State v. Riddock Byrnes

58 S.E. 803, 78 S.C. 286, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 197
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedSeptember 28, 1907
Docket6672
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 S.E. 803 (State v. Riddock Byrnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Riddock Byrnes, 58 S.E. 803, 78 S.C. 286, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 197 (S.C. 1907).

Opinion

Proceeding by Attorney General J. Fraser Lyon on behalf of the State by petition and rule issued by Mr. Justice Gary, returnable to the Court, against Riddock Byrnes, E.W. Blitch and the Charleston Consolidated Railway Gas and Electric Company, to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance.

PETITION.
The first paragraph of the petition alleges the copartnership of Riddock Byrnes and the employment by them of E.W. Blitch.

The second alleges the incorporation of the Charleston Consolidated Railway Gas and Electric Company, that it owned and operated street car lines and a lighting plant and *Page 287 that it owned a certain property commonly known as the "Isle of Palms," being a hotel and pleasure resort "and having thereon a pavilion and an apartment designated `Club Room,' which property is leased and rented to the respondents Riddock and Byrnes and used as hereinafter alleged."

3. "That the property above mentioned is used as a hotel and general pleasure resort; that part of a building thereon is known as `Club Room' and is now, and has for a long time heretofore been maintained and used by the said Riddock Brynes and E.W. Blitch as a place for people to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages; that alcoholic liquors and beverages which have not been tested and found pure and free from poisonous and deleterious matter as provided by law are sold and dispensed by the respondents E.J. Riddock, Wm. Byrnes and E.W. Blitch, upon the premises above described, and the above mentioned respondents permit persons to resort to the said premises for the purpose of drinking the above described alcoholic liquors and beverages. That said resort, used and maintained as alleged herein, is a common nuisance, the same being so declared by sec. 29 of an act of the Legislature known as the dispensary law, approved February 16th, 1907. See Acts 1907, p. 463. That said resort is owned, kept, maintained and managed by the respondents mentioned in this paragraph of this petition.

4. "That petitioner is informed and believes that the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company wilfully and with full knowledge permits its premises hereinbefore described to be used as a resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages and aids and assists in the violation of the law of the State by transporting alcoholic liquors and beverages over its line of railway to the said resort, which is a place where the sale of alcoholic liquors and beverages is forbidden by law. That the said place mentioned by the respondents Riddock Byrnes and E.W. Blitch is not a dispensary or place where alcoholic liquors and beverages may be sold according to law. *Page 288

5. "That said E.J. Riddock, Wm. Byrnes and E.W. Blitch will continue to occupy said place and to keep and use the same as a place for the sale of alcoholic liquors and beverages which have not been tested and found to be pure and free from poisonous and deleterious matters, and their use and consumption is against the morals, good health and safety of the State and contraband; and will continue to occupy said place and maintain the same as a common nuisance and place where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages, all of which will be done indefinitely in the future; and the said Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company will continue to permit such use of said place unless restrained and forbidden by the injunction of this honorable Court; that said place is a common nuisance of great injury to the public, which injury is irreparable and cannot be compensated in damages; and your petitioner is informed and believes that the State has no adequate remedy at law and that the said nuisance will be continued unless the respondents be restrained and enjoined by this honorable Court.

6. "That the affidavits marked A, B, C and D, and attached to this petition are made a part hereof and reference thereto is respectfully craved.

"Wherefore the said J. Fraser Lyon, as Attorney General for and on behalf of the State of South Carolina, prays:

1. "That the said respondents may be perpetually enjoined from using or permitting to be used the said premises as a place where alcoholic liquors and beverages not having been tested and found to be pure and free from poisonous and deleterious matters are sold.

2. "That said respondents may be perpetually enjoined from permitting persons to resort to the said premises for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages.

3. "That in the meantime the respondents may be enjoined until the further order of the Court from using or permitting to be used the said premises as a place where alcoholic *Page 289 liquors and beverages not having been tested and found to be pure and free from poisonous and deleterious matters are sold or dispensed in any manner; and from permitting persons to resort to the said premises for the purpose of using the same as a resort for drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages.

4. "And for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and equitable."

RULE.
"On hearing the complaint and affidavits in the above stated case, it is

"ORDERED, that the respondents E.J. Riddock, William Byrnes, E.W. Blitch and Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company show cause before the Supreme Court, at Columbia, S.C. on the 28th day of September, 1907, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an injunction should not be issued restraining you and each of you from selling or dispensing in any manner alcoholic liquors and beverages not having been tested and found pure and free from poisonous and deleterious matters as provided by law, upon the property belonging to the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company, located on the Isle of Palms, in the County of Charleston, and used as a hotel, pavilion and general pleasure resort and commonly known as the `Isle of Palms;' that you also show cause why an injunction should not be issued restraining you from permitting persons to resort to the premises herein described for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors or beverages.

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the said respondents, their agents and servants be in the meantime restrained and are hereby forbidden to suffer or commit any of said acts until the further order of this Court.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the respondents shall in the meantime have the right to apply to me, upon giving the *Page 290 Attorney General four days' notice, to set aside the restraining portion of this order.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this original order be exhibited to the respondents, and that copies of the petition, affidavits and of this order be served upon them.

"EUGENE B. GARY, "Associate Justice."

RETURN.
"E.J. Riddock and William Byrnes, partners doing business as Riddock Byrnes, and E.W. Blitch (upon whom has been served a certified copy of an order signed by the Honorable Eugene B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Johnson
196 S.E. 164 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1938)
State ex rel. Daniel v. Anderson
153 S.C. 354 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
State v. Anderson
150 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
State v. Weil
65 S.E. 634 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1909)
State Ex Rel. Lyon v. Columbia Water Power Co.
63 S.E. 884 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 S.E. 803, 78 S.C. 286, 1907 S.C. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-riddock-byrnes-sc-1907.