The record., 1911-03-09
Greenyille'S StCck Law Upheld in The
Court Of Appeals. Opinion De-
liyered by Judge Carroll.

liyered by Judge Carroll.
Last Friday City Attorney Cam
Howard received a copy Of the
opinion of the Court Of Appeals
sustaining the ruling of Judge San
didge in the case of NJ. Tut against
the City OF Greenville which was
suit attacking the stock law OF the
City which makes it a misdemeanor
for any person to suffer or permit
his cattle to run at large in the City
OF Grcenville.
The suit was instituted by NJ. Tut,
a negro, residing just outside Of
the City limits who had been fined
in the Police Court for 4 violation
of the ordinance and who sought to
enjoin the collection of the fine
claiming that because he lived with
out the corporate limits of the city
the ordinance could not apply to
him.
In the Circuit Court Judge San
didge sustained a demurrer to TUFTS
petition and the Court of Appeals
in well written opinion by Judge
Carroll upheld the judgement of the
Circuit Court The Court held that
the only question presented by the
appeal was "Did the appellant, a
non resident Of the Ci:y, by per-
-.--------s-i----7-----'' '7','-----.-s-rs,Y---
into the City, commit an oifense1"
In passing on the question the
court held that it made no difference
whether the owner of the stock was
liable, the exact language of the
opinion being "when the appellant
permitted his COW 10 run at large
within the City limits, he as certain
ly committed an act IN violation of
its laws as if he had himself driven
the COW within the limits and turned
her. at large" la another place
the opinion says "it is the act or
thing that is done within the city
limits in violation of the ordinance
shat subjects the doer TO The penalty.
Where the doer of the act is in
fact at the time is a matter of no
consequence"
This ordinance has been a law OF
the City of Greenville for some time
and has been generally observed by
resident owners OF stock, but Tut
and few of his neighbors who live
outside OF the City limits have re-
fused 10 obey il and have conse-
quently been fined a number of times
in the Police Court. The strict en-
forcement Of the ordinance i'm
mediately after its passage would
doubtless have worked hardship
on few people who live outside
the City and whose cattle sometime
wandered into town. But in all
those instances Of the FIRST violation
of the ordinance the marshal merely
took up the offending stock and
notified the owner, no penalty being
inflicted.
The property owners of the city
as a result of the enactment of the
ordinance have removed unsightly
front fences and are beautifyinQ
front yards and lawns and premises
generally. Quite different appear.
ance is presented from that OF a year
or so ego, when every citizen had
to see to it that bis front gate was
securely fastened in order to prevent
depredations by his neighbors' mar
auding COW. Thanks to the opinion
OF the Courts this condition ha.
come 10 stay and the unsightly
fences will continue to disappear,
premises will continue to be i'm
proved aud the general appearance
of cur fair city will continue to
become more beautiful and inviting.
Those living outside OF the City
will soon see the reason for keeping
fheir stock in their own pastures.
Grsenyille is getting to b. pso-
gressig= ead bsr ci..1eps and Ser
neighbors VIII soon sdiust them
selves 10 conditions thaJ ought to
have existed hfty years ago.