The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1897-02-10
THAT pIsPENsARY DECISION.
Tho omuibus Constable Injunction roat.
a tlre Docs Not Hold.

Tho Omnibus Constable Injunction Feat.
ure Docs Not Hold.
COLUMBIA, s. O., Fob. 4.--The State
authorities have found on examlna.
ton of the decision in the dispensary
case that the omnibus Injunction
against constables does not hold. This
phase of the decision is brought out
IN the equity case decided in tic Uni
ted States Supreme Court. The decis
ion requires Judge Simonton to mod
ify his decree Of injunction to con
form to the decision, making it apply
only TO the cOnstables named in the
original action. The State, however,
does not propose or intend to antago
nize the principle laid down it is
stated. M
The anti.omnibus injunction prin
ciple is said TO be Of much import, and
tho decision of the United States Su
preme Court says on this point: ''But
Whiio We think that the complainant
was entitled to an injunction agains!
these defendants who had despoiled
him of his property, and who wore
threatening to continue so to decree
in this case. The theory of the decree
entered in this case. The theory of the
decree is that the plaintiff is one OF q
class Of persons whose rights are in.
fringed and threatened, and that be
SO represents such class that he may
pray an injunction on behalf of ali
persons that constitute it. It is, in
deed, possible that there may be
others in like case with the plaintiff,
and that such persons may be nuner.
Gus, but such state Of facts is too
coniectural TO furnish a safe basis
upon which Court of equity ought
TO grant an injunction.
We prefer TO accept in this respect
the views expressed by Justice Mel
son, in the case of Cutting v. Gilbert,
g Blatch, 259) Extracts are cited
from the decision. Similar views pre-.
vailed in the case of Baker VS.. City OF
Portland (5 Sawyer, 566.) The decree
is also objectionable because it enioins
persons not parties to the suit. This
is not case where the defendants
named represent those not named.
Nor is there alleged any conspiracy
between the parties defendant and
other unknown parties. The acts
complained Of arc tortious, and dc
not grow out Of any common action
or agreement between constables and
sheriffs of the State of South Carolina
We have, indeed, right to presume
that such officers, though not named
in the suit, will, when advised that
certain provisions of the Act in ques
ton have been pronounced unconsti
tutional by the court to which the
constitution of the United States re-
fers such questions, voluntarily re-
frain from enforcing such provisions
but we do not think it comports will
we'll settled principles of equity pro
ccdure to include them in an iniunc
tion III q suit in which they were no
heard or represented, or to subjec
them to penalties for contempt in dis
regarding such an injunction. (Fel
low VS.. Fellow, 4 John Chan, 25 cit
ing Iveson VS.. Harris, Vesey, 257.
The decree of tho court below shOult
therefore be amended by being re
| stricted to the parties named as plain
tiifs and defendants in the bill, ant
this is directed to be done, and it il
otherwise affirmed. Mr.. Justice Brew
or did not hear tho argument, AM
took no part in the decision Of thi
case. The full text of the decision
was given out tonight, but the ex
tract given is the new and importan
part not published heretofore. Th,
Official dispcnsary bill will probabl,
be introduced tomorro News ant
Courier.