The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-05-28
EARLY DECISION IN
ANGUS CASES
Dispensary Argument Concluded
Yesterday, and Matter Is Now
With Court.
OTHER SIDE is PRESENTED
Strong Speeches Made by Pronli-
nent Attorneys Important
Points at Issue.

/ -
/ To use an expression frequently em-
p]oyed by the legal fraternity. the
/ South Carolina liquor dispensary cases
are now "in the breast Of the court"
1.-THE argument having been completed
| yesterday afternoon and all the ques-
lions at issue taken under advisement
by the presiding judges. Although the
Chief Justice allowed only two hours
a side for the main argument. so much
time was consumed in preliminary
sparring between counsel that 1t was
! necessary to hold q brief afternoon
session yesterday. in order to complete
| the hearing. When Mr.. Abney. OF South
Carolina, who closed the case on be-
half Of the State. had concluded his
| speech, Mr.. Barnard. of Asheville. one
Of the attorneys for the appellees. asked
that he be allowed fifteen days in
which to file printed brief setting
out his contentious more at length.
The court will give you ten days"
said the Chief Justice from the bench.
and to this decision. Of course. coun-
sci gracefully bowed.
A few moments later Mr.. Wyndham
r. Meredith entered a motion on be-
NAIL VI lHe lTeueSdI COMPANY LII IL
appeal from Judge Pritchard's deci-
sion In the seaboard Air Line receiver
ship proceedings in a matter involv-
ing a debt against the railroad OF about
$4,000. This motion was resisted by
Mr.. John S. Eggleston. representing
the receivers. Decision was reserved.
Court was then adjourned until 10
o'clock this morning, when Judge
Pritchard will preside, the chief JUS
tice having come here only to sit In
the South Carolina litigation.
Pie Two Contentious.
The argument yesterday, like that
OF the previous day, was purely legal
In it's nature, and was therefore In
tcresting more to lawyers than to
laymen. The chief contention of the
appellants was that the suit was i'll
effect suit against the State. and that
the commission appointed by the Leg
islature to wind up the affairs of the
dispensary was court and could not
be enjoined by another court; that no
one save the State had an interest IN
the business to be liquidated, and that
the State was therefore an indispen-
sable party TO the proceedings. II this
argument holds good the suit falls TO
the ground upon the we'll established
principle that an individual cannot sue
State.
Mr.. T. NJ. Mordecai completed his
argument for the appellees at the
morning session, and was followed by
Mr.. A. S. Barnard, representing the
same side. The case was closed for
the State in very able legal arGu-
ment by Mr.. B. L. Abney. OF South
Carolina.
For the Plaintiffs.
Mr.. Mordecai spoke nearly altogeth-
er from carefully prepared printed
brief, which he held constantly in his
hand. He undertook first to break
down the contention that the commits
sion is a court, and argued at length,
citing many authorities in support OF
his position. He declared further that
the suit was not against the State. In
pursuing this point he said:
effect of a recent decision by the Supreme
Court of South Carolina to be fully consid-
cred in this argument, made In proceeding
flied during the tendency OF this proceeding
10 obtain the authority OF that court TO pay
out $4,000 of the funds covered by the re-
strainng order of the circuit Judge. The
case held that the funds in question were
the funds Of the State and could not be
disbursed without the consent of the state
that the State had never consented to be
made party to the proceedings In the
United States Court, and being an indis-
pensable party that court had no jurisdic-
ton of the subject matter.
Not Well Founded.
1--WE submit. however. that the entire
proceeding and decision of the Supreme Court
| OF South Carolina, as we'll as the argument
on the other side upon the question
row under discussion, are based upon
misrepresentation OF tho scope and purpose
OF the present proceeding in this court.
THE attempt is not made here in any
in passing the legislation under discussion.
/, nor to force the officers in charge Of the
fund. whatever may be their relation 70 INC
state. to do any act not contemplated by
the statutes. The decisions cited upon both
sides Of the question no wheeling discussed
while opportunity opposed. are easily recon
| class Of cases the effort was made to force
certain officers to do what they We're com
manded by statute not to DO, ana IN INC
other class OF eases! the purpose was t.
have carried out, through the agencies
therein provided. that which the statute
enjoined and required"
Closing speeches.
Mr.. Barnard followed closely along
the lines laid down BY his colleague 81.
similar to that Of his. colleague, Mr..
Rountree. who opened on the previous
day.
when a decision might be expected, but
the cases win very probably be de-
Itermined in the very near future. The
Justices question as to Whether STA e
funds were tied up by the receivership
proceedings and other Inquiries of a
isimilar character. indicated that ne
felt that the matter ought to be ad-
Indicated with all reasonable haste,
and. therefore, an early decision Is
anticipated.
During much of the session yester,,
|day, Attorney General Anderson ana
Incorporation &C Commissioner r. e, Pren-
It's We're attentive listeners to the ar
lgument.
Mp cARIETnM HERE