Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1908-01-30
CHARGES GRAFT
Flelschman & Co., of New York,
Ask for Receivers of
DISPENSARY FUNDS.


is Because Members of the Dis
pensary Commission Have Placed
1t in Certain Banks I'm Which They
Are Individually Interested.
In the United States Circuit Court
Tuesday at Asheville Judge J. c.
Pritchard signed an order citing the
dispensary commission of South Car
olina to appear on "Wednesday, Jan
20, and show cause why the relief
prayed in bill Of complaint filed by
Fleischman & Co., OF New York,
creditors of the dispensary, should
not be granted and a receiver ap-
pointed to take charge of the funds
held by the dispensary commission,
and the affairs of the commission
wound up.
The bill of complaint filed by
attorneys representing Fleischman &
Co., is interesting and In parts SEN
sational. The complaint in effect
charges that the dispensary COM
mission has failed to pay the claims
of the creditors because the commits
sioners are financially interested In
the banks in which the great sum of
almost $1,O0O.OO0 is deposited. The
bill alleges that the commission has
violated its trusts and a receiver
should be appointed to take charge
of the monies and affairs now under
control of the dispensary commits
sion.
The bill in part recites that said
defendants are abusing the trusts re-
posed in them by wrongfully and un-
lawfully failing and refusing to car
ry out the terms and provisions OF
said act of 1907 of the general as
sembly of the State of South Caro-
lima, and that the greater part of
the money which the defendants
have received, as aforesaid, has been
on deposit for many months, and is
now on deposit in certain banks in
the State Of South Carolina, in which
banks the said defendants, or some
of them, are respectively interested,
either as officers. stockholders or dir
ectors: that q large sum of said mon
ey Is now In the National Loan and
Exchange bank Of Columbia, in which
bank the defendant, Murray. who is
chairman of the dispensary commits
sion, Is large stockholder and dir
ector; that another large portion of
said money is deposited In the Bank
of Timmonsville, in which said bank
the defendant, McSween. is stock
holder and director. and Is also Its
president; that another large portion
of said money Is on deposit In the
Peoples bank of Union, in which
bank the defendant, Arthur, is O
stockholder and director and also Its
president; that another large portion
of said money is on deposit In the
Bank of Aiken, in which bank the
defendant Henderson, is a stock
holder and director; that another
portion of said money is deposited ir
the Piedmont Savings and Invest
Gment Company OF Greenville. ir
which the defendant. Patton, is 6
stockholder. and portion OF sait
money is deposited in the Merchant
and Farmers bank Of Cheraw, II
which bank one w. F. Stevenson
who resides in the said town of Che
Faw and who is the attorney for the
defendants constituting the State
dispensary commission. is stock
holder and director and also its pres
ident
That the said defendants have
wrongfully, unlawfully and fraudu
lently declined and refused to max
distribution Of the said none.
among the creditors OF the saiC
State dispenasry or to pay the CLAIM
of your orator or any of the othe
said creditors. for the reason, as you
orator verify believes and alleges tn
fact to be, that there has been form
ed and now exists an unlawful un
derstanding or agreement betweel
the defendants by which 1t has bee
decided that the money deposited Il
the banks above named shall be he'll
and allowed to remain as long a
possible In said banks and be use
by them for their own benefit an
profit.
Attorney General Lyon Of Sout
Carolina was present in the interes
of the dispensary commission. Tha
side contends, in effect, that certai
claims of creditors are not genuine
that undue influence was used In tn
purchase of goods and too great
price was paid. 1t is understoo
that there are claims aggregatin
about $500, 900 againstthe dispensar
commission and these creditors. a
leging that the funds in the hand
OF the commission aggregate abou
$500 900, demand that their claim
be paid. 1t is probable that ther
will be an interesting hearing o
January 20, when the dispensar
commission will appear to sho
cause why a receiver should not h