The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1902-02-26
Wednesday, February rs. 1902.
TEE CHART MUDDLE.
Baxter, S. G, 2-21-l9O2.
NJ q M Harmon

MT. T. NJ. haFmoHs
Dear Friend: Will you please be
kind enough to publish all the facts
concerning the Chart decision, and
whether We, as trustees, would be
justified in paying attorney fees, &c,
and is there a probability that the
case is not yet ended? Any light
that you can give will be kindly re-
cei7ed by all concerned. Let US
hear in your next issue and oblige,
Yours truly, G. NJ. Adams.
The facts, as far as we know, are
about ss follows: 4 chart agent can
7assed the county with sample charts
and maps taking orders from the
trustees from several school districts,
receiving pay for same either cash or
notes signed by the trustees and pay
able from the sum which might be
apportioned to the school district at
some future time. Some of the
charts were delivered and some re-
fused but notes had been given in
payment. About this time some OF
the trustees on second thought, be-
came dissatisfied with their bargain,
claiming first that, the price was TOO
high, and second, that the charts
were not as represented, being very
inferior to the sample and besides
being inaccurate. The dissatisfac-
tion spread and assumed shape in
an organization of the ''bit" trustees,
the purpose of which was to resist
payment of the notes by legal pro-
ceedings. An attorney was employed
under whose advise the payments Of
the notes were refused. A mandamus
was issued against. Frank W. Shealy,
as County Treasurer, to show cause
why he refused to pay the notes.
He decided to make fight in the
courts and employed counsel. TIE
case came up for hearing before
Judge Gary in Columbia, and the
notes were declared illegal, because
they anticipated an apportioDment
which did not exist at the tine tie
notes were made. The case was car
ried to the court Of last resort, and
the Judgment of the lower court was
affirmed
The status is simply this: If the
charts were as represented by the
agent, then the trustees are morally
bound to pay for them. If they
were not, then they are relieved of
the onerous Of repudiation. The
Sapreme Court has declared that
they are not legally bound by their
contract, but this does not relieve
them of their moral obligation, if the
charts were as represented. The
case was transferred from the trus-
tees to Frank W. Shealy as Treas
urer of Lexington county, when the
mandamus was issued not by his own
seeking or wishes, but he was forced
into the fight against his will. He
was in no way bound by the agree
ment made between the trustees and
their attorneys and it was his legal
prerogative to employ his own coun-
sci to represent him should he de-
cided to resist payment. He de-
cided TO file an answer to the man.
damus, and employed his own coun-
sci with what result is we'll known.
Had he decided, after being forced
into the case, to make no fight, it
would have gone by default and the
trustees would have had the notes
to pay. Instead Of being blamed for
his action, he should receive the
thanks of every trustee interested in
the suit and his counsel fee and e1-
penses should be cheerfully paid by
them.
The Supreme Court decided in
favor of the County Treasurer, but
without prejudice to any other pro-
ceedipgs the Bank might be advised
to institute. What those proceedings
if any, may be, Of course we know