The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1895-07-17
FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT
The Case of William ShepparN-Seh'
fenced TO Fights Months Hard La
bOr for Contempt Of Court.
Columbia Register

Columbia Register.
All day yesterday everyoo III ooi9ii ,roS
was wondering what Judge townsend was
going to do with Sheppard o9r III MAS VIA ecsion n"i
nth the clerk of Court. In II he gives ms
reasons very clearly and forcloly: ana eSimS SinS
nv sentencing Sheppard to pay nhe oi ~" @
and serve sentence OF eight mohIhs III 'Ne
Pententiary. .,oo;sior
The following is Judge Townsends decision
in the case: , -, ,rr,.l Justice
A warrant was issued by IorS Irlal rIStfor for
Tradewell against William Shepparu d ioi
keeping and selling intoxicating hqu45LS Iie Inc
maintaining common nuisance, u,iuv, u, nn Inc
Dispensary law. Judge w. {: benec tud 1u 'nn nn
18th day OF January: A. IL ;S no'fi; him from sell.
ing, keeping or giving away an Gervais
LIQUORS in his place OF business, uii No In.
street, in Columbia South CaIoI C.,od 80 the Grand
Inrvl and the case is still pending IL lhe
Court of General Sessio ons. hv,he State
This is a proceeding institutes pS SnennarG Se
0nSor 0l Sop'S SectIon S % Of the Dspensary ACT,
apnroyed I'd of January, ls93, 10 try fini aiu
pnpish him for violation OF tne Sroet VI
junction. In the petition raTr renressnting the
Stale. IL is alleged that a warrant was ou,S nS
,Ssued. an order of injunction granieu anu iis
personally served, and that tne ,nrinntins
rpbnwnd the same by selling intoNicatlls
lionors In the place OF business en1oilieodi nr,d
Affidavits were annexed TO the peltion' smia aIu
these making out a prima lacle case; show
was issued requiring the deiehuahs ", ,vhv he
should not be attached for conteinpG ah III rnle
obeying the order of Injunction, wnlcm r;na ,u -:
was personally served. Az the trinr he%i re-
the case the defendant filed the 'ol'o"'ne
turn: ,,,,,, .u.honnord 10 the
order signed by the Hon. D A. Iowmsrniu. III,
presiding judge, July 9'h, is"'' ieSie1'''''
Ist That on the face Of these proceedimngSSs IN =
the court had no jurisdiction 10 s'nhs ,'so Sao
restraining ORDER on this rule 10 snow cuuse
because the same is unconstilutioi'''' ih 'ne'e
p'.a taI w For It is contrary to Article " sec
tions l, Is and lG of the CONSTITUTION OIL 9ou'n
Carolina. ,r,;o,e1 Sections
!, Nii33 and ID and 10 OF said Constitution. ana
therefore respondent respectfully demands
trial by jury. s,,s +bot On the ord
dav of January, 1895, a warrant was Issued oS
Wyoh A Tradewell, o Trial Justice In and 1or
The County of Ricbland, charging tnis ms, re, e,
spondent with keeping place IN tne cutS nSre ua
Columbia, State OF South Carolioa, mue ,.an
sIcohoIic liquors are sold, bartered or gwen
away In Violation Of the Dispensary law, ano
ne was bound over to appear az tnG spiinn
term of court 1895 for said county. InaI tht
Grand Jury OF said county has failed 10 Hno
true bill. and that the case is not now penu
ing in the Court of General sessions IoI ealG
county, and that the case mas oeeh of this re-
snondent, and that this respondent mas al az a.,
times been an Xious and willing 70 hase eo.u
case tried, and is willing TO meet MS ;t, aScuSt
face 10 face as granted han h. p denies that he
is guilty Of said charge: oort,,n order
"a. Respondent admits that certain .a orael
siened by Hon. W. &. Benet, preslalng Juoee;;
uSs Sarved ON him on about the-uay oI
80 iS95 and that he denies that he, ms ser
wants or agents have violated any oI tnt
terms of said order and for delense aIieEeS
L..
