The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1902-12-17
Lee COUNTY DECISION.
The Petition for Injunction
Dismissed.
The Supreme Court Declares That the
Court Cannot Go Behind the Aet
OF the Legislature.
OPINION READ BY JUSTICE JONES.

OPINION READ BY JUSTICE JONES.
Columbia, Dec. 15..-The Supreme
Court rendered a decision today that
puts an end to the fight in the courts
to prevent the establishment of Lee
county and leaves the new county to
go ahead unhampered under the act Of
the Legislature creating it.
The opinion was read from the
bench by Associate Justice Ira B.
Jones. Its as follows:
The State of South Carolina in the
supreme court, November term, 1902:
William W. Fraser and others, petit
TONERS, VS.. ". A. James and others
as commissioners of Lee county, re-
spondents. Opinion by Jones, A. j.
By this proceeding in the original
Jurisdiction of this court petitioners
seek to enjoin the respondents as COM
nissioners of Lee county, from per-
forming any duty imposed upon them
by the act of the general assembly to
esablish Lee county approved 25th
February, 1902, Stat. 1I94, upon the
grounds set forth in the petition here
with reported, which assails the con-
stitutionaltiy of said act for the rea-
sous that the said Lee county did not
certainly receive the favorable vote Of
two-thirds of the qualified electors in
each section of said proposed new
county; did not certainly have the
necessary population and assessed
value of property, nor leave the
necessary population and assessed
value of property in the three old coun-
ties from which it was carved; has
not the boundaries in the act that we're
designated in the petition and should
have been controlled by the election !;
and has cut the county of Sumter
within eight miles Of its court house
building"
Respondents make return denying
the material allegations of the petit
ion, and petitioners gave notice of g
motion for reference to take testi-
mony upon the issues Of fact raised.
Upon the call Of the case, however,
respondents made motion to dismiss
the petition, being in effect a demur-
rer thereto, upon the several grounds
set forth in their demurrer or motion.
After carefully considering the mat
ter the court is Of opinion that the
petition should be dismissed upon the
ground that it fails to state a course
of action or facts warranting the in
junction prayed. The case now pre-
sented n Segars VS.. Parrott, "a S.
G. l., wherein in the former act Great
ing Lee county % Stat. 90S, was de-
clared unconstitutional and the COM
missioners Hereunder were enjoined
from performing any duties imposed
upon them by said former act. In that
case the petition alleged, among other
things that the result of election for
the proposed county of Lee in that por-
tion of Darlington county sought to
be embraced within the area of said
new county Of Lee was as returned by
the managers of election and as de-
clared by the commissioners Of erection
unfavorable to the creation of said new
county, in that, as to reported and de-
clared it failed to cbsain two-thirds Of
the qualified electors in the Darlington
section in favor of the new county. In
this case it is alleged that the
managers and county election COM
missiouers declared as result of said
election that two-thirds of the ballot
cast separately in each of the counties
of Kershaw, Darlington and Sumter
had voted Yes on the creation of the
county and in favor of Lee as its
name and Bishopville' as its county
seat.'' That the result of said last
mentioned election was certified in
legal form by the commissioners of
election for said three old counties to
the secretary of state and by him was
submitted to the general assembly at
its next session. All which proceed
ings were conformable to law" In
the case of Segars VS.. Parrott the
former act creating Lee county was
declared unconstitutional because it
appeared by the result of the election
as certified by the commissioners Of
election to the general assembly that
two thirds of those voting in the Oar
lington section were not in favor Of
the proposed new county the majority
of the court holding the view that
the result Of the election as declared
and certified by the commissioners
of election to the general assembly, in
the absence of any judicial action set
ting it aside, was final and conclusive
as to such result and could not be dis
regarded by the legislature. The con-
stitution required an election of the pro-
posed new county leaving it to the
legislature to provide the mode of as
certaining and declaring the result,
which was done by the act of March
9, 1896, % Stat. 64, making it the
duty of the commissioners of election
to canvass the returns of the managers
of election and certify the result to the
secretary of state, to be by him trans
mitted in tabulated statement to the
general assembly. The result of the
election having been determined pur
suant to the constitution and act Of the
general assembly by the designated
tribunal having bower so to do. was
conclusive of the fact and binding
upon the Legislature as we'll as all
others. It follows in this case, in so
far as the allegations relate to the
election for the proposed new county
of Lee, that Segars VS.. Parrott, is
authority for dismissal of the petition.
In reference to the allegation in the
second paragraph of the petition that
the petition to the governor for the