State ex rel. Attorney General Lyon v. Riddock & Byrnes
State ex rel. Attorney General Lyon v. Riddock & Byrnes
Opinion of the Court
Order.
This cause coming on to be heard, the respondents made special appearance and motion to dismiss. After hearing argument,
It is Ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties hereto, and the motion of the respondents is overruled.
It having been ordered by the Court that the respondents should answer to the rule on the merits; counsel for respondents having stated to the Court that under advice of counsel respondents would not answer, the Attorney General then moving for a writ of perpetual injunction against the respondents.
Now, on motion of the Attorney General, it is ordered,
That the respondents, E. J. Riddick, Wm. Byrnes, E. W. Blitch and Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas and Electric Company, and their officers, agents, servants, successors and assigns, be, and they are hereby, perpetually restrained and enjoined from using, or permitting to be used the said premises described in the petition herein, being certain property on the Isle of Palms, in the County of Charleston, in this State, commonly known as the “Isle of Palms,” being a hotel and general pleasure resort and having therein a pavilion and an apartment designated “Club Room,” 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, or dispensed in any manner, and from keeping, using and maintaining, or permtiting to be used, kept or maintained, the said premises above described as a place where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages.
IT is further Ordered, that a certified copy of this order be filed with the Clerk of Court of Charleston County.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL LYON v. RIDDOCK & BYRNES
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. INJunctioh — Jurisdiction—Rule.—Upon petition by Attorney General, alleging certain persons are maintaining and will maintain indefinitely on the premises of .a corporation, with its knowledge and consent, a business which is declared by statute to be a nuisance, and for removal of which the State has no adequate remedy, this Court upon so finding will enjoin both the individuals and the corporation from continuing the nuisance. 2. Ibid. — Ibid.'—-Rule—Nuisance—Summons.—This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine whether a statutory nuisance is being maintained, upon petition and rule issued by one of the Justices of this Court, returnable to the Court, without service of summons. 3. Ibid.' — Nuisance—Rule—Constitutional Law. — Requiring one by rule on petition to answer under oath whether he is maintaining a statutory nuisance, which is made a crime by statute, does not require respondent to testify against himself in violation of the rights accorded him by Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of United States and sec. 17 of art. 1 of Constitution of this State. 4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Jury—Constitutional Law. — A statutory nuisance may be declared by this Court to be maintained by one, without trial and conviction by a jury, and such adjudication by the Court does not deprive the individual of the right to trial by jury accorded him by sec. 2, art. Ill of Constitution of United States, and secs. 5 and 25 of art. I of Constitution of this State.