
    7200
    SPERRY & HUTCHISON CO. v. CITY OF COLUMBIA.
    Injunction. — A petition showing that agent of petitioner had been arrested by city authorities for violating a city ordinance and alleging the ordinance to be unconstitutional and asking that the city authorities be enjoined from enforcing the ordinance, does not show on its face that petitioner has no other adequate remedy.
    Petition in the original jurisdiction of this Court by the Sperry & Hutchinson Company and D. E. Lusk for injunction against the city of Columbia, W. C. Cathcart, chief of police, C. C. Stanley, recorder, and Joseph R. Allen, auditor, setting forth that the petitioner was engaged in a system of advertising by trading stamps, which were sold to the merchants of the city, and redeemed by petitioners in goods, that contract had been made with merchants of the city, that the agent of petitioner had been arrested by the police authorities of the city because of its refusal to pay the license provided by city ordinance for carrying on the business of selling trading stamps, that he would be prosecuted under said ordinance every time he attempted to do this business without paying said license fee, that such prosecution was ruinous to the said business, that the ordinance was unconstitutional, unjust and discriminatory, and seeking a rule against defendants requiring them to show cause why they should not be enjoined from enforcing the ordinance.
    
      Messrs. Lyles & Lyles and John Hall Jones, for petitioner.
    May 25, 1909.
   Per Curiam.

This is an application for a rule to show cause why a criminal proceeding should not be enjoined. The petition does not show upon its face that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy, and the application is, therefore, refused.  