The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-11-22
COMMISSION WINS.
Judge Pritcha1d Refuses to Compel
Dispensary Commission to Pay
Garrett & Co.'S Claim.

Prltchard today refused to issue
mandamus asked for by attorneys
for the complainant company IN the
case Of Garrett & Co against the
South Carolina dispensary comm1s-
sion. The court did, however, take
the case under consideration for the
purpose Of deciding whether or not
+ would be proper to hear the case
in equity.
The attorneys for Garrett T. Co..
sprung complete surprise Oh Attor-
new General Lyon. of South Car0llna.
and his associa es, when they rleo
their petition and affidavit. which
was in response to the papers hIeo
bv the attorneys for the Southern
state.
The petition attempted to retute
the statements made in the petition
of the states attorneys.
The affidavit accompanying the Pc
tit;on is based chiefly on CONVEX
sat;on between one Of the defen-
daats, Mr.. C. K. Henderson, ana
Paul Garrett, which conversation
took place in Norfolk, this state, III
October. in which the defendant
made the statement that the commls-
sion had about disposed Of all the
personal property of the dlspensary'
having in hand and due them funds
amounting to about eight hundred
thousand dollars, the debts OF the
dispensssry aggregating approximate
" fftv-nine thousand, SIX hunore0'
the latter item being subject to re-
dnctioa bv reason Of goods returned
to creditors.
The defendant further stated ac-
cordinr TO the affidavit, that Garrett
& Co. had not made an offer OF
discount off for cash settlement'
evcept on one occasion, which occur
rod previous 10 the time the wines
were shipped back to the Complain
AMI vhea, in order to secure prompt
settlement Of the account. discount
of two and one-haf per cent was
offered. The offer, however: was re-
jected.
Henderson, in this conversation.
stated that the commission would
sooa thereafter pay out the funds
then in its hands as the members
were anxious that the matter be clos
al and that the defendants knew
that their treatment of Garrett &
Co. was neither reasonable nor just
and that it was case Of ml@ht
against RIGHT. Garrett & CO. beng
forced to take back the goods or &e3
nothing in return for them.
Henderson asserted. however, that
the commission had adopted a reSo-
lution to return all goods on hand
without making any investigation
or inquiry as to whether any partle-
n1ar purchase had been illegal. The
commission made no inquiry into the
claim Ct Garrett & Co. to ascertain
whether or not the goods had been IL
legally bought, no reference beng
made thereto. except in the general
order
Garrett. in the afidacir. states that
~ conversation with several Of the
defendants he had been repeatedly
toll that there was no complaint
whatever tc be made Of his goods
and that 50 far as their Information
went his goods were always OF the
quality they had been represented 10
be. and that his dealings were above
suspicion. there being no criticism 10
be n!u:ie of him. 1t is stated. how
ever. that upon inquiry as to what
grounds we're advanced IL the clam
Thai he sales had been illegal a."
was .:lwavS trld that he had failed +"
send chemical analysis with has
bids and had failed to give bend for
cor, i::i:re with his contract.
TIE affidavit closes with the state
ment That there is no rnnni2" a.
count between Garrett and the state
discus hrt that MI contracts OF
sales are made on separate and dis
tincf ?.iC> an -? rnr IL account
co,,:"~-..n1in~ Il .hc respective bills.