The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-06-21

position, no signer should be permit
ted to withdraw his name from a pc
tition. upon the theory that he who
voluntarily sets on foot proceeding
for the enforcement of a salutary DO
lice regulation In any community
should not be permitted to capricious-
ly undo his work. This rule, however,
Is not in harmony with our previous
decisions, and we do not think the
reason assigned for it's application is
sufficient to the objections to the rule
itself. A petition Is but a formal
written request or prayer for q GER
tain thing to be done.
He who signs 1t must do so volun.
tarily; otherwise he cannot be i'm the
attitude Of making a request. The
signature of the petition is but evil
dence of the request or prayer. In
the absence of anything to the con-
trary. the signature is conclusive.
But when the signer appears in court
and asks that his name be withdrawn,
he indicates that nc Is no longer a pe-
titioner. To hold that he is, Is simply
TO make him a petitioner by q process
Of legal coercion which is contrary to
the very spirit of petition. We are
therefore Of the opinion that the trial
court did not err In permitting the
petitioners In this case to withdraw
their names from the petition"
Bradwell VS.. Dill, 70 Ark. D. IT'S.
In this case the lower court found
that the petitioners for an election to
prohibit sale of liquor in certain ter
ritory had q majority over the re-
quired number of 149 although a Pc
tition signed by 2S7 of these persons
had been filed asking that their names
be omitted from the petition for elec-
tion.
The court finding as a matter of
fact after petitioners had presented
their petition. defendants filed appli-
cation Of 2S7 persons whose names
appear upon the prohibition petition,
asking that their names be withdrawn
from such petition and not counted
thereon. The petition for prohibition
was presented to the county court on
December 81, 1900 and said applica-
tions were filed January /, 1907 and
after the petitioners had presented
their petitions and rested their case
The lower court held as follows:
l. "A person signing a petition for
prohibition has the right to have his
name erased from such petition at
any time before the same is present
ed to the oourt."
2. THE time of presentation men,
toned in the foregoing declaration
means the time the court begins ju-
dicial investigation Of the matter
prayed for In such petition, and not
the time OF mere filing such petition"
3. "Eefore presentation, anyone de-
string to have his name removed or
omitted from the prohibition petition
after sising the same may do so by
requesting the person having pos
session and control thereof to permit
him to erase his name therefrom.
and If upon such request, he be not
permitted to have such petition for
such purpose. such request, although
refsed. will be sufficient to entitle him
to have his name omitted from such
petition as a matter OF right"
4. This may be done by the per-
son asking to have his name erased,
er one may do so at his request"
b. The notices given In this case
were sufficient In form and substance
to entitle the persons whose names
appeared thereon to have their names
omitted from such petition, where
each notice was given by them or
some one at their request. before the
Of the petition"
3. Where an attorney has not been
by person to represent
him In matter the attorney cannot
assume such authority. The fact that
defendants employed agents to 60 out
among petitioners and request them
to withdraw their names from such
petition. Of itself, will not prevent
such petitioners from withdrawing
their names, If they, in good faith, de-
sire It,"
BY Wood ]. Appellants contend
that one who has signed a petition
against license may change his opin-
ion at any time before the final or
der OF the court without giving any
reason for so doing and that If he
notifies the court of his change OF
mind and dissents from the petition
before the final order. it Is sufficient.