Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-06-09
Miseellaneuus Rsadin9.
BOARD EXCEEDS AUTHORITY.
Supreme Court Says the Old Commits
sion May Keep Vouchers.

oSHnD GNSGGDS Az NUM- 7.
Supreme Court Says the Old Commits
sion May Keep Vouchers.
The State, Wednesday:
The supreme court yesterday handed
down its written decision declaring
the new dispensary investigating COM
mittee to be in excess of its jurisdic-
ton in adjudging DR.. w. ]. Murray,
chairman Of the old commission, guilty
Of contempt because of his refusal to
relinquish possession of the vouchers
Of his board and turn them over to the
present commission. The decision al
so confirms the verbal decree of the
court pronounced at the hearing on
Wednesday, May 81. discharging DR..
Murray from custody.
The new commission, at a former
meeting. ordered DR.. Murray, as chair
man Of the deposed commission, to ap-
pear before them and deliver into their
possession all the vouchers Of his
commission. He appeared before them,
but while expressing his willingness
to afford the commission every oppor-
tunity for an investigation Of the
vouchers in his presence, refused to
yield the possession Of them. He was
adjudged guilty of contempt and
placed in the custody of ]. S. Wilson,
sergeant-at-arms Of the commission,
and remained nominally under arrest
until his discharge as ordered by the
court.
The Decree.
The following is a copy of the de-
cision In full:
Eek parte w. ]. Murray, petitioner
in re the State vs.. w. ]. Murray:
"The state dispensary commission
sdjudged w. J. Murray guilty Of con-
tempt in refusing to deliver to it GER
tain vouchers for disbursement Of
money taken over by the former state
dispensary commission, Of which he
was chairman, and in default of purg-
committed to jail. He now brings this
proceeding in habeas corpus, claiming
that his imprisonment is illegal and
that the judgment of the commission
ID In excess of it's powers and void.
| "Section of the act of February
"a. 1908, provides that the commission
shall have full power and authority to
investigate the past conduct Of the
oRaar, 80 xba opd oil tho
power and authority conferred upon
the committee appointed to investigate
the affairs as prescribed by the act to
provide for the investigation of the
dispensary approved January 25, 1906,
be and hereby Is conferred upon the
commission provided for under this
act etc. Section Of the act Of jan
uary "a, 1906, provides: The said
committee be, and the same is hereby,
authorized to send for and require
the production Of any and all books,
papers or other documents or writings
which may be deemed relevant to any
investigation and to require said per-
son or persons in custody or possession
of such papers to produce the same
before the said commission. Any
person or persons who shall refuse to
act on the order or notice Of said COM
mittee to produce said books, papers,
or other documents or writings, shall
be deemed guilty of contempt Of said
committee and be punished as provid-
ed in section e.
Under this statute 1t Is clear that
the commission has power to compel
the production before it of papers rel
evant to any investigation 1t is author
lied to make; and to punish for con-
tempt In case of disobedence Of the
order to produce.
THE commissions order to produce
must be in the nature of subpoena
duces tecum and can not operate so as
to deprive the owner or custodian OF
his possession of control except for the
temporary examination and use in a
particular investigation by the COM
mission wherein the owners or custo-
dams possession and control are prop
erly guarded.
The order of the commission In
this case was not to produce for ex-
animation in particular investigation
but to deliver and turn over to the
commission the vouchers in question:.
thereby permanently depriving the
petitioner of the custody and control.
This was in excess of the power Of
the commission. If the commission
was seeking possession Of the vouch-
ers claiming the right to them as the
successors in office of the former co H.
mission, the remedy was not a pro-
ceeding in contempt.
The vouchers in question relate to
the disbursement of dispensary funds
by the old commission, the members
of which are under bond and claim
the right to control these vouchers for
the protection Of themselves and their
bondsmen until their accounts aIe
settled after investigation by the prop
er authority.
I'm the opinion of the court these
vouchers are so far private property
that the members of the commission
can not be deprived Of their posses
sion and control in the manner al
tempted.
The judgment in contempt, being
in excess of Jurisdiction, is void and
the petitioner is entitled to be dis
charged from custody, and it is so or
dered. Ira B. Jones,
"Chief Justice"