The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1913-09-04
"DRYS" COUNTED OUT
By County Board of Canvassers-
The End Not Yet.


teresting and amusing election con-
tests, perhaps ever listened to in this
county, the county board of canvass
ers, Messrs T B Gourdin, M A Ross
and J C Kinder, on Saturday last ov-
erruled by vote Of 2 to the re-
suit of the recent dispensary election
as originally returned by the mana
gers insofar as the boxes at Hebron
and Muddy Creek were accountable.
Both the dispensary and prohibl-
tiol adheren.I were represented by
able counsel, Leroy Lee and E L
Hirsch, Esqs, on the side of the for
mer, while Ex-Judge R o Purdy of
Sumter and Charlton DuRant, Esq.
of Manning looked after the interest
of the latter.
The contest was waged over the
Hebron and Muddy Creek polls on
complaint by Mr. w N Jacobs of
Kingstree on the grounds that any
and all'' voters at these two boxes
had been permitted by the managers
to cast their votes without producing
registration certificates or tax re-
ceipts, which irregularity was due to
the fact that the managers did not
regard the contest as a regular elec-
ton, but in the light of a primary,
as was shown by their statements
before the canvassing board.
At the outset of the controversy.
which began at 1920 a. m, counsel
for the prohibitionists presented a
demurrer as to the jurisdiction and
the competency of certain members
of the board of canvassers in the
matter under consideration on the
grounds that Mr. j c Kinder had TAX
en- an active part in canvassing the
county in behalf of the dispenssry
and that Mr. NJ A Ross was a men,
Der of the town council of Kingstree,
by which body one hundred dollars
dollars was furnished with which to
pay Mr. Kinder for his services in
canvassing the said county. This
contention being overruled by the
board, a second demurrer was Of
fered on the ground that no specific
charges were contained in the contest
on which the prohibitionists could
properly base a reply. This was also
overruled and likewise about every
other effort or question put forth by
counsel for the prohibitionists on the
ground that the same was irrelevant
to the subject under consideration.
When the contest was gone into
several witnesses, managers at the
polls in dispute, were put on the
stand by counsel for the contestants.
They admitted that electors had been
permitted to vote without producing
registration certificates or tax re-
ceipts, they, the managers, regard
ing the election in the sense of pri-
mary, having had no previous in
structions as to the law governing
its management.
Mr. DuRant submitted to the board
that it was bad policy to allow any
public official who had been sworn
to carry out the laws of the State
and who had made certified return
as to the correctness of his acts, then
to come up as witness and swear
that such acts and conduct were un-
lawful.
Immediately upon hearing the de-
cision of the board, Mr. DuRant gave
notice that he would carry the con-
test before the State board of can
vassers, which is scheduled to meet
at Columbia on Tuesday next and in
the event that the decision of the |
county board is sustained it is prob
able that the contest will be taken
to the supreme court. This means
that Williamsburg county will re-
main in line with the dry counties
for several months, at least, as it
takes time to go through the several
processes of litigation necessary to a
final decision in the matter.