tiiIe q nd interest in the business on GerVals
street. in the city OF Columbia, was soiu ou'
at public auction by b; Z; por.orMI resnondenI s
tioneer. and since said date tne resPo'iuui n,'ai
has had no interest whatsoever III sa'u 0"'''
4Ih. Further answering. reSponaent Say
thai he denies that on the Sth day OF July ne
ever sold any beer 70 70 I1v iohh last he sold any
beer to E. H. Holloway: ne oenles tnmt uIS Su u;n,
sbout the first of June last he solu u nan ptn, III
or corn whiskey TO Erwin LyIeSS yS ne bo,tIe q,
neer &c c. ]. stevenson, and submits IN Iep,s
10 the airidavits that If people 40 conSresaue Sa,
M said place Of business on GerVais I,i stII.t
this respondent has n0,hapg nIaas Of 70
And. in conclusion. this respondent uenIeS
ali the allegations in said affidavit: not mere
inbefore specifically admitted, or Denied anu
herewith presents his witnesses, anu "eAs
that said case be heard orally. ,,,o,
Wherefore respondent having dlsclalmeu
any Intention to violate any oTuer OF is Cnis
honorable court respectfully asks INA. h aiIowed
be discharged and that rssponueuI oe "'o"0
10 go hehce "'''o"' John McMaster,
Respondents Attorney.
r,a nefanasnt and the State Of South Caro-
limo nroduced testimony. which was parity
oral and partly by affidavits. In lne alsu
ment. the counsel representing tne ueten U i'n,
assailed the jurisdiction OF the court SnSs W S,aS
the restraining order upon various sroutots
The lat ground is that the Dlspensary AGt
IN contravention of Article t. SeGtlons IT, i, 10
and lG, of the Constitution ol Eoue ;"Inn nnn ih
in that IL conferS equity JurlsaicIion upoH Wv
Court of General Sessions. =, foot COZ.
This is n mere assumption, for IN TACT, sec'
tion % OF the Dispepsary law does not at,
tempt 10 confer any sucn Julisui'''oii NfO
ine Goo nrovisions are. that the application BY
tho nroper officer for the restraining ordef
shall be made 70 a Circuit Juage; aS 10 con-
ferred expressly upon him 10 grant tue olueI
There is q further provision, that any peTspn per H
. Violating such order Of inJuncuon shaii os
punished for contempt, ana tue ploeeeu,in6r oer, g.
fnr this purpose shall be had in the court. or
I'm vacation by the judge thereon. is !urtn,
er proyided, that the trial for contempt anu
the punishment shall be as required oy raw,
and The proceedings shall conform as nearly
as NAV 10 the practise in the Court OF Com
mon Pleas. Provision is also made, ior pieaa'
ING by the party charged, the compulsory at
t,riviieees allowed parties by law 10 excuse
anv mpt or TO disprOve the same.
T. was clearly within the power OF the
General Assembly to declare any VOCATION OF
:, Restraining order punishable and TO confer
the authority to punish upon Circuit Judge,
or the court All the provisions OIL the Acl
manifest an intention on the part OF the
Legislature TO confer the jurisdiction 10 try
and uunish tor such contempts, not upon the
Tonrt of General Sessions. but upon the Cir
cult Judge of the Circuit or the Court OF
Common pleas. Why are the practlce ana
trial in such cases assimllated 10 tnat Ia ine
Cont of Common Pleas, II this court Is mol
Invested with the power to try such cases
n does seem TO me that the terms OF the Act
refute the argument OF Defendants counsel.
1t is further contended, thaC the Coue pro-
vi1es the only manner and cases In which ip'
functions can he granted. ana that a sum
mons and complaint are essentially neces.
sarv in spy ease TO authorize the granting oi
i'm order OF injunction. a.o..,,
the power OF granting injunctio1s. especially
fu suits to abate and restrain comm nulsan'
ces and In other cases. All that IS required
In the practice Is, that the pariles llteIes,s9
court. SO that their rights may be determined
no matter What the form OF pleadlngs may
"The sections of the Code in regard to In
functions, considered as a whole, by the com
Oarison OF each OF It's parts. do not materially
Change the mode OF practice which existed
before the abolition of all distinGtion between
legal and equitable remedies. The Constltu.
lion and existing Statutes confer the general
powers upon The Circuit Judge to grant ln-
functions" Watson VS.. Citizens Savings
Rnt the General Assembly OF the State is
eompetent, If II sees hi, 10 provide other
modeS and cases for the granting OF inJunc
tIons in special cases, than those provided
for in the Code of Procedure. .,. J..
In the Dispensary Act 1t Is expressly de-
c,ared that an Injunction may be granted IL