The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-09-28

the liquor cheap for the State, ana
get something on the side for myself,
and the State would not be hurt. -
WAS there any agreement?';
NO."
Did 70 uapprove of it?"
Il couldn't say
Witness would not swear whether
'or not he had made up his mind be-
Iorehand Oh the matter. He explain
ed that the board would require bid
<ders for the sale Of whiskey to say
whether they were selling to anyone
else outside Of the State cheaper than
TO the State Of South Carolina. He
stated that IN one or more instances
the Anheuser-Busch firm were found
to be selling at high rate, and that
The company was written to. The
minutes Of the meeting of October %
were produced. and it was read there
from that the clerk had been instruc-
Ted to buy no more from the An
heuser-Busch firm. The prices named
we're SIP o. for this firm s beer, and
the competitive price was alleged to
have been $40 50. The letter from
the firm in reply had reference to the
ninety day time required for payment
of this States account, and the fact
that other consumers paid cash for
orders. There was some question
made by the State Of admitting this
letter, but it was done under the
rules Of cross-examination.
State Lost No Money.
Tie witness did not know whether
money was paid direct to Farnum or
the Anheuser people for the beer Or
ders. The defence put up line of
testimony to show that profit was
added to the cost Of the goods re-
ceived from this and other firms, and
that this profit was added before the
goods were sent to the county dispen-
saries. It was thus attempted to
show that the State lost no money.
The State objected to this line Of
evidence, but the Court sustained the
defence. Witness admitted that he
did not think the State lost any mon
ey by the transactions. It was PROV
ed as far as could be by witness that
the State enjoyed profits from the
goods sold.
Mr.. Stevenson contended that it
was not question Of profit, and that
it made no difference whether OF not
the State made anything Of the sale
Of the liquors, but Judge Memminger
upheld the contention of the defence
on this point.
On September II, according to the
testimony, the board passed reso-
luton by which the clerk was given
the right to order out one X goods,
the plan being that the commissioner
would tell the clerk when to order
and the clerk could take tE;s upon
his own responsibility without wait
ing for the board to pass upon the
orders, the members of the board re-
ceiving at their home copies Of the
orders.
TIE witness explained that he got
Farnum's orders shipped Out by get
ting another member Of the board to
sign the orders. Col. Nelson named
over, from the books, "a number OF
firms and witness stated that Far
mum did not represent, these. The
defence thus showed that ali the or
ders given at the September meeting,
sE5AAirh has been stressed in this trial,
did not so the the alleged firm of Far
nun. Witness admitted in unmis-
taxable language that he knew that
Farnum did not represent the firms
read of.
Except that when Jack Cranston
was reached the witness said he had
been paid $500 by him. and that there
is still due him on the $1,000 ease or
der the difference between this
amount and the whole amount at 81
per ease. He said :Farnum did have
something to do with the Jack Grams
ton firm. This testimony, being hear
say. was ruled out.
Some we'll konwn firms. including
Fleischmann. were read off from the
books and witness stated that Far
i1um did not represent these to his
knowledge.
Left Columbia With Samuel.
That Wylie left Columbia on the
afternoon of the 14th Of September
in company with Samuels and went