The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-02-12

he - never impolite aud he merely
replied that there was absolutely no
truth In tho statement and that II Was
ont of the evident efforts to discredit
the commission for some sinister pur-
pose. He stated positively that he Of
fered the position to DR. Murray and
had TO Insist upon its being accepted.
MORE NEWS OF THE DISPENSA.
RY GRAFT GAME.
Columbia, Feb. Tin the State
yesterday appeared an oiyicial an
nouncsnaent that b. Dhrlisch Of At
lanta rad brought suit against Ull-
man q Co. and the Anchor Distilling
company OF Cincinnati. A. these
Arms have figured extensively In the
proceedings .cR the commission to
wind up .tns affairs OF the old STATE
dispensary. there was some inquiry
- 20 the nature Of the claims Of Ehr-
lisch against tho liquor firms named
u may hs recalled that Ehrlisch
10 the party who swors that ne had
got tor ~. A. Goodman the Job Of
travelling representative In South Car.
olina for Ullman 4 Co.. and that ne
and Goodman and Himmilhauer and
Manheimer were to share and share
alike In the profits. Nnw Ehrlisch
claims that he has been defrauded by
the others-or by Ullman and Stra-
uss-of his part Ct the profits. This
is more Of the humor Of the plumber
bund. ir
The complaints alleges that Adolph
Unman and i. y. Strauss were CO.
partners in trade In Cincinnati under
two firms. Ulln,an & Co. and the
Anchor DistillinE company.
That no and N. A. Goodman. Onton
aimmelbauer and Leo Manhedmer
entered into partnership In August.
1904, to act as salesman for Jiln,an
and Strauss. They wgre TO receive
for their services onerha,f Of the
prcfits derived from their business
His portion would thus have been
one-eishth Of ail the profts. 81
Tho suit 10 brought in this State
because said defendants shave prop
erty within the state of south Caro-
lima to wit: A chose In ac&tan or
debt due them BY the State dispsn-
sary commission"
Ehrlisch alleges that the gross pro-
etx from the, busincss In this State for
The year ensuing from August. 1894.
were $4,000.
l,is one-eighth OF this would have
been $500. Az matter Of fact he
received $500 fer tho year. There
fore ne claims judgment fer $4,000
rs his pro rata OF the South Carolina
business.
II may be recalled that Ehrlisch
when sworn in Atlanta save the fol-
lowing affidavit &c the agents Of the
state recently.
''rhat he was Cngaged IN selling IL
quor' for Ullman & Co. of Cincinnati.
O.. and had associated with him N.
A. Goojman. L. Manhrimer and
Himmilbaucr from August. 1904. to.
July 81, 1905. During this tim-
large quantities Of liquor were sold
rhe South Carolina State dispensa!y
That he met M. 4. Goodman several
,imes In the city OF Columbia, s. c..
Tor the purpose Of nonferring with
Goodman in advancing sales Of IL
Guors and for consulting ana agree
ing upon the best plans for conduct
ing their business. That NJ. A.
Gtcdman, his associate told iepon-
ent that II cost him great deal Of
money To get tho business from the
South Carolina State dispensary: that
Boykin and Towill. members Of the
board OF dispensary directors. werc
his friends on the hoard and that ne
paid them to buy from Ullman & CC
That In course of his association viii,
said Goodman as hcrcin stated de-
ponent received letter from Good
man In tho handwriting of Goodman
on the letter heads Of the Common
wealth Distilling company OF Louis
Vile. KY. dated August II. 1904, ad-
dressed My Dear Barney and signed
script on the fourth page. This letter
speaks for itsolf."
IL Is evident that Ehrlisch has new
er had "a proper accounting for the
extraordinary expense In South Car.
clina.