Daniel v. Cruz, 20336

Decision Date04 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 20336,20336
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesL. Giles DANIEL, Sheriff of Greenwood County, Respondent, v. Helen CRUZ, Appellant.

C. Rauch Wise, Greenwood, for appellant.

G. P. Callison, Callison & Dorn, Greenwood, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice:

The respondent L. Giles Daniel Sheriff of Greenwood County, brought this declaratory judgment action to determine whether the appellant was acting in violation of S.C.Code § 56--1281 (1962). The appellant by her Answer and Counterclaim admitted that she was engaged in the practice of palmistry and fortunetelling in Greenwood County, but denied that she was in violation of the statute. For a second defense, she alleged that she was not an ininerant fortuneteller but, rather, a citizen and resident of Greenwood County. By way of Counterclaim, the appellant attacked the constitutionality of the statute as a violation of due process and equal protection of the laws under applicable provisions of the State and Federal constitutions. 1

The circuit judge heard the matter upon a Stipulation of Facts. The judge issued his Order, dated April 5, 1976, holding that the appellant was in violation of Section 56--1281. The Order stated that Sheriff Daniel could apply for such supplementary and specific orders of injunction as he deemed appropriate, pursuant to the court's declaration of the law. An appeal from this Order followed. We reverse the Order and hold the Section 56--1281 is unconstitutional in that it denies the appellant equal protection of the laws.

The statute in its entirety is as follows:

' § 56--1281. Licenses required for itinerant fortunetellers.--It shall be unlawful for any person to follow the business of fortunetelling in any of the counties of this State, by traveling from place to place, without first obtaining from the clerk of the court of the county in which he wishes to follow his trade, a license permitting him to so do. Such license shall be issued by the clerks of court of the counties of this State to any person applying for it upon payment by the applicant of the sum of one hundred dollars. The license shall specify the name of the applicant and his former residence and shall be for a period of one year from the issuance thereof. But this section shall not be effective in any county until the county board of commissioners of such county authorize, by resolution, the collection of such tax. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days for each and every offense.' (emphasis added).

Included in the Stipulation were the following facts: (1) the Greenwood County Council, in regular meeting on July 1, 1975, adopted a resolution stating that the Council does not desire that a license be granted to any itinerant fortuneteller pursuant to Section 56--1281, and that provisions for granting such a license are not adopted by the Council; and (2) Abbeville and Saluda Counties have issued licenses for fortunetelling without judicial contest.

The appellant argues that the General Assembly, in enacting Section 56--1281, has passed a law, which, by its application, makes illegal fortunetelling in Greenwood County, whereas the General Assembly has effectively made the same conduct legal in neighboring Abbeville and Saluda Counties.

The General Assembly cannot pass legislation which operates unequally upon a class of citizens. The placing of fortunetellers in a class is not of itself a denial of equal protection. However, the law, as applied to the appellant, treats her in a different manner from others in the same class. It prohibits her from practicing fortunetelling in Greenwood County by imposing criminal sanctions upon her conduct. It is unavailing to argue that at fortunetellers in Greenwood County are treated equally, for the class is constituted of fortunetellers in South Carolina, not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Martin v. Condon
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Noviembre 1995
    ...to participate and others did not, resulting in the disparate application of a statewide criminal law. Similarly, in Daniel v. Cruz, 268 S.C. 11, 231 S.E.2d 293 (1977), we struck down a local option allowing any county to opt out of a statewide law permitting fortune-telling because the eff......
  • Lee v. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 2000
    ...portion which is in conflict with the Constitution, then we will reject the invalid portion and enforce the remainder. Daniel v. Cruz, 268 S.C. 11, 231 S.E.2d 293 (1977); State v. Harper, 251 S.C. 379, 162 S.E.2d 712 I would strike as unconstitutional only the language pertaining to the Sun......
  • State v. Keenan, 21796
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 1982
    ...the Legislature would not have passed the residue independently of that which is void, then the whole act is void. Daniel v. Cruz, 268 S.C. 11, 231 S.E.2d 293 (1977). We do not think under the foregoing test that the unconstitutional part is separable. As a means of insuring that a prelimin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT