Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-07-14
TO BE CONTINUED
a9liseellamtnus Rtading.
INJUNCTION PERPETUAL.
individuals May Sell Liquor
In Original Packages.
SIMONTON IN PINKUSSOHN CASE.
Nothing Left For the State Now but to
Reduce Prices and Try to Undersell.

The long looked for decision of Judge
Simonton in the Pinkussohn original
package case was filed last Saturday
morning. The decision is against the
state, and restrains the constables from
interfering with original packages OF
liquor imported into the state for stor-
age and sale. With some modifica-
tions, the temporary injunction against
the constables is made permanent.
The state can appeal to the supreme
court of the United States, but it has
little to hope for from such an appeal,
as Judge Simonton has fortified his
positions by references to the supreme
court decision in the case of Scott vs..
Donald and to the Vandercock case,
which was decided by him in accord
ance with the principles of that de.
cision.
Following is the full text of Judge
Simonton's decision
United States of America, District OF
South Carolina-W. G.. Moore, a
citizen and resident of the state OF
New York, VS.. w. N. Bahr, G. F.
Glover, w. Livingston, S. Dean, ].
J. Browning, w. J. Snider, E. V.
Baker and ]. w. Scott, citizens and
residents of the state of South Caro-.
lima and state constables.
The complainant, a rectifer of Ii
quor and wholesale liquor dealer in the
city of New York, files his bill against
the defendants, who are state consta-
bles, appointed under the provision OF
dispensary act.
The facts stated are that the COM
plainant shipped to Charleston by the
Clyde Steamship company, an inter
state commerce carrier, certain liquors,
wines and beers, products of other
states, in original packages to be stored
for the purpose of sale in such original
packages by his agent in that behalf
appointed.
That the defendants had entered the
premises and had seized his goods, and
had interfered with the sale thereof.
That they are hopelessly insolvent,
and that he has no remedy at law.
The bill prayed for an injunction.
The return to the rule to show cause,
after setting up certain objections to
the jurisdiction, admits substantially
the facts stated in the bill and denies
the right of the complainant to import
into this state the wines, liquors and
beer mentioned in the complaint, or to
store them therein or to sell them by
his agents or as claimed by him.
The Jurisdiction of this court upon
the facts stated in the bill seems clear.
At the hearing it appeared that
there was no difference of opinion be.
tween counsel as to what constituted
an original package. And it was
agreed that the packages which were
stored and offered for sale in this case
were original packages. The ques-
tions made were these:
Has a dealer, citizen of state
other than South Carolina, right to
import liquors, wines and beer in orig
onal packages or to store them IN this
state for purposes of sale?
If this question be answered in the
affirmative, must such sales be con-
Quoted under the restrictions of time,
quantity and person, made in the dis
pensary law?
In Cantini VS.. Tillman, after full dis
cussion and consideration, it was held
by this court, that the dispensary law,
in it's general provisions, did not con-
f1ict with the constitution of the Uni
ted States or this state. In this case,
Cantini, a wholesale and retail dealer
in liquors, resident in Charleston,
claimed the right to carry on his bust
ness, Notwithstanding the dispensary