Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1918-04-30
GINS
 EXEMPT FROM NEW STATE. LAW Jefferson County Planters Win Suit In Supreme
 Court. RRUNS0N CASE
 ALSO DECIDED
Reinbcrger X Collier Are Victorious iH Suit Over Manufacturing and Sale oi The .FamNus Pre-
 ,cription.'

Little Rock, April 29.-planters who own their gins and gin cotton for share cloppers, tenants and others
 who raise cotton on their land. are not subject to the ne wginning law and regulations, which went into ef- feet August l, 19l7. according to a declslon of the supreme court handed down today by Chief Justice McCul- loch upholding q restraining order of the Jefferson chancery court against Jehn H. Page, commissioner of agri- culture, granted to Leo M. Andrews and others. The entire court concur red in tho decision.
 On August IT the Jefferson chan cery court granted a temporary n- junction to Leo M. Andrews, Dent X McNeil, B. L. Wiley, I. F. Quat- tlebaum, J. B. Talbot and William Nichol, restraining Page from enforc ing the provisions of the ginning law requiring ginners to give bond for not less than $500 nor more than $2,- 800 and requiring them to place metal tags on all bases ginned and to pre- serve two samples of the cotton gin ned under a penalty of S1 1000 fine. On September p, MT, Page and John D. Arbuckle, attorney general, filed a demurrer to the complaint, and on October s the chancery court overrul- ed the demurrer and entered general restraininf order forbidding MT. Page from enforcing the regulations against Andrews and the other ginners.
 Courts Construction.
 The state contehded on appeal that there was no distinction between a renter and any other member of the public when it came to ginning his cotton, in that the renter was in the same attitude as any other man in the ownership of the part of the crop that belonged to him.
 The court held that this construc tion was tenable so far as the relation ship of the tenant might be concern ed, but Justice McCulloch said: I've limit tn edecision to the particular facts set forth and hold that the cper- ation of cotton gin by farmer in connection with his own farm for the purpose of ginning his cotton and | that of his tenants, share croppers and others who produce crops on the farm, is not a public ginner within the meaning of the statute, and that gin so operated is not subjected by the statute to regulation.
 Another Pine Bluff Case. Tine court also decided the Brunson Famous prescription case ageinst pr. cerv court in the case of Asa Brunson against Reinbcrse: 'oll'nr, "rrs' eists of that city. Justice Wood wrote the decision which was con"nrred !n by the entire bench.
 The appellant claimed hat he sr!d prescription, which was known as 1 "Dr. Brunson's Famous Pres:itptlon." to Reinberger & Collier with the un- derstanding that they were 'o tot''e it. push it's sale and divide the D"c1-- it's with him. Dr. Brunson cia'mCd
 that the druggists sold several thods- and bottles of the remedy but reused
 to nay him any money ,n tln ground that they had no contrast with him. He failed to recover in chancarv court and the supreme court afta'fmed 'he chancery courts decision. The supreme court also affirmed the judgment of the Jefferson circuit 1 court in the case of the Arkansas
 Short I Leaf Lumber company Vs. 5. J. Jnturff. in which McInturff had been awarded judgment for $3,200 because appellants failure to furnish Jumper on a contract.