Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-05-06

The Glass Company Case.-The case
Of the dispensary commission against
Carolina Glass company was before the
supreme court last Monday, when affi-
davits were submitted as to claim
and counter claims, and the court set
May 90 as the date for a hearing. The
glass company has a claim against the
state, amounting to $23,013.7, and while
the commission was willing to ac-
knowledge that this claim was correct
according to the glass company's bills,
1t went on to assert that the glass
company owes the state $2S,419.24, on
a basis Of overchargeS, etc. The glass
company has claims against county
dispensaries amounting to $4,000,
which claims have accumulated since
the abolition Of the state dispensary,
and upon which payment has been
stopped by act Of the general assembly.
The decree Of tine commission in which
the $28,419.24 claim was made against
the grass company was signed by three
of the five members Of the commits
sion, and one Of the three was Hon. ].
S. Brice, who became member Of the
commission after certain preliminary
hearings had been held. In one of the
exceptions, the glass company Is claim.
ing, 1t holds that Mr.. Brice could not
have been a fair judge of the facts,
for the reason stated in the exception
as follows:
Because one of the said commits
sioners, Mr.. J. S. Brice, (who by the
way, was formerly state senator from
York county, himself new appoin-
tee upon said commission and not
having heard any of the testimony
heretofore, adduced upon the open
ing of the arguments upon the claim
stated as follows tO-Wit.
Mr.. Lyles, from my recollection
and knowledge of the testimony, there
is certainly a doubt in my mind
whether the state Of South Carolina
owes the Carolina Glass company a
cent. 1 am under the impression
from the testimony. that it will show
that the glass company really owes
the state a large sum of money. l
want to hear from you on that point;
in other words, from the fall Of 1902,
when they commenced doing business
down here, their over er-charges down
here, compared with what the state,
If doing an honest business. buying
glass from other people, would
amount to several hundred thousand,
and, instead Of the state owing them
some $4,000, they owe the state
100000. In developing your case
develop that point-it was published
in Golfers Weekly. | got the testi-
mony and read 1t up on that point
and ii is based on the testimony Of
competent witnesses from other
houses.
II read your cross-examination,
and could not see where you shook
the testimony of the fellow who said
his mouse would have furnished s240,-
600 cheaper
This statement is of significance,
because, when the decree was signed,
two members, DR.. Murray, the chair
man, and Mr.. McSween, the secretary.
voted No" Two other members
Yes" and Mr.. Brice also voted
Yes" So it was upon Mr.. Rrice's
vote that the decree was handed down
that is to say. if he hadn't voted
yes the majority would not have
been against the glass company.
The comment OF attorneys for the
glass company upon this statement or
Mr.. RriCe'S quoted above is as fol-
lows:
Thereby showing that his own
mind had been greatly prejudiced, and
that he had formed an opinion against
the validity Of claimants claim from
the reading Of Golfers Weekly. a
weekly periodical published in the
city of New York, Of a highly sensa- |
tional character: the said commits
siOner thereafter. Notwithstanding |
such disqualification. participating in |
the said meeting of said commission |
and being one Of the three commits |
sioners who united in the judgment |
Of the commission sustaining an Off |
set against claimants claim, which |
more than wiped out the same. !