Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1896-05-15
taken in this matter certainly entities us
to have the information asked for.
We are very respectfully,
HART ~ HART AttOrnevs

to have the information asked for.
We are very respectfully,
HART Il HART, Attorneys.
By Jas. F. Hart.
President Thomas's reply was dated
May 8, but it did not reach Yorkville un-
til May II. 1t was as follows:
Messrs. Hart & Hart, Attorneys, York
vile, s. G.,
GENTLEMEN: Your letter of the 9TH in
stant to hand, in which you say that Mr..
May has never been convicted under sec
tion Is of the dispensary law.
The section quoted relates only to q
druggist who has been convicted under
any section Of the dispensary law, and as
you admit his conviction under section |,
the provision Of section l8 had necessarily
to Be complied with by the board Of
pharmaceutical examiners, as a result of
conviction. By applying to the clerk of
court he will furnish you with copy Of
the order sent me. Would send you q
CODY from here but have forwarded the
correspondence to our secretary, who re-
sides in Charleston, and it would take
several days before same could be sent
you. Judge Witherspoon has been in
formed by me that the order sent me by
the clerk of court has been complied with.
I know nothing whatever as to the merits
Of the case but am satisfied as to the cor
rectness of the order, and therefore, have
revoked the liscense Of MIR. May, and
stricken his name from the roll Of phar-
acists. Yours, truly, o. E. THOMAS,
President.
Upon receipt of this letter, Major Hart
applied to Judge Witherspoon and Clerk
of the Court Wylie. Judge Witherspoon
assured him that he had signed no papers
in connection with the case. Mr.. Wylie
said that he had signed some papers for
State Detective Newbold on Newbold's
assurance that they were all right; but as
to their exact nature he was unable to
explain. Accordingly, on May IL, Major
Hart addressed President Thomas again
with the following:
YoRKvIILE, s. c., May 18th 1896.
DR.. o. E. Thomas, President etc., Colum-
bia, s. G..
DEAR SIR-We have your esteemed
favor of the Sth instant in reply to our
letter of the 7th. We beg to assure you
that you are wholly in error in saying
that q conviction Of druggist, 'under
any section of the dispensary law'' au-
thorizes your board to withdraw his GER
tificate.
Please read section 18 and you will plain
ly see that q forfeiture of his certificate is a
part of the penalty for selling liquor "al-
coholic, etc." bought of dispensary for
compromising prescriptions.
We hope that you will see that you have
Eeen misled, (unintentional on your part,
as we fully appreciate) and will correct it
by replacing DR.. Mays name.
We cannot make the matter any palmer
to you than careful reading ofsection IL
makes it. Yours very truly,
HART & HART, Attorneys.
BY Jas. F. Hart.
To this letter Major Hart has received
no reply, and for the present there the
matter rests. Section l8 of the dispensary
law provides in effect that druggists may
buy alchoholic liquors from the dispensa-
ries, for the purpose of compounding pre-
scriptions, at greatly reduced rate; but
upon conviction of selling such liquors in
violation of the dispensary law, they must
forfeit their licenses. DR.. May was con-
victed under section OF the dispensary
law, which relates to the Illicit sale OF
"contraband" liquors Of any kind, and
his attorneys claim that under the law
the State Pharmaceutical association has
nothing whatever to do with his case.
The matter has not yet been finally settled.