The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-11-03
UNION DISPENSARY CASE.
Petition Dismissed, But 1t Will Conc
Up In Another Form Before
Judge Pritchard.

The argument in Asheville Of the
South Carolina dispensary case, in
which J. c. Howell, Of Union. S. c..
seeks to compel the board of control
of Union county to allow him 20 re-
open the dispensary in Union by
claiming that the Brice bill, under
which the election which resulted in
the dispensary being closed, is un-
constitutional, came to an abrupt end
on STuesday before the merits Of the
case were reached. Judge Pritchard,
in. Asheville, on his own motion, rails
ed the point that the relief demanded
"a mandamus-would be improper in
any event, that writ being used only
to enforce the DEGREES of the court,
and after brief argument he dismiss
ed the petition without prejudice.
Immediately thereafter, on motion
OF Howells attorneys, the court issued
a rule to show cause why a mandatory
injunction should not be granted d.
rected against the same defendants
and in favor of the same complainant.
The hearing was set for November 20
before Judge Pritchard, at Richmond.
Ex-Attorney General Bellinger and
R. H. Welch, of Columbia, and Dis
trict Attorney J. G. Capers, of Green
vile, representing the relator; P. V.
Barron, of Union, representing the
board of control; Ex-Congressman
Stanyarne Wilson and Judge-elect D.
E. Hydrick, of Spartanburg, and B.
F. Townsend, V. E. DcPass and J. A.
Sawyer, of Union. associated with Mr..
Barron and representing the anti-dis-
pensary into ~csts, are participating in
the case.
Another Account.
Judge Pr;ichard dismissed tine mail
damus proceedings brought by J. G.
Howe;., who desires to be restored to
office as dispenser at Union. S. c.,
against the board of control of Union
county, on :.c ground that writ Of
mandamus could only be issued as an
anc:l;a7y remedy, and that the court
did ID have power 20 afford the rem
edy prayed for by such writ The
merits OF the matter were not con-
sidered by the court, and the status
of the case is practically unchanged
by today's action.
The case was argued at some length
Tuesday morning. Messrs. Bellinger
& Welch, of Columbia, and John c.
Capers, Of Greenville, represented the
relator, and ExJCongressman J. STAN
yarne Wilson led the argument for
the defence. Howell's attorneys ar
gued the unconstitutionality of the
Brice bill, alleging that it was con-
trary to the Fourteenth Amendment,
and necessitat,d unequal taxation.
The defendants advanced the points
that the court did not have jurisdic-
ton and contended that it was pure
ly State matter. They said the affair
is either political or police matter,
and that similar case is now pending
in the South Carolina supreme court.
The point upon which the case was
really decided was not advanced.
Owing to the statement Of attorneys
this morning that the newspapers of
South Carolina had intimated that ef
forts would be made to secure snap
judgment; and an order Of Judge
Pritchard, through misleading state
ments, Judge Pri1chard stated from
the bench tha. in so far as his court
was concerned, there would be no
snap judgment or hasty order, and the
court was not being misled.
Following is the order of removal:
y. G. Howell, relator, versus R. NJ.
Fincher, w. D. Wilkins and Elzie Kel-
ley, as the county board of control
of Union county, defendants. The Pc
tition, the rule to show cause and re-
turn thereto having been read, and it
appearing to the court that it had no