The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1896-06-12
NO EVASION
IS ALLOWED.
JUDGE SINIONTON'S DECISION IN
THE DISPENSARY CASE.
Cons tables Cannot Seize Liquor Ship
ped From Other States for Private
Usc-Thc Decision Regardin.
the Old Law Made Obsolete.

you wish from outside the State, says
Judge Simonton, and the constables
cannot touch it for analysis or any
thing else. It will be remembered
that at the last session of tho Legisla-
ture an amendment to the Dispensary
Act was passed requiring that all
liquor imported into the State for per-
sonnl use be seized by the State con-
stables and sent to Columbia to be an
| alyzed by the State Chemist, so thet it
could be discovered whether it was or
was not chemically pure. Every on.
recognized in it an attempt on the part
of the State to evnde Judge Simonton's
injunction in the Donald case, which
restraints tho State constablcs from
s"iZing liquors imported for personal
use.
he State was anxious to have the
case tested in the United States Circuit
Court, and n case was hutched up for
the purpose.
Mr.. VIM. J. Schneider imported
some liquor from Augusta, which was
| seized, Mr.. w. Gibbcs Whnley,
| chairman of the board of control, ap-
peared ns attorney for Schneider, aud
the Attorney General for the State
All the legnl talent in Charleston was
invited to come into Court and make
| argument In the case. and several
high legal lights intended doing SO,
but at the Inst moment decided not tc
do SO. A few days later. however, Mr..
y. L. Kennedy Bryan, rs attorney for
IA .lnSn,,l 4
appeared and oOtaiued rule from III,
Court requiring the con>tahl,s who
seIZed some liquor which th,s, gentle.
men were importing TOR personal use,
why they should not I've nitn,hrI :ul
contempt of Court. by r,nsuu of huv-
ing violated til" Injunction IN tn,
Donald case. Written nraw.mcit VIZ.
submi;tc n few dmNs Siuc,. ntt v,,,Icr-
day the Court hnnGrL Gown i,s,ic>isior,
which is rs follows:
The United States cf America, Dis.
trict of South Cavolinu the
CT cu COurt-Four;A I!rcuit-I"
Etui y. Ee james Donald ". j.
NJ. scott ct al. ex partc William
y. Schnclder, eX pnrte William Eb.
erhard, ex parte III. Joseph Walters.
These three petitions were flied in
the main cause.
The petitioner first named had nur.
chased and paid for iu Augusta, Ga,
Son 9Th of May, 1896, for his own per.
sonal use, two gallons of rye whiskey,
shipped and delivered to him by the
Southern Express Company at
Charleston, and after such delivery
seized in his possession by State
constable on 10th of May, 1896.
The petitioner, Eberhard, a watch
maker by trade, purchased and paid
for for his own personal use and con-
sumption, in Savannah, Ga, n case of
Mount Vernon whiskey, product oi
the State of Pennsylvania, and caused
the same to be shipped to his residence
in Charleston via the Charleston and
Savannah Railway, and whilst the
same was in transit it was seized by
two State constablrs, j. NJ. Scott and
John Strobel, and contiscnted.
The third petitioner claims to have
been the owner of one barrel of prime
Zinfnndel claret wine, product OF the
State of California, shipped to him by
steamship from New York to Charles
ton, the same being for his own perso-
nal use and consumption, and not for
the purpose of barter, trade, sale or
exchange within the State of South
Carolina and while the same was on
the docks of the steamship line it was
seized and carried away 10y Hnrling
and Livingston, State constables.
The petitioners each charge that the
seizure in his case was violatio-. of
the order of this Court and in con-
tempt thereof. Rules were Issued up
on the filing of the petitions to each OF
which an answer and return have been
filed. The circumstances attending
the seizure differ somewhat in each
case. But each Of the returns sets ND
in justification of the seizure tho Act
of the General Assembly OF the State
OF South Carolina, approved April /,
1895, entitled "An Act to provide for
the election Of State board of control
and to further regulate the sale, use,
consumption, transportation and dis
position OF Intoxicating and alchohulic
liquors or liquids in the State and pre-.
scribe further penalties for violation OF
H." "''pensary laws and to police the
same
Ihc petition first named was fled
avowedIy to test the law thus passed.
The Attorney General of South Caro-.
lima in On argument characterized by
great ability and by corresponding
fairness has directed the attention OF
the Court to that point, and 1t will be
irst decided. The question is: Is this
Act of Assembly lawful exercise OF
| the police power of the State? What
is the motive and purpose Of the Act:
! SIN whatever language n statute nav
be framed, Its purpose must be deter
mined by its natural and reasonable
effect" Henderson VS.. New York, 90