Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-25
BRICB Law BNJOINBD.
Judge Townsend Signs Re-
straining Order.

Judge Townsend Signs Re-
straining Order.
UNION DISPENSARY IS STILL OPEN.
Upon the Declaration of the Result OF
the Election In uuion Messrs. w.
Boyd Evans and Lawson D. Melton
Apply For an Injunction, and on
September 4, the Court Will Give an
Opinion on the Questions That Have
Been Raised.
| Columbia State, Wednesday.
Beaten back and overwhelmed at
the polls by an outraged and indignant
citizenship, those who are loath to give
up the lucrative plunder so easy and
abundant In connection with the con-
troll of the state dispensary are now
impudently pushing their fight into the
courts with a determination to, lose
no hold on their swag so long as there
remains a single technicality on which
friendly Judge might be able to hang
reasonably plausible decision.
Union county voted the dispensary
out by an overwhelming majority; but
upon the official declaration Of the re-
suit last Tuesday, Judge D. A. Town
send, on the application Of Messrs.
Lawson D. Melton and w. Boyd Evans,
signed an order requiring the dispen-
sers to show cause before him on Sept.
4, 1905, why they should not be per-
petually enjoined from complying with
the result of the recent election.
The complaint on which the injunc-
ton is based is signed by COME Bar
nett, a farmer who loaned his name
for the purpose. and 1t Is directed
against r. M. Fincher, Elzie Kelly and
w. D. Wilkins, members Of the county
board of control and G. c. May, ]. G..
Howell and ]. r. Askew. county dis
pensers Under this complaint Mr..
Barnett alleges that he Is a taxpayer,
resident citizen, and qualified voter OF
Union county; that the defendants
named have under their custody, con-
troll management and direction three
dispensaries for the sale Of intoxicat-
ing liquors in this county. That by
virtue Of an alleged act OF the general
assembly entitled "An act to amend
section Of an act entitled An act to
provide for the election Of the state
board Of control, and to further regu-
late the sale. use, consumption, trans
portation and disposition Of intoxicat-
ing and alcoholic liquors or liquids In
his state and prescribe further PEN
alties for the violation of the dispen-
sary law, and to police the same" ap-
proved March 9Th. 1895, and as amend
ed by the general assembly Of South
Carolina at its regular session In jan
uary, 1904, and approved February
25th, 1904, T. ]. Betenbaugh, coun-
ty supervisor of Union county, ordered
an election to be held, submitting to
the qualified voters Of the said coun-
ty Of Union the question Of "dispensa-
ry" or mo dispensary," on the 18th day
of August. 1905. That the election was
held on the day prescribed. and the
county board Of commissioners have
today declared the result In favor OF
mo dispensary;" that said county
board of control and dispensers have
threatened and declared their inten-
ton to close the said dispensaries and
cease to operate the same, claiming 1t
Is their duty to do so as the result Of
the said election.
The Grounds.
This the plaintiff alleges would be
unlawful, unconstitutional and void, on
the following grounds:
(a) That this section Z, as above
cited, is In direct violation of the con-
stitutional inhibition contained In arti-
Gle 8 section "a clause II Of the consti-
tuition of South Carolina, 1905. That
said section Is an attempt on the part
Of the general assembly to pass spe-
cial law to limit the operation Of the
dispensary law to certain special local
tiles. and the act being deprived Of Its
character as a general law becomes a
special or local law. That the election
being made under said section Is ille-
gal and void.
(b) That by virtue Of article s, sec
ton IL of the constitution Of 1895, the
state cannot delegate to Its citizens
any special localities determined by
their votes as to whether they shall be
subject to the exercise Of the said
police power regarding the manufac-
ture, sale or prohibition Of liquors or
beverages.
(c) That the act popularity known as
the Brice bill is unconstitutional, as the
general assembly failed to provide for
the holding of elections at which time
such questions as 'dispensary' or mo
dispensary' can be submitted to the
people, and has failed to prescribe the.
manner In which such elections shall
be held and results ascertained.
(d) That under the general election
law the election should be held the
first Tuesday following the first Mon
day in November, 1895, and each Sec
ond year thereafter: that II 1t should
be held under this law such special
questions as "dispensary' or mo dis
pensary" should be submitted to the
people, then such election could only
be held the first Tuesday of November,
1906. and that T. ]. Betenbaugh had no
authority to order said election for
any other time.
(e) BY virtue Of majority Of the
votes being for mo dispensary" levies
special tax upon the tax payers Of
Union county, which Is in violation Of