Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1904-01-08
plant like Jenkins, because such an
act would be in violation Of regula-

act would be in violation Of regula-
tions.
The defense sprung a technicality on
the board in the form Of a demurrer
plant having failed to allege specifi-
cally the manufacture of alcoholic IL
quor the case should be thrown out un
der the act on which the board was
proceeding against the distiller. At
this Chairman Williams so completely
lost patience that he forgot the pres
ence of Pastor Bailey and asked with
warmth: do you suppose the ship
ments we have been getting from Jen-
kins all this time were turpentine?
Pastor Bailey arose to make an
eight-minute reply to the affdavits
submitted from members Of his church
tackled these members, mentioning one
by name as "a drunkard and liar"
This provoked Mr.. T. B. Butler for
the defense to ask why these erring
brothers were retained in the church,
to which Mr.. Bailey replied that they
would be dealt with when he got back
home.
He had used only a small portion Of
his time when Chairman Williams in
terrupted with plea that the board
be spared this washing Of dirty
church linen in public;" that the board
would like to excuse his remarks along
this line unless they involved some
essential feature Of the case. This
seemed to confuse Mr.. Bailey and he
sat down.
Mr. Jenkins in his affidavit referred
to one Of those present as being one
of the two men who had started the
fight against him for spiteful business
reasons. saying that this mans anger
had been incurred by Jenkinss refusal
to purchase his land.
The man referred to explained the
whole situation from his point Of view
and said with feeling and warmth that
Mr.. Jenkins statement was not only
| untrue but that 1t was "maliciously
false" He said that the only thing
that Jenkins could call an offer to sell
was his statement to him that II he
could not force his nuisance Of dis
tillery out Of the community he would
be compelled to sell his land; that the
rowdiness created by the distillery had
| compelled him to send his children into
North Carolina, where he had to pay
tuition, whereas he preferred and was
entitled to have them attend the An
tioch school, where he would not have
to pay. but whittier he dared not. send
the little ones on account OF the
drunkenness along the road.
At the December hearing the prose-
cution appeared with an affidavit from
two Of the three members Of the county
board Of dispensary control. At the
hearing yesterday the defense submit
ted an affidavit from the member who
had not appeared In the case then, and
| a statement from one of the others
saying that since he had found out the
standing of the third member, who
lived in the section affected, he had
changed his position and now wanted
to be understood as favoring the re-
tention of the permit.
Mr.. Butler admitted that 1t Is prob
able that the place lacks about quar-
ter Of being two miles from the church,
but argued 1t had been placed In good
| faith with the belief that 1t was far
enough, and pointed out that there was
abundant evidence to be found Of this
good faith in the fact that many Of
those now petitioning for its removal
had signed his petition for permit
| five years ago.
Mr.. J. c. Otis in concluding his ar
gument said that the board would have
some bad results to answer for II 1t
continued the permit. He said that
| that section would be dotted all over
with small Illicit distilleries by men
who are already arguing that II the
Jenkins distillery they are entitled to
run at least small ones, and there was
so much justice in their position that
h. would advise them to go ahead.
Jenkins Wins.
The state board Of dispensary direc-
tors has lodged the issue in the case
Of Antioch church vs. the Jenkins dis
tillery, by suggesting that the distil-
lery go a little further down the
branch. The boards conclusions are
reported in. the Columbia State of this
morning as follows:
The Antioch Baptist church has lost
out in its vigorous three months fight
before the state board Of dispensary
directors against the Jenkins distillery.
But the bone Of contention Is to be
removed a quarter Of a mile further
from the church, in order to put 1t out
| ing and bitterness have been engen-
dered by the contest and 1t Is likely
that the church will renew its fight
against the distiller in the Cherokee
court by bringing specific charges Of
violation Of law against him.
The following resolutions adopted by
the board yesterday. explain the posi-
tlOn the DOarQ mas TAKEN IN the PREM
ises:
Resolved, first, That 1t is the judg-
ment Of this board that the petition
ers VS.. rhe Jenkins distillery in Cher
okee county have failed to prove that
the Jenkins distillery Is nuisance to
the community, in that they have fail
ed to allege and prove any specific vio-
lations Of the dispensary law, conse-
quently we cannot revoke the permit
upon the ground Of nuisance.
Second That after investigating the
books of the revenue Office we find that
Jenkins has no retail liquor dealers
license, but that the entry to that ef-
feet as testified to by Mr.. McCulley
was clerical error, hence that charge
does not constitute prima facie case
against him.
1t was made to appear and Is not de-
MED that the distillery Is within two
miles Of a church In contravention Of
the law. and it is ordered: That un-
less the said Jenkins removes his dis
tillery beyond the two mile limit from
church or school house as Is provid
ed by law, and within the confines Of
Cherokee township in the county Of
Cherokee, by the first day Of Febru-
ary, 1904, his permit to distill alcohol
ic liquors shall stand revoked.
LOCAL LAcoNIcS.