The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-07-13
INJUNCTION PERPETUAL
JUpGE SIMONTON's DECIsION IN rHE
PlNKUssOHN CASE
rhe Sale ~ Liquor by Private ParIiea Ia
Original Packages Must he Conducted
Und"rthc Restrictions PrcscribrdIn
tn" Nispcn>nry Law aa to Time.
Ounutiltrs aud pcrsons
Especial TO Tho ltryistcr.l

| lNtNN'Nl w uV i\VSlStCt.l
Charleston, :. G., July 10. Tho long
lnokrd for decision of Judge Simonton
| in the rinknsSohn original package
cas-" was tilrd this morniug. Tho do
riSion Is against tho state, aud rr-
strains tho ronstahlcs from interfering
with original packages of liquor I'm,
ported into tho 'tato for storage and
Salr. With somr notifications. tho
temporary injunction against tho CON
stables Is made permanent.
The state can appeal to tho Suprrn,e
Court " tho United States, but il has
little to hope for from such an appeal,
rs Judge Simonton has fortified his po-
Si'ions hy references to tho Supreme
Donald and to tho Nandcrcock case,
which was decided by him in accord
ancc with tho principles Of that dcciS-
ion.
Following Is the full text OF Judge
Simonton's decisions:
United States of America, District Of
South Carolina. G.. Moore, Il
citizen and resident of tho State Of
Now York, VS.. w. N. Bahr, G.. T..
Clover. w. Livingston, S. Dean, J.
J. Browning, w. j. Snidcr, T.. V.
Baker aud }. w. Scott, citizens and
residents Of the State Of South Caro-
lima and State constublcs.
The complainant, Il rcctiticr ofliquor
and Wholesale liquor dealer in the city
of New York, files his bill against the
defendants, who are State constablcs,
appointed under the provision Of the
nispcnsnry Act.
The facts stated are that the com
plainant shipped to Charleston by the
tlydu Steamship Company, an inter-
state commerce. carricr, certain liquors,
wines and beers, products Of other
States, in original packages to be stor-
ed for the purpose of sale in such orig
inal packages by his agent in that be-
half appointed.
That the defendants had entered tho
premises and had seized his goods, and
had intCrfcrcd with the sale thereof
That they are hopclcssly insolvcnt, and
| that he has no remedy ut 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 rs 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 between
counsel rs to what constituted an orig,
inal package. And it was agreed that
the packages which were stored and
offered for sale in this cnse wcrc orig
inal packages. The questions made
wore these:
! Has Il dealer, n citizen OF Il State 9th
er than South Carolina, right to i'm
port liquors, wines and beer in origina
packages or to store them in this State
for purposes of sale?
IL this question be answered In the
affirmative, must such sales be con
ductcd under the restrictions OF time
quantity and person, made in the Dis
pcnsary law?
In Cantini VS.. Tillman, after full dis
cussion and consideration, it was hcl(
by this court, that the Dispensary law
in its general provisions, did not con
ilict with the Constitution of tho Unit
cd States or this State. In this case
Cantini, a wholesale and retail dealer
in liquors, resident in Charleston
claimed tho right to carry on his busi
ness, Notwithstanding the Dispenser,
law. both on the ground of the uncon
stitutionality of the law, and becaus,
he was a subject of the King of Italy
and was protected by treaty stipula
tions.
The court decided the case on tn,
facts before it, but it expressly reserve,
the question whether the act was no
void in such Of its provisions as vii
conflict with the interstate commerce,
law.
, In the case Of Langford, it bccam,
necessary to discuss some provisions o
the Dispcnsary law conflicting with in
, tcrstatc commerce.. and it was helt
that IN SO far rs such conflict existed
, the law was imperative and void
, These two decisions arc nnrevcrse,
and are the law { this court.
: In Donald vs.. Scott, full discus
= sion Of the relations between the Dis
rcnsary acts Hrd the law of interstate
commerce was had and tho decision
was reached that under the protection
OF the Interstate commerce law, an
resident Of the State could, notwith
{ standing the DispHnsary acts, impor
. liquors for his own use and consuml
, ton. This decision has been sustain
cd by tho Supreme Court of the Unite,