The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1895-12-13
THE STATE WINS
IN THIS CASE.
JUDGE SIAIONTON DISMISSES THE
DUNBAR CASE
The Text of the Decision Showing the
Reason Why the Court Throws the
Contempt Proceedings Out


of note Monday, he also filed ono in
favor of the state. He has dismissed
the Dunbar-R Rankin contempt case
brought by DIR. Pope. The case was
heard some weeks ago in the United
States court. Dunbar had some liquor
seized by Constable Rankin and he
brought suit against HIM for S62S. 90
damages. Commissioner Mixson being
made u party to the suit.
The de cision reads as follows, being
signed by both Judges Simonton and
Brawley:
The demurrer to the complaint sets
forth the following grounds
First. That as it appears on the face
OF the complaint, this court has no
jurisdiction of the matters and things
forming the subject of this action.
Second. That IA it appcrrs upon the
face thereof, the complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute q
cause of action.
According to the code Of South
Carolina these two objections may be
taken 10y way of oral demurrer ut the
trial of the cause. Code, section 1863.
''lndecd, the first objection must bo
taken by the court itself suo motu if it
appears on az inspection of tho
accord.
y number OF citations are made by
Judge Simonton OF cases similar to
this contempt case.
In this complaint the entire amount
claimed as damages by plaintiff is $685.
o.
The learned counsel for plaintiff says
Judge Simonton recognized this
They seek to sustain the jurisdiction
Of the court upon the ground that the
action is brought under act OF congress
of July =, 1890, Ito protect trade ay,d
commerce against unlawful restraint
and monopolics. This act gives this
court jurisdiction without regard 10 the
amount in controversy over matters
forbidden by the act.
Section Of this act give Il right of
action to any person who Shall he in
jUrcu in his business or property by
any other person or corporation by
reason OF anything forbidden or de-
clared to bc unlawful by the act.
In the first, second and third see
tions, the act declares what is forbid
den i'll it. Every contract combinn-
tion in the form of trust or other
wise, or conspiracy i'll restraint of
trade or commerce anon" the several
States or with foreign nations, il de-
clared illegal. Every person who shall
monopolize or attempt to monopoliZe
or combine or conspire with any other
person or persons to monopoliZe any
part of the trade or commerce in any
territory or the district of Columbia,
or in restraint Of 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 1T will be
seen that it forbids any individual
either by himself t. monopolizc or
combine, contract or cOnspisc with
any other person to monopolizo any
part Of the interstate or foreign com
mcrcc. This is the essential feature OF
the act. The action being on the statute
the cause OF action must set out some
thing forbidden in the statute.
The cause of action set forth in this
complaint is the seizure Ly Rankin, in
transit, of barrel OF beer shipped to
the plaintiff for his personal usc by IL
merchant from itichmOnd tO NcwbCrrv,
without any rr.,nns, or owncrsbi, ~,
claim nf ;ntores, in or lien imam tho
s,il borrol az Loor INIT snI.ly Nv,
virtue Of some pretended authority to-
contiscate spirituous, malt or vinous
liquors consigned to private persons IN
South Carolina.
TLot Rankin orter III. .e;-uro bol
tbc barrel sent TO the defendant Mi.
cor, ond tbot N;xon roco;yol onl rrn.
snmoblv continues TO hold the same
Lrnuipr, i tn bo nronrr,v of nlo;rtir
boupht bv him in the State of yir