The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-07-20
COUNTY OFFICES CASE;
PETITION DISMISSED
WERTs, AS AUDITOR, VS.. FEA.
GLE, AS SUPERVISOR.
Supreme Court Says County Board
Have Complete Control of Offices
For County Officers.

HC SuJL CuS NOuA A1eAS NAol14SSSu
the petition in the case Of Eugene S.
Werts, as county auditor, V. L. I.
Feagle. as county supervisor, in which
was involved the matter Of the dispo-
sition Of the offices of county auditor
and judge Of probate in the new court
house. The decision Of the supreme
court is to the effect that the court
refuses to pass upon the merits Of the
contention, holding that the supervi-
sor and eommissioIers-the county
board-have exclusive jurisdiction.
It will be recalled that some time
ago the board of commissioners decid-
ed to put Judge of Probate Schumpert
in the Office in the new court house
now occupied by County Auditor
Werts. The county board sought to
put their decision into execution and
Messrs. Blease & Dominick, attorneys
for Mr.. Werts, appeared before Chief
Justice Pope and obtained a tempo
rary restraining order. It was al
legged by Mr.. Werts, as auditor, that
the office in which it was sought to
place him-which is the little Office
Immediately in rear Of the office
which he now occupies was entirely
too small for the purposes of his Of
fee. Under the temporary restrain
ing order of Chief Justice Pope, tho
matter came on for nearing before the
whole supreme court, the supervisor
being represented by Messrs. Schum-
prt and Holloway. In the meantime,
Chief Justice Pope had retired. The
opinion Of the court is written by As
sociate Justice Eugene B. Gary, and
is concurred in by Chief Justice Ira B.
Jones, and Associate Justices c. A.
Woods and D. E. Hydrick.
The remittitur in the case has not
yet come down and been filed with
the clerk Of court, but The Herald
and News secured from the clerk Of
the supreme court a certified copy OF
the decision. It will be seen from the
decision that the supreme court does
not say that the supervisor is right Or
wrong on the merits Of the case; it
says that the disposition Of the offices
in a court house is entirely in the
hands of the supervisor and his board,
and that the court has nothing to do
with it. In fact, the court quotes IN
approval an authority which says that
it will "not interfere on the sole
ground that their actions (those OF the
supervisor and his board) are charae-
terized by lack Of wisdom or sound
discretion" even.
Judge of Probate Sehumpert has
continued to occupy his office in the
old court house, having refused to
move.
The decision again leaves it up to
the county supervisor and his board.
Under it, they could tomorrow morn
ing move every officer in the court
house, and could do so as often as 1t
seems best to them. In other words,
the supreme court holds that it is a
matter entirely for them. They may
leave Auditor Werts in his office, or
NAV move him. They may place
Judge of Probate Schumpert in any
office in the court house they see Mt
to put him in. 1t IS up to them.
Whatever action the supervisor and
his board now take will be the law OF
the case. If they adhere to their $or-
mer decision. County Auditor Werts
will be forced to move into the little
room in the rear and Judge OF Pro-
bate Schumpert will move from the
old court house up into the office IN
the new court house now occupied by
Auditor Werts.
The full text Of the decision tol-
lows:
! The Decision.
The State Of South Carolina.
In the Supreme Court.
Eugens S. Werts, as County Auditor
of Newberry County, PlalntlH,
Against
L. I. Feagle, as County Supervisor,
and Frank NJ. Schumpert, as Judge
of Probate, of Newberry County,
Defendants.
Opinion by Eugene B. Gary, A. }.
This is an application to the court,
/, o.o:,o of ;+e orr on !, al iuris1ic-