The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-09-30
81 sUMTER s. &C. sATuRnAv srprr,pr, -. -

unsigned and because it was not prov
en- by the bookkeeper who made il.
The State contended that it was
an official record coming from the
proper authorities. as having come
from the dispensary and from the Of
hcials charged in the indictment. The
State contended that the bill was
prima face evidence and could be
submitted as such.
We'll let it go in" was Judge
Wilson's brief decision as to whether
the bill for the labels was admissible
as evidence.
The labels were also given the Of
fetal 20. K"
1t was finally permitted to ge.
through the legal firing lines tho
bid on the labels was made +
State and Walker, Evans ar
we'll. Mr.. Johnstone, in g. ~ to
some Of tt Sidence, sug. that
no possible god could cone from
counsel ''sassing" each other.
On cross-examination by Col Mel
son. Mr.. Christensen said he was
paid IS a day, while actually en-
gagged. Mr.. Christensen said while
faywers were getting good fees he
, was simply getting his expense, no
so positive the labels exhibited were
those gotten at the dispensary and
at the dispensary hearing he s'be-
lieved" they were the same labels.
The cross-examination continued
up and down, merrily chasing who.
when and where certain papers came
| into his possession.
He was insistently asked If the
State and Walker. Evans and Cogs-
we'll did not know he did not want
the labels. He said he simply asked
for bids. He never intended to buy
labels. but he simply wanted COM
parative prices. He offered no in
oucements to the bidders, but simply
wanted to know what it would cost
to duplicate the order. Very likely
the bidders he asked for figures
knew why he was asking for prices.
Mr.. Johnstone brought out that
there were pencil marks on the Nivi :
SON. -Weiskopf bill in Mr.. Christen-
sens handwriting. Mr.. Lyon pro-
tested against any Improper imputa.
tons being made against the witness
as the figures merely showed the
footings OF the number Of labels.
He made the notations while
working on the famous investigating
committee. He did not. Of his own
knowledge know whether Mr.. Boy
kin had seen the invoice in question.
He went out and secured evidence
and became a witness before the
committee on the label matter. He
asked for bids from the State and
Walker, Evans and Cogswell, on the
labels, because they were practical
men and were in that line of busi-
ness. ., 70 - ~
He and Mr.. Lyon and Mr.. Hay
were on the subcommittee to investi-
gate overchargee and prices.
There was a prolonged legal de-
bate as to using certain testimony ad-
duced at the previous investigation
regarding the identity of the labels.
The court held that the question in
the record could not be used, but
that Mr.. Christensen could give his
testimony by refreshing his memory.
The pencil memorandum in no
wise changed the original bill, but
We're footings.
He figured, as shown by the pen
Gil memoranda on the bill, that the
twentyone million labels would la
bel $6,350,00o worth of liquor.
Merry legal tangle number forty
seven, more or less, as to whether it
was rermissible evidence as to
whether the witness could explain his
pencil figures on the original invoice
which were made to show how much
liquor the labels would brand or
market.
Mr.. Nelson. Mr.. Johnstone, Mr..
Welch. Mr.. Zimmerman, Mr.. Raysor,
all took turn at the kick against
Mr.. Christensen going into the pur-
pose Of the pencil notations on the
original bill and that the figures are
not part of the invoice, and then
an hour or more was spent arguing
on the competency of the prosecu-
tion offering the evidence of Mr.
Christensen. in its entirety, as Of
fered before the investigating COM
mittee.
Col. b. l.. Abney. Of counsel for