The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1913-06-24
LITIGATION MAY FOLLOW
CITY OF COLUMBIA INVOLVED
question Raised Whether City Got
More Than Its Share of Dis
penSary Profits.

The following was taken from
today's Columbia State:
lhe supreme court of South Caro-
ilna may be asked to decide on tbe
DIVISION of the dispensary profits in
Rlchland county in 1912. Thomas
n. Peeples, attorney general, has
given an opinion that ''up to the
year 1912 the profits should have
oeen divided, one-fifth to the public
schools "a the balance between the
Town or city where the dispensary is
located and the county for ordinary
county purposes. During the wear
1912, one-third for ordinary COUNTY
purposes, one-third for the school
fund or for roads and bridges and
one-third to the municipality in
Whlch the dispensary is located. :"
Under this ruling 1t is estimated that
the city OF Columbia would have to
refund about $4,000.
Inc matter has been placed I'm
the hands Of the city attorney" said
mayor Gibbes yesterday.
VIII very probably call a meet
ing of the board for Monday" said
william H. CASTOR, chairman of the
Rlchland county dispensary board
Attorney General Peoples gave
tne opinion In answer to a commu-
nlcatlon from T. B. Roach, member
ol tne county dispensary board, who
asked tor advice concerning the dis
crlouIion or d1spensary profits in so
far as Eastover is concerned.
The opinion of the attorney gen
eral follows:
June 20, 1913.
Mr.. t. B. Roach, Member Dispen-
sary Board, Columbia, S. c.
Dear Sir: This Office is in re-
celpt OF your request for an opinion
as to the division of the dispensarv
profits in Richland county in so far
as the same relates to the dispen-
sary at Eastover.
The act of 1908, page 9s5, pro-
Vlded that the dispensary profits in
tne various counties should be di-
Vlded into three equal parts; one
third Tor ordinary county expenses,
one-third for county school fund or
roads and bridges and one-third to
the municipality in which the dis
pensary is located for ordinary ex-
penses.
There were numerous exceptions
TO this general provision among
which was as to the division of the
profits In Richland county. This
provided that one-fifth should go to
the public schools and the balance
should be divided between the town
or city where the dispensary is To-
Gated and the county for ordinary
county expenses This was the
proper manner of division of these
profits until 20 days following the
second day of February, 1912, at
which time the act of 1912, page
53l, went into effect. This act
amended the act of 1908, repeating
the exception in so far as Richland
county was concerned, and the prof
It's In Richland county, under the
amended act, should therefore have
been divided during the year of
1912 in accordance with the pro-
vision of the act of 1908. In other
words, one-third to the county treas
urer for ordinary county expenses :;
one-third for the county school fund
or for road and bridges and one
third for the municipality in which
said dispensary is located
To sum up in brief, up to the
year 1912 the profits should have
been divided, one-ffth to the public
schools and the balance between the
town or city where the dispensary
is located and the county for ordi-
nary county expenses.
During the year 1912 one-third
for ordinary county purposes, one
third for the school fund or for
roads and bridges and one-third to
the municipality in which the dis
pensary is located.
Since the 1st day of March, 1913,
one-ffth TO the public school fund,
one-half to the city of Columbia and
the balance to the county for ordi-
nary county purposes.
Yours very truly,
(Signed)
"THOS. II. PEOPLES.