnablv continues to hold the same,
knowing it 10 ne property OF plaintiff,
bought by him in the State of Nir-
ginia, and sent to him by public
carrier. Nothing Whatever is said
about any monopoly by defendant OF
any trade, Interstate or foreign. The
only charge is that be claims pre-
tended authority to contiscete liquors
consigned to private parties in South
Carolina. 1t is not alleged that Rankin
is in any trade or business whatsoever.
Nothing whatever is SAID Of any CON
apisacv or contract or combination be-
tween Raukin and his codefendant
Mixson or sny other person or persons
whomsocver 10 mcpopoliZe any foreign
or domestic trade. The complaint is
silent even as to any preconseat be-
tween them leading to the seizure Of
-,his barrel.
.rhe most natural inference from the
language used in the complaint is that
aIiysou. after the seizure, received and
2nw holds the bee: The essential re-
.f,.i-jtes OF cause OF action under the
>:s5,:::e do not appear IL the complaint.
Il clunct be sustained under the stat
~, aid 50 is net within the Jurisdiction
Il this caart. 50 fax rs the statements
q the complaint go, they disclose az
';uvas;oa Of common law right, which
would call for a remedy at common
law. Because OF the amount involved.
as stated IN the complaint, this cougt
could lot take Jurisdiction Of this in:
I.>iou OF i common law right. In OF
,:..r l. enable the plaintiff to sue under
III. statute there must be radical
Il. ar" in the allegations Of his com
;::::n,. ard an entirely new an" distinct
cause OF action must be set forth. Tn
der the practice in South Carolina such
:;s amendment IS not permitted.
The demurrer is sustained, the caus"