The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-09-09
IlE SUNDAY nv.
1CPRESdE COURT RULES ON I'M.
Po1sTANr CASE FROM MAN
Ming.
sailing Of leo and Meat Held to be
Violations Of Ola Common Law
Judge Prince h Sustained.

Coiumoia. Sept 1.-The supreme
ooers has decided that the sale OF ice
and meat on Sunday Is not work OF
nscessity and Is therefore In violation
~ section 500. sol. and 5o2 OF tho
oode which says;
s ~6eotion 500. No tradesman. arti-
ocsr. workman. iaborer or other per,
nm Whatsoever. shall do or exercise
any worldly lkbor. business or work
of their ordinary callings upon the
tssrd's day commonly called the
oAbbath) or any part thereof (worx
~ necessity or charity only except
~a). and every person being of the
Sgs of ~ years or upwards. offending
- tAs premises. SHALL for every such
~9szss. forfeit the sum OF 81.
$50. sci. No person or persons
vhassosvsr shall publicly cry. show
ocrsh. o. expose to sale any werss.
Dnesohsaaiss. fruit, herbs, goods or
~1aekss Whatsoever upon the Lords
~, or any part thereof. upon pain
vAse svsry psrsen 20 ofRendins shall
Unrfs1s the same goods % cried or
eAcved forth. or exposed TO sale.
''Sso sea-. No public sports or pas
uns~ - bsAr-baiting. bull-baitinx.
ussebsu PLAYING. horse racing. inter-
eo1ss % cemsaoa plays. or other
uAuasA sxsrcsss. sports or pastimes.
SnA - hustins. shooting, chasing
un1A or nshiAe. shall Be. used on the
tords day ~ any person or persons
vAsespsvsr; ana every person or per-
vnos eGss1iag n any Of the premises
GDn1l vpon conviction bs deemed
uuzl0 os misdsmsanor. and bs sub
- ~ nhs not to szcssd $50 or I'm
Us>Dsnnsse not 10 sxossd 20 days"
Ths act rsfsrrsd "a n probabaly the
~s1sse o. ne statute books and 10 In
0ee = COPY Of the colonial proclama-
vlDas issusd In 1884. passed by the
~smmon council Of this colony In
1511 and Afterwards embodied In the
oln&utss whom South Carolina be-
~osns : state.
The case was that OF the State
ooo1nA william James Of Manning
80 both adss appealed. the state on
ens ground that the magistrate before
vAOm the cass WAS tried. erred In al
ooN1ne ths three warrants issued to
- censoiidatsd into one charge. and
- defendant on the ground that
thsrs vas NO oass against James ana
feha& hs had not violated the law.
~ case was heard In the circuit
Ooart bsfors Judge Prince. who de-
~1os4 that the magistrate was correct
u - iassryvstation os the law and
-eno4 n had not erred In consolidating
- cass and on the evidence had not
~Bssd In nnins him 81. E
Wmam James sold Ice and meat
~ Manning and according to his
Senasmsnt delivered both to customers
- Son1ay morning. although he tes-
eiasd fhae hs had not violated the law.
IN tAat ths goods were paid for on
saturday and that they were not sold
GsuDpt ON physician's prescription. A
warrant IVES sworn out for his arrest
On August Z. 1907. there being three
oassA The defendant said that he had
Sssn deiivsrsas goods Of this charac-
- Tor the past nine years. Judge
Isencs. setr reviewing all OF this. up
holds me Magistrate. stating that the
-osIivsry Of loo or meat was q viola.
se3on Of the section referred to. unless
g b shown that u was an act OF
'nscsssity or MERCY. This was not
sAevn In the testimony. In conclu-
seos. Judss Prince says:
rss SSurs 10 earnestly urged to
1Aks Jsdicial notice Of certain natural
e.vs. such ~ thas Ice melts and fresh
essf spotls quickly In hot weather
Ihis b true. no doubt. but how do
tAsss natural laws help defendants
~aS. There is NO evidence that by
reason OF poverty or misfortune any
- M Of defendants customers were
unab'e Co furnish themselves with re-
@s1crafors of such capacity az would
orsssrvs both Ice and beef from Sat-
urdny over Sunday. Nor does the evi-
Ssnce NJ all show that there was q
senefs customer who could not. by the
sssrcise Of but ordinary prudence and
~eonomic foresight. have prepared
Aimself AZ very moderate cost for
takins care Of q sufic!ent quantity Of
both ice and fresh meat from satur-
day over sunday. II this had been
shovn. u would not have avaiied. 1t
vsszss Tn be conceded In argument Of
'coun~ei that In the town OF Manning.
WHARF defendant does Ibusiness no Ia