The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-01-20
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
Board of Control of Williamsburg County
Nay Proceed to Establish Dispensa-
ries at Scranton and Lake City.


lialnsburg county, in which the towns
of Scranton and Lake-City are situat-
ed, have made persistent and vigor
Gus fight for more than two years to
prevent the establishment Of dispen-
saries in the towns named. They have
fought it in the Court Of Common
Pleas and in the Supreme Court and
although they lave been defeated in
each of the several actions instituted
they have nevertheless prevented the
establishment Of the dispensaries up
to date Shortly after the Supreme
Court rendered decision in the Sew
erance case adverse to the opponents Of
the dispeDsary new action was be-
gun in the name Of j. j. Morris
against the County Board of Control
to prevent the establishment of the
dispensaries and temporary injunc-
tion restraining the board was obtain
ed from Judge P1rdy. The return to
the rule to show cause was made to
Judge Purdy at Chambers on Wednes-
day and arguments were made by
Messrs. ". F. Clayton, W. G. S,
Shipp and ". L. Bass. Judge Purdy
reserved his decision, but promised to
file it at an early day. He wrote the
decision Friday which dissolves the
temporary injunction and leaves the
board of control free to establish the
dispensaries. Judge Purdy's decision
is as follows:
The State of South Carolina,
County of Williamsburg.
Court of Common Please.
J. J. Morris, Plaintiff.
against
r. A. Murphy P. G. Gourdin and S.
M. McClary constituting the Board
of Control of Williamsburg county,
under the dispensary law, Defend
ants.
An action brought by the plaintiff
to restrain the defendants, as the
Board of Control of Williamsburg
county, from establishing dispensaries
at Scranton and Lake City. Goth
places being in Lee township in said
county.
The ground upon which the restrain
ing order is asked is based upon the
fact that a majority of the voters of
Lee township presented petition re-
ouesting that no dispeasary be estab-
lished in Lee township and the
Allegations are that the de-
PENDANTS are threatening and IN
tend to establish dispensaries IN
said township in each Of said towns
in disregard Of the prayer of the petit
tioneIs and in disregard OF the
rights of the plaintiff and
other taxpayers of said town
ship.
It appears from the complaint that
the defendants gave notice OF their
intention to locate dispensaries at
Lake City and Scranton, but the
date of the notice is not given, nor
is the date of the petition given, but
it appears from the records before
me, submitted at the hearing OF the
return to the Rule to Show cause,
that the notice was dated May 22nd
1902, and that the petition was served
upon the defendants on the ,2lst day
of December, 1903, about year and
a half after publication of the notice.
On an exparte hearing upon the
Return to the Rule tc show cause,
I granted a restraining Order. Ihe
defendants by their return, contest
the right of the plaintiff and others
to obtain a temporary Injunction, or
to continue in force the Order already
granted, and, among other things, IN
said Return, they say that the COM
plaint fails to allege that the petition
was in response to the Notice referred
to, or any other Notice and within
twenty days of the publication thereof.
AS before stated, it appears from the
records, and was admitted before me,
that the petition was not served upon
the defendants until the 21st day Of
December, 1868.
The language of the Act is as fol-
Tvs:
"There may be one or more county
dispensers appointed for each county,
the place of business Of each OF whom
shall be designated by the County
Board, but the State Board OF Dlrec-
tors must give consent before more
than one dispenser can be appointed
in any county; and when the county
board designates locality for q ois.
pensary, twenty days public notice OF
which shall be given, it shall be com.
petent for majority of the voters OF
the township in which such dispensary
is to be located to prevent its location
in such township by signing petition
or petitions addressed to the county
board, requesting that no dispensary
be established in that township -
While the precise point here urged
against the granting Of the temporary
order does not appear to haye been
directly in issue, yet the Supreme
Court, by Mr.. Justice Woods, has con,
strued this part of the Statute, and
has made the same a guide for me In
disposiag of this matter.
IN the Severance case, 81 S; C., at
page 416, Mr.. Justice Woods says
1.-The word designate as here used,
certainly does not mean that the
board shall name a place where they
have determined to establish a dlspen-
sary, for the law contemplates no con. OF
clusion or even intention upon the
part of the board until the majority
of the voters have had twenty days to