State Ex Rel. Hay v. Farnum
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | WOODS, J |
| Citation | 53 S.E. 83,73 S. C. 165 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1905 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HAY. v. FARNUM. |
53 S.E. 83
(73 S. C. 165)
STATE ex rel. HAY.
v.
FARNUM.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 22, 1905.
1. Intoxicating Liquors—County Dispenses —Examination of Papers.
A county dispenser is a state officer, and all books, documents, and letters in the dispensary relate prima facie to the public business, and are open to examination by any committee appointed by the General Assembly.
2. Searches and Seizures—Constitutional Law.
A committee appointed by the General Assembly to examine the books of a county dispenser, in acting under such authority, is not violating the provisions of the federal and state Constitutions that the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
3. Intoxicating Liquors—County Dispenser —Examination of Papers—Mandamus.
Where a committee appointed by the Legislature seeks to examine books and papers of a county dispenser, and it is stated under oath by such dispenser that papers in his office do not belong to the business of the dispensary, but are private papers, neither the committee nor the officer attempting to seize such papers has the right to decide that question, but upon application the court will examine the papers, and if, on examination, it determines that any of them pertain to the affairs of the office, it will issue a writ of mandamus requiring such officer to submit them to the committee.
Application by the state, on the relation of J. T. Hay and others, for writ of mandamus against James S. Farnum. Writ granted.
J. T. Hay and J. F. Lyon, for petitioners.
Mordecai & Gadsden, for respondent
WOODS, J. This petition for mandamus alleges that J. T. Hay, C. L. Blease, Neils Christensen, Jr., T. B. Fraser, J. F. Lyon, A. L. Gaston, and J. B. Spivey were, by a concurrent resolution passed on the 25th day of January, 1905, appointed a joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to investigate the affairs of the state dispensary, and as a means to that end the resolution provided that the committee "shall have access to all the books and vouchers and other papers of the said institution or any officer or employe thereof, " and that it became necessary in the course of the investigation so authorized for petitioners, J. T. Hay, B. F. Lyon, and Neils Christensen, Jr., as a subcommittee of the joint committee, to inspect and examine all books, letters, vouchers, and other papers in possession of J. S. Farnum, as despenser of dispensary No. 12, in the city of Charleston. The petition further alleges: "That on the 17th, day of June, 1905, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued by Chief Justice Y. J. Pope, commanding the said J. S. Farnum to deliver to petitioners for inspection all books, papers, letters, letter files, vouchers, and other papers and records in his dispensary No. 12, or that he show cause to the contrary; that said writ was duly and legally served on respondent on the 20th day of June, 1905; that in obedience to said writ respondent allowed petitioners to inspect letter files and other papers called for in his dispensary No. 12, in Charleston, S. C, but stated to petitioners J. Fraser Lyon and Neils Christensen, Jr., that he had, in anticipation of petitioners making demand to be allowed to inspect said letter files and papers in his place of business, removed such letters and papers from the file in said dispensary No. 12, as he did not wish petitioners to see; that said respondent stated that said letters and papers which were removed from dispensary No. 12 were his private matters, which petitioners had no right to inspect; that thereupon petitioners made demand upon the said J. S. Farnum to deliver to them for inspection all of the letters and other papers which had been removed from dispensary No. 12, under the circumstances hereinbefore alleged, but respondent refused to allow petitioners to inspect said papers and letters; that many of the letters and papers removed from said dispensary No. 12 and placed beyond the reach of said committee, as your petitioners are informed and believe, and so allege, bear directly upon and give information concerning matters which petitioners are authorized and ordered to investigate under the terms of the said resolution; that if the said J. S. Farnum is allowed to withhold the said letters and papers from your petitioners they will be hindered and circumvented in carrying out the terms of said concurrent resolution, and the state will be deprived of the benefit of the information contained In said letters and papers." The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus commanding J. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Wyoming Liquor Commission, 2347
...through agents it follows that the Wyoming Liquor Commission is an agent of the state performing governmental functions. State vs. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83; State ex rel. vs. Dispensary Commission, 79 S.C. 316, 60 S.E. 928; Carolina Glass Co. vs. State, 87 S.C. 270, 69 S.E. 391; Paci......
-
Shapiro v. United States, No. 49
...as to such records since (1) they were not his; he was merely their custodian, and (2) he was a public officer. (2) State v. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83, where it was held that the dispenser of the State Dispensary had to disclose to a legislative committee the official books of that St......
-
Bowles v. Misle, Civil Action No. 490.
...vestry clerk, Bradshaw v. Murphy, 7 C. & P. 612; the records of a state dispenser which he was required by law to keep, State v. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83; druggists' records kept by legal requirement touching sales of liquor, State v. Donovan, 10 N.D. 203, 86 N.W. 703; and the compou......
-
State Ex Rel. Lyon v. Murray
...by virtue of the express declarations of the Constitution of the state. With these lights before it, this court held in State v. Farnum, 73 S. C. 165, 53 S. E. 83, that the state dispensary was as much a part of the state government and subject to as full legislative investigation and contr......
-
Harrison v. Wyoming Liquor Commission, 2347
...through agents it follows that the Wyoming Liquor Commission is an agent of the state performing governmental functions. State vs. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83; State ex rel. vs. Dispensary Commission, 79 S.C. 316, 60 S.E. 928; Carolina Glass Co. vs. State, 87 S.C. 270, 69 S.E. 391; Paci......
-
Shapiro v. United States, 49
...as to such records since (1) they were not his; he was merely their custodian, and (2) he was a public officer. (2) State v. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83, where it was held that the dispenser of the State Dispensary had to disclose to a legislative committee the official books of that St......
-
Bowles v. Misle, Civil Action No. 490.
...vestry clerk, Bradshaw v. Murphy, 7 C. & P. 612; the records of a state dispenser which he was required by law to keep, State v. Farnum, 73 S.C. 165, 53 S.E. 83; druggists' records kept by legal requirement touching sales of liquor, State v. Donovan, 10 N.D. 203, 86 N.W. 703; and the compou......
-
State Ex Rel. Lyon v. Murray
...by virtue of the express declarations of the Constitution of the state. With these lights before it, this court held in State v. Farnum, 73 S. C. 165, 53 S. E. 83, that the state dispensary was as much a part of the state government and subject to as full legislative investigation and contr......