The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1912-04-10
CALLED down PROMPT
STATEMENT OF a WITNESS PROV
EN- TO BE TRUE.
Attorney General Lyon Produces Re-
cord to Repute the Testimony Of
Mr.. James ". Wallace.

I
Mr.. James ". Wallace, membel
of the Blease dispensary winding u
commission, appearing before ths
Legislative Dispensary Investigating
Committee on Wednesday, insinuat'
ed that Attorney General Lyon and
I B. Fielder had deposited some mon
ey in bank in Cincinnati which
they had collected from Dennis Weis-
kopf who had overcharged the State
Of South Carolina for labels and in
Jimated that it was the intention OF
Lyon and Fielder to cover up the
money as it had not been reported to
the Blease commission. Mr.. Wallace
stated that the first time the Blease
commission knew that this money
was on deposit in Cincinnati was
when P. H. Nelson brought out the
fact on cross-examination Of one OF
Mr.. Lyons witnesses in the trial OF
the famous label case~.
At this point Attorney General
Lyon called the committees atten-
ton to the fact tha Mr.. Wallace was
giving his opinion as evidence and
that the opinion were false" Mr.
Lyon also said that he had In his
possession a copy Of the written con-
tract entered into by Mr.. Fielder with
Weiskopf by which it was agreed to
pay to the State $500 when Weis-
kopf was relieved from further pros
ecution in this State and that the
money was on deposit in Cincinnati
bank to the credit OF T. B. Fielder,
Howard Ferris and ]. S. Graydon as
trustees to be paid to the State dis
pensary commission when nolle
prosequi should be entered upon the
remaining indictments against Weis-
kopf.
This contract was handed to the
committee by Attorney
General Lyon. He also stated that
the testimony of Mr.. Wallace to the
effect that Mr.. Nelson on cross-exam-
ination had brought out the fact that
the money on deposit in Cincinnati
was also untrue, as he himself had
had his own witness to testify in re-
gard thereto and that Mr.. Nelson
had objected to a part Of the States
testimony as the record will show.
The testimony referred to by Mr..
Lyon is reported verbatim in The
State Of September so, 1911, as fol-
lows:
Questioned by Attorney General
Lyon. Mr.. Weiskopf, state whether or
not you have returned to the State
Of South Carolina $500 on account
Of the overcharges on these labels?
A. have returned $500 to my
attorney. l think he has made some
for the return OF the
paid. I gave it to him under
his advice.
Q. For what purpose?
A. To close up the affair.
@. Was it not for returning part
of the overcharges on those labels
for which you felt responsible?
Mr.. Nelson: We object.
Mr.. Lyon: Mr.. Weiskopf, did you
turn over any money for the purpose
Of having it get to the State OF South
Carolina?
A. I gave my attorney cneck for
$500.
Q. What did you instruct your at
torney to do with that money?
A, I did not instruct my attorney
tc do anything.
@. Did you make any agreement
as to what ne should do with It?
A. believed he made an agree
ment, and I believe I did.
@. Don't you know that you did
make an agreement about it in per-
son?
A. Yes, sir.
@. Mr.. Weiskopf, state whether or
not you directed your attorney to
turn over this money to the State Of
South Carolina?
Mr.. Nelson: we object. The writ
ing being the best evidence.
The Court: After hearing argu-
Gents, I think so.