Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-25

ways the law was not compiled with;
and as a result Of this fraud and these
irregularities the election resulted In
mo dlspensary." whereas, IL 1t had
been conducted according to law, II
would have resulted In favor Of the
dispensary. That the plaintiff, as a
citizen and resident Of Union county,
has right to purchase Intoxicating
liquors from said dispensaries, and II
same are closed. as threatened, the
plaintiff and other citizens Of Union
county will be deprived Of their
rights and privilege to purchase alco-
holic liquors, as he or they desire to
do, and the county will be deprived
of the revenue 1t is entitled to under
the provisions of the dispensary law
On these grounds the plaintiff prays
that the Injunction be issued to pre-
vent the said dispensaries from clos
ing, and the election to be declared
unconstitutional. illegal and void.
Following this are affidavits signed
by ]. B. Wilbanks and A. B. Burgess,
mill operatives, and ]. F. Wilbanks,
farmer. who allege that they did
not authorize the signing Of their
names to the petition, and that as
taxpayers they will be damaged be-
cause the election cost the county
$500.
The Supervisors Part.
The next affidavit is that signed by
G. c. May, beer dispenser, and j.
G. Howell, dispenser, who allege that
they. with w. Boyd Evans, visited
Supervisor T. ]. Betenbaugh on the
night Of August 11th, and that Beten-
baugh said In their presence that
when the petitions were first pre-
sented to him there were about 1000
signatures to said petitions, and that
he took them and carefully examined
them for several days. and Of the
1000 signatures to said petitions, he
found only 274 qualified voters on
aid petitions, and that he refused
to order the election and returned the
petitions to those who presented
them; that those interested took
the petitions and went over them,
and said they had found so or 80 ad-
ditional qualified voters, but that he
did not investigate to see whether or
not this was correct; that later the
same petitions were presented to him
again, with less than 200 additional
signatures, that he took the petitions
and ordered the special election to be
held In Union county on the question
of "dispensary" or mo dispensaTy" on
the 18th day Of August, 1905, with
out further investigating the said pc
titions to see whether they contained
the one-fourth Of the qualified voters,
as required by law. or not. At the
same time he ordered the special
election he did not know whether
the petitions contained the one-fourth
of the qualified voters or not, and did
not know them; but that he ordered
the said election because those who
presented the petitions said that they
had the one-fourth Of the qualified
voters; that II he had known what
he knew then, that 1t was not his
business to find ont whether the Pc
titions contained the one-fourth or
tIat fha ~ a.
ton did not make an affidavit that
the petition contained one-fourth OF
the qualified voters, neither did those
who presented the petitions the last
time make such an affidavit, that he
only took their word for 1t, that he
has been over the books Of the super
visor of registration for Union county,
and that he knows that there are at
least 1900 qualified voters in the
county OF Union; that he could not
make an affidavit at the time he or
dered the election or then that the
petitions asking for an election con-
tained one-fourth Of the qualified
voters Of Union county; that he would
make an affidavit to this effect next
morning, August 18th, 1905, when he
came to his office; that instead of
making said affidavit next morning,
as above stated, he refused, stating
that he preferred to go to his office
and write out history Of the whole
matter, in the form Of an affidavit.
Instead of going to his own office, he
went to the Office of ]. A. Sawyer,
where he spent the whole morning,
and about 2 o'clock that afternoon,
August 18th. he sent a letter to w.
BOYD Evans stating an entirely diff
ferent thing than that stated the
night before In the presence OF them;
that the said letter is affixed to the
affidavit
The letter referred to has already
been published. In closing 1t he says:
AT the time / ordered the election
was satisfied that the petition con-
tanned one-fourth Of the qualified
voters Of the county, and I am now
so satisfied"
The Effect.
The effect of this injunction pro-
ceeding is to keep the dispensary and
beer privileges open at least until
Wednesday. Sept. 9Th, notwithstand-
ing the result Of the election. 1t is
intimated that the members OF the
county board Of control might not
answer the complaint on the day set,
which would make the injunction per-
manent, as by answering 1t the cleo
tion would probably be declared legal
and binding and the men would lose
their positions. However. this may
be only guess work. as 1t is believed
that anyway some Of the defendants
will answer the complaint in their
endeayor to see the will Of the ma
iority of the people carried out.
TOBACCO HEART.