Severance v. Murphy
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Dantzrer, J., Williamsburg, December, 1903. Action by P. E. Severance and E. J. Wilkes against Board of Control of Williamsburg County.
Read the full summary
Before Dantzrer, J., Williamsburg, December, 1903. Action by P. E. Severance and E. J. Wilkes against Board of Control of Williamsburg County. So much of the Circuit decree as relates to the constitutionality of the act in question is as follows: “Plaintiffs contend that section 7 of the act of 1896 is unconstitutional, ‘in that the same contravenes section 5, of article I., of the Constitution, in that the citizens of Williamsburg County and the citizens of Lake City and 1 other incorporated towns in the county of Williams-burg-, are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded by said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion in this case was filed June 30, 1903, but remittitur held up until
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
The defendants, constituting the board of control of Williamsburg County under the dispensary law, had printed in The County Record, a newspaper published at Kingstree, the following notice:
“All voters in Lee Township, county of Williamsburg, State of South Carolina, are hereby notified that application has been made to the county board of control of said county of Williamsburg for the location of a dispensary at Scranton, in Lee Township, and one at Lake…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Murph v. LandrumSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- State Ex Rel. Schroder v. BurnsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- Horton-Hughes Furniture Co. v. Broad Street Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1918