The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-07-17
Trying Habeas Corpus.
Chief Justice Fuller is Asked
For a Writ.

The State authorities have 90, been
remaining as inactive in regard TO the
cases of the constables jailed by order
of Judge Simouton for contempt OF
court 10 seizing liquor in violation Of
his order Of injunction, as has been be-
leved. Whea the coustables 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 yesterday
returned TO the city and then it be-
came knowo that he had been to Sor.
rento, Me-, where Chief Justice Fuller
of the United States Supreme Court, is
spending the summer aud that few
days ago he had presented to the Chief
Justice pesitloo for habeas corpus IN
the case of Lafar, the constable who is
cou6oed iu the Richland jail 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 vas substantially the
same as that presented to the United
States Supreme Court iu the case Of
Constable Beach, except that they are
taking in the amendment made to the
bill of complaiot by Attorney Bryan.
He stated further that be intended to
20 to the very last ditch 10 all these
liquor cases.
THE PETITION.
The representative of the State could
DOT secure copy of the long petiou
presented. but the following is the way
it concludes, giving in brief form all of
the grounds upon which the writ is
asked for:
/. That the United States circuit
judge was without jurisdiction aod ex-
ceeded his authority 10 granting the
order Of injunction, in the above en-
titled case. and the disobedience of 6
void order, or so much of it as may be
void, caunot be punished as for con
tempt.
?. That the party sling the petition
in this proceeding of attachment for
contempt was Dot party to the rec
ord, and the petition is insufficient to
authorize an attachment for contempt,
so far as he is concerned and should be
qashed.
8. That the Injunction is in fact a
6oai one, broader than the prayer iu
the bill for the temporary injunction,
aud is void. insofar as it epjoins the
seizure Of ales, wines and liquors Of
other persons than the complainant,
and violation of 40 much of it as is
void cannot be punished 10 this pro-
ceeding.
f. That the order of injunct ction is in-
de6oite, uncertain. ambiguous aud diff
6cult of construction and understand
ing, aud is DOT such an order as will
authorize punishment by way of cou-
tempt proceedings or its violation, es-
pecially when copy of it was not serv-
ed upon two Of respondents.
5. That the respondent was not
party to the original bill in the case,
nor agent nor servant Of, aor Cocoon
spirator with auy Of the defendants
named therein. and canuo, be punish
ed for violation of the injunction
until after service Of the writ upon
him.
6. That the respondent, a9 State
constable under the dispeusary law of
South Carolina, is required to enforce
the law, and in the discharge of bis Of
6cial duties has not wilfully and def.
antly disobeyed the order Of injunction,
but has acted couscientious!y to the
best of his knowledge and ability, and,
if there has been any technical viola
ton of tbe order, it has beeo the result
of honest mistakes oo his part, arising
from the uncertainty Of the order, for
which be should not be punished. es.
pecialy when so difficult and delicate
a duty has been imposed upon him of
determining when liquors are imported
for personal use aud consumption.
I. 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 babeas corpus proceeding. aud
that court has ordered the fling Of the
petition, which decision practically
renders uncertain at least the validity
of the injunction, and respondent ought
not to be punished for contempt for
its violation, before the final decision
in the habeas corpus proceeding that
action should at least be suspended un-
til such decision. as irremedlable injury
might otherwise result
s. That the circuit judge exceeded his