The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1908-11-04
WILT Be DONE!
The State Supreme Court issues
esss1damus Against Commission.
CLAIM ORDERED PAID

CLAIM ORDERED PAIE
The attorney for the Winding {
Commission VIII at Once TAX
the Case to the Supreme Cour
Of the United States for Heacia;
end Decision.
The Columbia correspondent o
The News and Courier says prsct.
cally cesHrned the position takel
by that Court in regard to the dis
peasary funds and granted man
danus against the commission order
ing it to pay claim approved by th<
General Assembly notwithstanding
she Injunction against such payment
from the Federal Court. The attor
aey for the 6ispensary COZ. mission
at once gave notice OF appeal from
the Supreme Courts order, and the
case will be at once taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States,
and it is probable that the case WI
be argued before that tribunal al
the same time as the Fleischman
ease, that goes up from the redera!
Court Of Appeals to the Federal
Supreme Court, both cases involving
the same points as 70 the powers OF
the dispeosary windiag-up commits
sion.
The decision Of the Court l.. this
new case IN full IS as follows, max
ing the decision in the previous ease
OF Lyon against Murray at al = part
Of this decision:
South Carolina-In the Supreme
Court, Original Jurisdiction-The
State of South Carolina eS rel A
". Ray, trustee. petitioner. rs. w
:. Murray and others.
t appearing that the questions
raised in this proceeding have been
sdiu6ieated by the case Of the State
es re-, ;. F. Lyon VS.. ". ]. Murray
and others, and that the return o.!
the respondents Is insufficient fot
the reason set forth IN the opinion
Il the ssi6 ease, now on motion 81
D. c. Ray. attorney for petitioner:
Il is ordered that q pe-en ptor!
writ Of mandamus do issue reeu!r-
lag the respondents to pay the MOI
ey due the petitioner. as set fortL
in the petition. The reasons for SAD
Judgment are stated IN the opinion
in tie case Of Lyon VS.. Murray
shove referred to, which opinion is
20 be made part Of this decree.
as6 the Court reserves the rigat te
Sle q further opinion in case it deems
It necessary.
W. Pope, Chief Justice.
Ira B. Jones, A. J.
c. A. Woods, A. J.
Prior to hearing the case tht
court granted the motion t. make
the State a party to the esse OF coz
sent Of the Attorney General, as fol
lSIs:
rhe State OF South Carolina, in
the Supreme Court: The consent .:
the State having been given to taf
nss Q; its aar.e IN the csse Of 3
Ray. trustee. petitioner. agains: "
J. Murray ct a..
On motion Of D. c. R$y. atsor-
sey or petitioner, it is ordered tha:
the petition for nandamus, and ether
p,esdings in the cause be amended
BY inserting in the captions thereo!
the words ''The State ex REL" 81
that said pleadings as amended sAal!
read il the name Of the State eH
re. 4. W. Ray, trustee, assia't W.
J. Murray, John McSween and Avery
Patton, as State dispensary commits.
sion, respondents.
y. Pope, Chief Justice.
Ira s. Jones, 4. j.,
c. A. Woods, A. J.
Columbia, S. c.. Oct. 80, 1908.
When the Court was convenei
there were present Chief Justice
Pope and Associate Justice Gray
Jones and Woods. Mr.. D. c. Ray
formerly Attorney General, repr"
seaticg the petitioner. his brother
Er. a. ". Ray, made a brief argl.
uent for bis motion, relying prsnci-
pally on the decision Of the Court l.:
ths case il which on motion Of thI
Attorney General last winter az or.
der was granted compelling the com.
mission to pay the sum set aside froT:
the dispensary funds for the prosecu
ton Of alleged dispeasacy grafIere
The commission, respondents. were
represented By their regular couHse!
Mr.. W. F. Stevenson, his position
beins that uRder tie orders Of tnf
Federal Courts the commission can
Rot pay ou. any money except on the
order OF that Court. Attorney Gen
eral Lyon. for the State, appeare|
IN support Of the position Of Nj
Asv.
It will be recalled that NJ. 4 "
Ray is the purchaser and p-esen
owner Of claim against the Sat't
dispeasa-y formerly held BY 6issil
ing company, which claim the Leg
isiature has ordered to be paid. Til,
question is now squarely up whethe
the State Court or the Federal Cour
Is eorrect-the State Supreme Cour
holding that the commission Is til
agency Of the State and the fund
in It's hands are State funds. Will
the Federal Court holds that n ere
ating this commission the Genera
Assembly established a trust fun
for the benefit Of the creditors of tt
State dispensary and that the fund
do rot belong to the State. III
opinion OF the State Supreme ecu:
ia the former case was written b
Associate Justice Woods, and was
ca-v strong document. It viii nc