State v. Potterfield
Supreme Court of South Carolina
The defendant, Robert W. Potterfield, was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, or to three months imprisonment. Erom this judgment the defendant appeals. cite: Const. 1868, art. 3, sec. 3; Dispensary Act of 1894; Bac. Ab., vol. 7, pp. 231, 326; sec. 8, art. 1, Const. U. S.; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, p. 182, et seq.; W. U. T. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S., pp. 347, 359; N. O. Gas Light Co. v. La.
Read the full summary
The defendant, Robert W. Potterfield, was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100, or to three months imprisonment. Erom this judgment the defendant appeals. cite: Const. 1868, art. 3, sec. 3; Dispensary Act of 1894; Bac. Ab., vol. 7, pp. 231, 326; sec. 8, art. 1, Const. U. S.; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, p. 182, et seq.; W. U. T. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S., pp. 347, 359; N. O. Gas Light Co. v. La. Light & Power Co., 115 U. S., 660, 661;' Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S.; Brennan v. City of Titusville, Sup. Ct. Rep., pp. 831-4 (154 U. S.); Lewis on Em.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
The appellant, Robert W. Potter-field, at the November term, 1895, of the Court of General Sessions for Newberry County, was indicted for selling intoxicating liquors without a license. On the call of thfe case, defendant’s counsel moved to quash the indictment, on the grounds (1) that “said indictment is based upon the dispensary law, approved January 2d, 1895, and the said law is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina;” (2) “said law is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States;”…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Elliott v. McNairSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1967
- State Ex Rel. Ray v. BleaseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913