The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-03-10
CAN'T BE CLOSED.
SO says the State Supreme Court
About Elloree ni,pensary.
The Decision Says tho State Board OF
Directors Have No Power to
Olose UP Dispensary.

TIE State supreme court Wednes
day handed down a decision in the
case OF the removal Of the dispensary
from E,loree. The court sustains the
position taken by Chairman Fl. II.
Evans, who, acting upon the advice
of the attorney general, voted against
the proposition to do away with the
dispensary at that place on the ground
that the State board has rot the au.
thority to take such action.
In the decision of the court, writ.
ten by the chief justice, Hon. Y. J..
Pope. a brief history OF the case is
given. In October last the people of
Elloree signed petition for the re.
moval Of the dispensary. No charges
OF misconduct were brought against
j. M. Weeks, the dispenser. The
people wanted to be rid of the dis.
p nsary and did not hesitate to say
so, all but halt a dozen OF the men OF
that community having signed the
petition asking for the removal Of the
liquor shop.
The petition was acted upon by the
hoard on the l4th Of December ard
Messrs. Towill and Boykln are re-
corded as having voted to grant the
petition. MIR. Evans is recorded as
having voted against the action OF the
majority, for he thought the State
board had no Jurisdiction. Dispenser
weeks then appealed to the supre me
court for writ of prohibition to
estop the decree of the S ate board
In bis com plaint to the supreme court.
Weeks says that no vote had been
taken by the qualified electors OF the
county OF O.angeburg to close dis
peusarics in said county as provided
by law" He also alleges that n
charges had baen made against hi,
management, that he could not be re.
moved except for cause. and that the
State board has no authority to close
a diSpensary except upon the order Of
the mb jority uf the people of ccun-
ty After summing up these facts,
he chief justice says:
"A scrutiny OF the powers conferred
by law up the board Of directors OF
the State di,penSary fails to show
that any power to close dispensar,
once established has been Conferred
oy law to said board OF directors; but,
on the contrary, the law confers such
power upon different tribunal" II
then quotes the law as amend. d b,
Senator Brtce's bill In 1904, and con
Jinued:
Apart from all of this, such power
in board OF directors of State dispen.
sary migftesst at naught the will of
6he pee es4R.a ex sssEt sssd d 9 b, their ps
resentatives, legally chosen. AS we
have heretofore remarked, there Is no
power given TO the State board OF d.
reclors TO close cOun di>p .nsary.
The demurrer Is overruled, and as aay
further consideration Is not desire d on
the merits we will grant the petit
tiOn.
1t is therefore ordered that the
act OF the Stale board of control Is
null and void and the writ Of prohi-
bition Is hereby ord red to issue, re
straning the respondent from enfOrc.
Ing their resolution adopted on the
IA ia OF December, 1904"
MeSsrs Moss & Lide OF Orangehury
and Mr.. William Elliott, Jr., OF Co
lumbia, represented Dispenser Weeks,
Mr. w. G. Wolfe OF O:ange burg rep
resented the people OF Elluree. The
action OF the supreme court means
that no community can rid itself OF
the dlspensAry although that same
community might not have wanted a
dispensary thrust upon 1t. 1t requires
the vote CT an entire county to give
relief.