The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-12-23
Meat Ordinance
Is Ruled ]! Invalid
City's Law in. Conflict With
the Constitution of State
of South Carolina Says
Judge Memmiger
.(NeWs y and Courier.

=
In an order filed yesterday IN
the clerk of courts Office, Judge.
r. w. Memninger reverses the
conviction Of Jake E. Bell, found
guilty Of violating the meat ordl-
nances of Charleston on Noyemaoear.
11.-I922. :.
Mr.. Bell was carrying meat.
through the city of Charleston
from colleton county to a point
outside of Charleston when he was
arrested, his meat confiscated and
he himself later convicted and sen;
fenced to pay a fine OF loo or
thirty days in jail. 49,
This conviction was under sec
ton 4 of the city meat ordina noes
as ratified June 16, 1922, Whlcns s.la
forbids any person in Charleston
even to have in possession meat
not slaughtered at the city aD-
+battoir or federally Inspected. The
case was appealed from the re- re-
Icorder's court and Messrs. James
Alan and William H. Gr1mbaH.
who argued the case before Judge
Memminger for the defendant:
Bell, contended that the defend
ant had not violated the spirit OF
the ordinance as it was and that =
ne had violated it the ordinance
itself was unconstitutional. because
/ ii violated Section 5. Article I OF
I the state constitution, which pro
yides that no person shall be de-
prived Of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.
In the hearing before Judge
Menlninger last Tuesday the city
was represented by Mr.. IA. Fatla.
IMr. Patia was allowed until satur-
fday nv Judge Memminger to file q
brief. The News and Courier ask: ask
ed Mr.. Patla for this brief for pub
tHcation, as it had asked the at
torneys fer the defend ant. owing 70
the great public interest in this
meat question. Mr.. Patla sad
that; his brief was not completed
at the time the request was made
and it was never received by the
News and Courier
Judge Memminger says IN his
i decision; s 81
eIn the case under consid era
ttion, the defendant is not sheEf,
Ito haye sold meat nor to have had
Iany intention Of doing SO in Char
iieston. He was merely lin transit
through Charleston. by naisadyen-
tture. from whence he mad sfaught-
cred the meat, to a point eutsid of
the city, where he could legally
I sch the same. Respondents testi-
En1onyi shows that appellant had
previously sold meat to Mrs. Buck
! in Charleston; the testimony, as
returned by the recorder, shows
that a previous sale had been made
/! to Mrs. Buck at her place OF busi-
ness outside Of the city limits eeven
! if that testimony is admissible.
which F. do not think 1t IS after
examining the Youn1ans case in
rs S. G.. p. 129).''
| The full text of Judge Mem
inger,s decision follows:
State of South Carolina, Charles
ton county-In the Court OF
General Sessions. The State, re-
spondenf VS.. Jake E. Bell, de-
fendant, appellant.
Order Sustaining Appeal.
Appeal from recorders court
against conviction for transporting
through streets OF Charleston and
having IN possession certain meats
slaughtered in Coileton county and
not prepared in compliance with
regulations prescribed. under an
ordinance of Charleston, entitled
4An ordinanceTo amend an or
dinance prescribing the manner in
which animals to be used for food
shall be slaughtered IN the city of
Charleston, ~ ratified October l0,:
1911, as amended. This amend.
ment ratified June 16. 1922.
The testimony shows that de-
fendant came from Colleton eeun-;
ty through the streets of Charles
ton with the meat in question, not
to be sold here. but at points out
side of Charleston, which he could
only reach conveniently by this
route on account of a bridge be-
ing out Of repair.
The controversy was carefully
argued and has been carefully com
sidered. The argument on behalf
of defendant, appellant, has been
circulated in the press; the argu-
ment of Mr.. Patla, assistant cor
poration counsel, orally at the
hearing. and filed in writing later.
with leave of the court, is as ad :
n1irable and ingenious in support
of the conviction. sSs
There is no doubt but that a
city has the power to. and should
regulate, meat for the use OF its
citizens. with a view towards
health. No enc has ever question
ed such power as to milk. etc.
1t is as horrible to conceive OF
meat from diseased unsanitariiy
slaughtered animals being avail
able for sale, without inspection,
as it would be foolish to decide.
tnat a citizen is a criminal be-
cause he receives q string Of sau-
sages from a friend outside of the
city limits, for use in his own
family.
The city council. as well as the
court. must seek a middle ground.