The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-11-25
CONTEMPT RULE ISSUED,
ANOTHER STEP TAKEN IN THE
DISPENSARY CASE.

Court I'm Securing From South Car
Olina Supreme Court Writ of Man
damaus to Compel Winding-Up
Board to Pay Claims.
Richmond, Va. Nov. 14.-Further
complication in the celebrated South
Carolina dispensary case developed
yesterday when, after all day confer
ences with attorneys representing the
Wilson and Fleischman distilling
companies. Judge Jeter c. Pritchard,
of the United States Circuit Court,
issued an order commanding Archi-
bald w. Ray and Duncan c. Ray, the
latter prominent attorney fo CO.
iumbia. S. c., to appear before him
to show cause why they should not
be punished for contempt of Court.
The attorneys at the conferences
were T. Moultrie Mordecai of Char
lesion, S. c.; Frank Carter, Of Ashe-
vile, -. c., representing the Wilson
Company; A. S. Barnard, of Ashevillc.
y. c., and CT. b. Lester, Of Cincinnati.
o., representing the Fleischman in
terests. The complainants made
motion that the Ray brothers be ruled
for contempt in seeking to have judge
Pritchard's orders, in which he took
charge OF the dispensary funds, set
aside or abrogated to such an extent
as to allow them 10 recover the
amount of the claim upon which 4.
w. Ray procured a writ Of mandamus
from the Supreme Court of South Car
olina.
Judge Pritchard's rule is returnable
December 21 at Greenvllle, S. c..
The whole trouble arises out Of the
suits brought by the Fleischman Com
pany and others against the commits
sioners appointed to wind up the af-
fairs Of the old South Carolina dis
pensary board Of control on claims for
whiskey purchased by the board from
complainants before the institution
was abolished.
The commissioners constituted
themselves as a Court, and proceeded
TO take testimony as TO the various
claims, and in many instances refused
TO allow the full amount claimed by
the parties, and in the case OF Ullman
& Co. held that instead of the, State
lrt,
really owed the State several thou
sand dollars on account of rebates,
which the commissioners claimed had
been paid to the former board of
control, and also on account of the
fact that the goods sold to the board
were sold at a price higher than that
charged other consumers.
The complainants then brought
their claims before Judge Pritchard.
n the Federal Court at Ashevi lie.
which was hotly contested by the COM
missioners, on the ground that the
commission was itself a Court, and
that Judge Pritchard did not have
jurisdiction.
Judge Pritchard, however. assumed
jurisdiction, and appointed receivers
10 take charge of the funds. Upon
this an appeal was taken by the COM
mission to the United States Circuit
Court or Appeals, wherein Judge
'ritchard was sustained
The case is now before the United
tates Supreme Court, for the COM
mission having applied there for
"rit OF certiora:i a. w. Ray pur-
chased u claim against the commits
sion OF S35i.35, and brought suit
against the commissioners in the State
Court, ana recovered Judgment. This.
however. the commits 'ionors were un-
able to pay, under the former order
of Judge Pritchard, and did refuse to
pay. Ray thereupOn went to the Su-
preme Court of South Carolina and
procured writ Of mandamus to COM
pei the commissioners to pay the
judgment
The present contempt PROCEEDINGS
are Instituted on account of the at
tempted violation of Judge Pritch-
ards order, which is to the effect that
no amounts shall be paid out of the
fund, except by an order OF his
Court.