The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-01-15

s1.530.b7. and In other numerous in
stances as shown by the report Of tho
audit company they reclaimed large
sums from accounts owed by the dis
pensary and added charges for in
voices shipped to dispehsary and moi
charged.
A Had bookkeeping.
The accounts OF the d:spensary
have been kept, up to the date of the
bookkeeping OF Mr.. j. L. Thorpe. ir
q most chaotic condition. Numerous
entries havo been got rid Of by trans
ferring them to suspended accounts.
and then transferring suspended ac-
counts to merchandise accounts: and
at the end Of the fiscal year. Nov. 80.
1905, the report was made ignoring
liability for invoices amounting t.
$ss.sss.oS. whereas the stock pur-
chased with the $sS,sss.0s was set
down us an asset. thus showing $214,-
526.0S Of profit. whereas a liability Of
$96.s6s.0S was ignored, which would
reduce 1t tn only about $117.557.22
profits
Litigation.
Tho first obligation that arose was
the claim by the United States gov
crnment that the county dlspensaries
had been selling beer In wholesale
quantities. and they. assessed $4,525.-
~ against the dispensary for license
taxes during the assessablc period
and charged up soS.241.s7 for taxes
that were too old to be assessed. It
became nocessary To pay tho s4.525.Ol
.'nder protest 10 avoid seizure and
this was done, and an appeal taken to
the commissioners Of internal revenue,
who. up to this tine has made no
lecisicn on the matter. The $685.
24t.S7 cs the liability can only be col
lccted by institutirg suit by the United
states gcvcrnmens against the State.
and hi. TO tnis time they have not in
stituted such suit. but II should he
that 1t is possible la
,illty.
The next litigation to arise was a
suit Of Garrett s Co. against the
commission a. individuals Instituted
in the city OF Norfolk, whore one
member Of the commission was serv.
Cd. for $4,000 damages on account
Of the fact that large amount Of
vines. amounting to, about $1,000,
had been returned on two grounds
The next litigation was proceed
Ing instituted In che United States
circuit court for mandamus to re-
Iuire the commission TO pay the CLAIM.
pf Garrett & co. This was hoard be-
'orc Judge Pritchard in Richmond.
Va, on the 1sth and goth OF Novein-
ber. and the mandamus was refuesd.
but the court retained the bill to look
INTO the question of its jurisdiction to
grant some equitable relief In the
premises and has made no decision on
me matter as yet.
Wilson Distilling Co. entered suit
against the commission in a case in.
stituted on the soth day Of December.
1907. in which they allege that the
is about to discrir,inat,
agoinst tho plalntiff In the payment OF
claims and asks the court to take
chargc CT the funds and the establish
ment OF claims. This case is In the
hands Of our attorney also and is t.
be heard on the 11th day OF January.
1908, at Asheville. N. c.. on the mo-
ion for a peymanent injunction.
There are numerous county dispen-
'ary bonds which appear to be liable
'or balances. most of which arc dis
puted. These matters would have been
aiken w much sooner but the audit
report was necessary as a
prerequisite To proceeding and It has
neen in the hands Of the commission
'nly about 40 days, and the meagre
Information to- be. got from the slip
'hod method Of keeping accounts and
settling with dispensers as developed
by the examination OF tho books rem.
iered IT doubtful in the judgment OF
he commission whether 1t would be
iudicious to institute legal proceed
ngs on these bonds or not.
The Assets.
The assets. as appears by our books
and statements. are as follows: Cash
IN hand $sS4.o034c. amounts receiv-
able sllG.514.3s. real estate $56.s73.-
81. And the liabilities are as follows: