The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-11-05
|EXC|SEMEN MAKE | SIZZLING REPLY ID
 MARX INJUNCTION Complainant Repeatedly, Flagrantly and Openly Violated Smith BilP' COMMISSIONS ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE Respondent Denies That Smith Bill Is in Violation of Constitution or
 That, Commissions Au-
 thority Is Void


 man & Winkler, attorneys, to whom the
 injunction case was given by the excise commission.
 The answer denies that the excise com
 mission or the Smith bill is unconstitu- tional and goes into the legal situation thoroughly. The answer opens with many demurrers to the bill filed by the Four Oaks company. The case will not come up until next Saturday. but Attorneys Ullman & Win1ler were of the opinion that the answer should be made as quick ly as possible. To this the excise com
 missioners agreed
 The answer follows:
 Four Oaks Distiling Co.,, vs. the Excise Commission of Jefferson County. Ala bama-In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Equity.
 And now comes the said excise conl- mission and without waiving the many
 defects and deficiencies in said bill point ed out in said demurrer, but insisting upon the same by way of answer to said bill, says:
 l. That it admits the allegations of the first paragraph of said bill.
 g. That it admits the allegations of the second paragraph of said bill
 g. This respondent admits so much of the third paragraph of said bill as ayers that uron the issuance of said license complainant proceeded to engage in the wholesale liquor business in the city of Birmingham, Jefferson county, Alabama.
 and that it expended money therein but respondent is not informed as to the
 amount so expended and demands proof thereof, and the respondent denies that part of the averment of said third para graph which charges that in the man. agement and control of said business complainant conformed to law and that the said business was operated strictly within the law, but on the contrary this respondent denies said averments and ayers the fact to be that repeatedly, openly, flagrantly and unblushingly the said complainant, it's stockholders, en- ployes, directors and agents acting with in the line and scope of their authority violated provisions of the act of the legislature of Alabama, known as the Smith bill, in that, the said complainant ulu IIOIl tlluS to tiiiC hios opSet e"S1iS' or encourage another or others in the committing of acts therein declared to be unlawful, to-wit, that 1t did aid, abet, assist or encourage various and sundry persons in the unlawful sale of vinous, spirituous and malt liquors in blind tigers located in various places of Jefferson county, Alabama, and that the said com plainant did in violation of the provisions of the said Smith bill sell and deliver
 large quantities of vinous, spirituous and malt liquors at places other than incor- porated towns and cities in Jefferson county and at places other than it was authorized to conduct said business. Respondent admits the allegations Of the fourth paragraph of said bill. Respondent abmits that part of the aver
 ments of the fifth paragraph of said
 bill which ayers that the said commission did on the S0th day of October 1911, pro- ceed to examine said witnesses and to inquire into certain matters, but it de- nies that the said inquiry was not In pur- suance of the notice given to complainant, but it ayers that under the provisions of
 the Smith bill, complainant was entitled to receive a notice of the time and place of an investigation to be had, but there was no provision of law requiring the said notice to complainant to designate, describe, set out or particularize the mat | ters to be investigated, but the said in- vestigation so held was confined to va rious matters relevant and material to 1 the determination of the question of | whether or not complainant had been guilty as herein above referred to. | Respondent denies the averments of the sixth paragraph of said bill and on the contrary ayers that it did on, to-wit, tic 30th day of october 1911, after the submission and consideration of the evi- dence upon said hearing make and enter an order, decree or judgment revolSing granted to complainant and ordered the same entered upon the minutes of the said commission and a copy of said Judg- ment, order or, decree. Is hereto at- tached, marked exhibit "A and prayed to be taken as part of this answer with
 usual leave of reference thereto as fully
 as though set out herein.
 And respondent ayers that exhibit "B'' l attached to complainant bill is not the original order revoking the said license of complaint, but is mere letter or notifica- tion sent to complainant by the chairman of said commission. giving the reasons CT some of the reasons why said order was
 made and notifying complainants presi- l dent, Julius Marx, of the disposition made Of the said checks and this respondent
 ayers that the said judgment order CT decree of this respondent is res adjudi- cata and was not appealable, but was l final and cannot now be inquired into, at-
 tackled, set aside, vacated or held for
 nsught in this proceeding.
 Respondent denies the averments of the seventh paragraph of said bill and de- ] murs strict proof of the same. It de- | nies that the alleged order seeking to re- | yoke its license was issued without war
 rant of law and that the same is void ana i that the commission had not decided that l tte said commission had cause to believe ! that complainant had violated any of tho provisions of said act and 1t denies that
 complainant had not had notice 10 tht
 effect. but on the contrary 1t ayers that
 before the hearing of said charges on. to-wit, the 18th day of October, the said commission had cause to believe that conn
 CONTINUED ON PAGE D