The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1897-04-09
TROUBLES HAVE NOT ENDED
Foo ConstabIes, and It Looks Blue
for Them Yet.
SIMONTON DISMISSES MOTION
or the Attorney-General to Vacate
Arrsts-- Decision In Full--Judge
Townsend's Opinion.

for the Circuit Court has put itself on
record in as emphatic manner as pos
sible, that the constables shall not
seize, detain or confiscate liquor i'm
ported into the State for personal con-
sumption.
Constable J. Nj. Scott and ex-Con-
stables, Lucius, Cuthbert, Roach and
w. j. Harling are required by Judge o,
Simonton's decision, handed down mt
Charleston recently, to answer
to the charge of violating the liquor i'm
ported for personal use by Messrs.
William Beckroge and M. Hersko-
WITT.
The constables are also required
to answer to the suit entered against
them for &c, 900 by both plaintiffs.
The constables have been fearful of
the consequence of their rash deed ever
since Mr.: j. =. X. Bryan, the attorney
for the plaintiffs, appeared in court and
began the present action against them.
They felt that they were hoping against
hope when Assistant Attorney General
Townsend recently made motion to
vacate the order of arrest, and the de-
cision will consequently not be in the
nature of a surprise to them.
The constables will remain out OF jail
on bonds of 81, 900 in each case recently
T.. l.
following are the opinions, which ex-
plain the cases in detail and require no
further comment.
THE DECISION.
The United States of America
of South Carolinn-In the Circuit
Court-Fifth District.
William Beclrogo VS.. w. j. Harlin-
and Lucious G.. Roach.
The plaintiff filed his verified COM
int Sfn t,,.r hat Il
express to his own address, from Sa-
vannah, Georgia, to Charleston, South
Carolina, trunk containing two cases
OF Kline wine, four gallons of whiskev,
two gallons of California port wine.
two bottles of malt whiskey, products
of State other than than the State of
South Carolina; 500 cigars, four dozen
oranges, eight cans peaches and one
pair fine dress shoes. All of these in
tended for n Wedding festival, his own
marriage at Charleston, on the night of
27th of .January, 1897. That these
goods reached Charleston ON the 26th
of January, and that the defendants
unlawfully, etc, entered the office of
the Southern Express Company in the
city of Charleston upon the arrival of
the goods in said city in due course of
transportation and before delivery
thereof to the consignce, wrongfully,
etc, took and carried away the same.
Upon filing the complaint with nffi-
davit the plaintiff moved for IN order
for the arrests of defendants under sub
division q, section 300 of the code of
civil procedure of South Carolina.
which permits such an arrest in an ac.
ton Tor thc recovery OF damages for the
wrongful taking, OBTAINING or con
Nerting personal property. An order
of arrest was issued under this sec
ton.
The defendants now come in and bv
aifidavits show that in the matter COM
planned of they were acting as State
constables and they claim the immuni-
ty suit and arrest, provided for them in
the dispensary law of the State. 1t is
in these words: Section 45. That
chapter |, title VII, of the code of civil
procedure of this State, entitled 'Of
Provisional Remedies in Civil Actions
shall not apply to any officer or person
having duties to perform under this
act, and i'll no case shall an action be
against any such officer or person for
damages to person or property, as pro-
vlded in said chapter"
The question is does this section pro-
tect these defendants ?
The provisions of the dispensary law
under which these defendants acted are
In sections 25, % and 33 of 1896, in stat
utes at large of South Carolina, l42.
AZ, l45. Section 25 declares that liquors
which are contraband may be seized
and taken without warrant by any con-
stable, ETC., while in transit or after ar
rival, in possession of common car
rler, depot agent or express agent.
Section 20 makes it the duty of all con-
stables to detain packages supposed to
contain liquors i'll the possession of n
common carrier Section 32 provi les
that all liquors containing alcohol
transported into this State shall upon
introduction and arrival in this State
be subject to the operation and effect of
the dlspensary law, to the same extent
and III the same manner rs if they had
been produced i'll the State
The Supreme Court of the United
States, i'll the case of Donald VS.. Scott,
l65 U. S., is, has held that the provis-
ions OF the dispcnsary law of 1893,
which are identical with these sections
of act of 1896, are null and void. They
are absolutely null and void, because
they are Ill conflict with the Constitu-
tion OF the United States This being
so. these provisions must be eliminated
from the dispcnsary law and he treated
as If they did not exist. Donald VS..
scott was decided and the opinion pub
Eshed on the 18th of January, 1897,
eight days before the occurrence com
planned Of
This being SO, the act of the defend
ants III taking these goods out of the
possession of the common carrier was
not one Of the duties they could per
form or be permitted, or he instructed
to perform undor the dispensary act
1t is urged that these defendants acted
under orders of the State officials and
that this eXonerates them. But us the
act under which the State officials gave
their orders, if indeed they did give
orders, and under which these defend
ants acted. is null and VOID, there was