The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-07-30
Consolidated Aug. 8, 1881.
oAlvE DIspEXsIRY ELECTION.
JUDGE WILSON DIsMISSES IN.
JUNCTION PROCEEDINGS.
Showing Made by Attorneys for Dis
pcnssry Considered Sufficient and
Order Issued to This Effect
Grounds Stated by Defendants Why
Injunction should not be- Issued. =.

A hearing at chambers at Manning
Friday. Judge John s. Wilson refused
To grant the Injunction requested by
the prohibitionists OF Sumter coun-
ty. calling of the election Of whether
or not Sumter county should re-estab-
lish the dispensary. At the close of
the hearing Judge Wilson stated that
ne considered the showing made by
the defendants sufficient and issued an
order dismissing the proceedings,
Messrs. l.. ID. Jennings. n. ID. Epps,
J. III. Clifton appeared In behalf Of
the defendants and Mr.. r. o. Purdy
for the plaintiffs. The injunction to
prevent the election was asked on the
grounds that Supervisor Pitts did not
have any authority to revise the regis
tration books and that certain names
appearing on the lists OF the petition
asking for an election which should
have been stricken of wero allowed
TO remain on the lists.
In the return II was stated that
the complaint does not show that one
third OF the qualified voters of the
county have not petitioned for an
election; that there are no grounds
for equitable Jurisdiction shown In the
complaint. that no irreparable injury
is shown or alleged I'm the complaint
and that the plaintiffs fail to show
that they have no adequate remedy at
law: that the defendants offer In good
faith TO stand responsible for what
ever Injury the holding of the elec-
tion will do the plaintiffs insofar as
paytDs back TO them the amount Of
their taxes going towards the cleo
tion, In case II Is finally decided that
the election was improperly ordered.
IL ir furthc- stated that the plain
ttns ifail to show authority to purge
p1u Of. petitioners signing after
rsbruary as: that the plaintiffs fail
~ Qshow suthorisy for striking off,the
NAMES or nifty petitioners who also
signed the county petition and that
these names were not stricken off by
the supervisor, but were included in
Ms list of the petitioners. That the
Supervisor used every means at his
disposal TO get at the correct number
OF qualified voters I'm the county and
found the number TO be 1855. On
the petition were s43 names of quail
ned voters with the names of the fifty
who had signed The counter petition.
I'm either instance making more than
a one-third qualified voters OF the
county petitioners for the election.
part OF the return was an affi-
davit from the Supervisor stating that
he had used every advisable means
at his disposal to ascertain to number
OF qualified voters In the county and
OF one-third of them had petitioned
for the election. the method of his
procedure I'm obtaining his results and
the results obtained being set out in
full
The argument OF the defendant set
forth tho law In the various phrases
OF the case. the greater part being an
argument to show that persons who
paid their taxes after February 18th,
should have the right to vote In this
election. II was further shown that
no outlined methods OF procedure
we're set forth by the law as to how
the supervisor should obtain the
names OF all OF the registered voters
In the county and IL one-third of
them the qualified voters had petition
ed the election and that the Supervi-
sor had used ID Just and reasonab bic
means of obtaining this information.
The dismissal OF the injunction pro-
seedlings by Judge Wilson leaves the
dispensary situation where II WAS
when Supervisor Pitts first ordered the
election. IL In possible that an appeal
will be taken from Judge Wilson's
decision to the Supreme Court. but
Judge Purdy was out OF town and this
point could not be learned this morn
Ing. IL is probable that the election
~ili bs held and the matter decided
In that way.
The dispensary adherents seem to
think that the legal proceedings ta-
ken out by the prohibitionlsts have
proved helpful To their side Of the
cause. while the adherents Of the
other side say that they cannot see
where II will hurt their cause In any
way.