The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-08-14
The Ice Delivery War Advanced.

\ L =
thus leaving it to the court to decld'
upon the law aud the facts Ia th'
opening Of the case Mr.. O,Bryan pune
tured the prosecutions drag net, b,
obtaining from the court a declslol
that all OF the deliveries Of ice and bee
on particular Sunday was one otfense
and not as the prosecution contendet
divers offenses, and by this knocked
to pieces the labor Of those who sweat
ed on a Sunday morning following
James ice delivery wagon over town
The defense admitted the delivery O
both ice and beef. but contended. anG
backed its contention bv numerous de-
cisions in a number Of States, that the
delivery OF such articles came under
the head of ''work Of necessity" ana
! further. the defendant James testlhed
that he was delivering his ice and beet
through q permit of the town council
which permits, during certain months,
the delivery of ice and beef on Sunday
morning up to O'Clock, and that when
he was ordered by Messrs. Jenkinson
and Dickson TO stop, he went to the
men who were clothed with legal
authority for advice, and they told
him to continue his deliveries.
The prosecutions witnesses, 1otwith-
standing the admission on the part OF
the defense that it delivered ice ana
beef as alleged, went on and proved
that james did deliver, and therefore
in the opinion of witness Jenklnson he
..labored on our Sabbath day" This
witness also gave it as his opinion, ice
was not necessity, neither was beef,
people could eat canned goods,
and he was allowed to argue during
the recital of his testimony that ice
and beef was luxury Mr.. Jenkinsou
also gave it as his opinion that the
ice and beef delivered on Sunday was
sold on that day. as in his opinion
again, the delivery consumated the
sale.
Mr.. Joseph Sprott also gave his opin-
ion that it was not necessary to deliver
ice and beef on Sunday.
Mr.. Louis Applet testified for the de-
fense that the delivery of ice and beef
was work of necessity and he explain
ed that by necessity he meant, not an
absolute necessity, but such necessity
which if deprived of, would cause great
Inconvenience to those who were regu-
lar users OF these things. and too, beef
taken from the refrigerators OF our
markets would spoil in short order I'M
less kept on ice, and liable to cause
sickness, and such being the case. and
so many people not provided with re-
frigerators, it was q necessity to have
the ice and fresh meats delivered on
Sunday morning or be deprived OF the
use Of either.
Mr.. J. Il. Rigby also testified to the
same facts.
W. NJ. James, the defendant, swore
that it had been his custom to deliver
ice and beef on Sunday morning ever
since he has been in business, and al
ways did so with the permission OF the
town council, that it was not his ppr-
pose to defy law, but his patrons de-
manded their meats and ice delivered
to them on Sunday morning, and he
did so without any extra compensation.
Since he was notified to stop this de-
livery he has made it a rule TO take up
the ice tickets when the order was
made on Saturday. He did not sci!
anything on Sunday, but the beef and
ice he delivered was sold the day be-
fore, and as an accommodation he al
lows it to remain in cold storage TO
keep fresh and fit for use, knowing
that when meats are taken out Of cold
storage they would spoil very quick.
Mr.. O'Bryan, in his argument for
the defendant, cited a number OF eases
from the l;aw books, going 10 show that
the delivery of such articles have been
held as ''work of necessity
Mr.. Lesesne made no attempt to cite
any court decisions to back up the con-
tention of the prosecution, but he
argued from the standpoint, "Remem-
Der the Sabbath" etc. This portion OF
his argument the prosecution as well
as the defense could give more heed
to, but ir ;his particular case, the law
of the land governs, and it is for the
courts to construe the meaning OF
:'work of necessity" as contemplated IN
the law.
Magistrate Youmans, at the conclu-
sion of the arguments, announced he
would rule that the delivery OF ice and
beef is not a work OF necessity and
therefore would find the defendant
guilty. The punishment is g fine OF one
dollar, with no Imprisonment. Mr..
O'Bryan gave notice OF appeal, and the
imposition of the fine was suspended.
The object of appealing the case Is
to get a decision from the court, the
defense believing thar the law does not
contemplate running this government
on the lines laid down by the prosecu-
ton, nor does it believe the law Is ln-
tended to operate against one class OF
citizens in favor of another. II the law
of the land means to stop all manner
OF labor on Sunday, those seeking to
stop the delivery of ice and beef which
does no harm, but gives comfort to
those who cannot afford the conyen-
fences of the wealthy. can hnd Sraver
offenses to correct, offenders who will
probably turn their patronage else
where if meddled with; anyway, there
is lot OF opportunity for moral moni-
tors TO 60 into the moat and beam
picking business. There is no dlsposl-
uion to break law, and when Magis-
trate Youmans rendered his decision
in favor of the State, defendant, upon
the advice of those interested in MS
case. posted notice on his door that
he would stop the delivery on Sunday
pending the appeal. AS result there
was 70 deliveries made last Sunday.
The appeal will be heard by HIS
Honor Judge George E. Prince. who
will preside here at the next term OF
court, and if he overrules the Magis-
trate, as we confidently believe he will,
then there will be.no more interference
in the Sunday deliveries OF necessities
whether it suits all of the markets TO
deliver or not.