The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1920-04-08

VI eTtCIluk duu CVuStI uCkLlS DuuuuuSS
therein.
J. F. SCOTT,
Clerk and Treasurer.
Kingstree, S. c., March 20, 1920"
Under this permit he could erect
no building except such as was per-
mitted by the section Of the ordinance
quoted above. BE most assuredly could
not erect frame building and cover
it over with tin or galvanized iron,
and, as soon as the writer, "Your
Mayor, as Mr. Silverman calls him
in the paper of last week, found out
that Mr.. Silvernan had changed his
purpose and was planning to construct
a frame building set on brick foun-
dation, in violation of the ordinance
of the town and in violation of his
permit, the writer went to Mr.. Silver
man about it, Mr.. Silverman vehe-
mently declared his intention to erect
the half Of the building fronting the
Courthouse square out Of wood and
cover it over with tin or galvanized
iron, the part fronting Academy
street to be constructed o. brick. The
writer urged him and almost begged
him to adhere to his original plan
and construct the entire building out
of brick, and thus avoid unpleasant
ness. He would not agree to do this,
but stated that he would erect tic
part of the building fronting the
Courthouse square of wood. Upon
this declaration, since this would be
a violation of the ordinance, the writer
told him that he would have to cease
work on the building, which he
promptly did.
On the night following this inter
view the Town Council took the mat
tr under consideration. After going
over the question among themselves,
the council called Mr.. Silverman in
and went over the situation with him.
He finally decided to give no further
trouble, but to erect the building &C
cording to his permit and according to
the ordinance and, as stated in his
card of last week, "in accordance with
my original intention" This agree
ment on his part made it unnecessary
for the Council to pass on the ques-
ton, and the Council did not pass on
it. Had Mr.. Silverman come to the
same conclusion when the writer talk
ed with him that morning and urged
him to do so, there would have been
no trouble whatever, and the contro-
versy would have been avoided.
The foregoing statements are the
facts in the case, from which the fol-
lowing conclusions, among others, are
deducible:
/. Mr.. Silverman never had at any
time a permit to construct a frame
building inclosed with tin or galvan-
lied iron, and he had no permit Of any
kind until the day before he was or
dered to stop work when he declared
his intention of erecting the building
in violation of the permit and Of the
ordinance of the town. He had been
working several days without any
permit at all, as his permit bears date
March 20, and he was ordered to stop
work on the 30th.
2. The Town Council never was
called on to pass upon, and never
did pass upon the question as to
Mr.. Silverman should be per-
mitted to erect a frame building or
not, as he stated to the Council that
he would erect the building out OF
brick, according to his original plan.
8. When Mr.. Silverman declared
his avowed intention to violate his
permit and the ordinance Of the town
he was directed Immediately to cease
operations until he could make up his
mind to comply with the regulations,
and his delay in this matter occasioned
the controversy mentioned. He fin
ally agreed to comply with the per-
nit and the ordinance, and so stated