University of South Carolina Libraries
# i GAFFNEY LEDGER. C ’ ■ A NEWSPAPER IN ALL THAT THE WORD IMPLIES, AND DEVOTED TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF CHEROKEE COUNTY. 3- ESTABLISHED FEB. 16, 1894. GAFFNEY, S. C., FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1908. SI-80 A YEAR. COUNirOFFICERS RE- - PLY TO COMMISSION. CARDS FRIM MESSRS- JEFFERIES, WEBSTER AND CAMP. Each Declare That Their Respective Office Has Been Conducted Along Prope r Lines. Tq The Public: In justice to myself and the public ln, general, I deem it necessary to make a reply to the report of the commission appointed to investigate the affairs of Cherokee county, in so far as it affects my office, said report having been published in the Gaffney Ledger on December 20th, 1907. Some two hundred or more cases are reported against me in Exhibit “C” in which it appears I have overcharged on costs during the ten and a naff years I have held the office of clerk of court, this being the entire time of the existence of the county. These amounts range from twenty-five cents to several dollars in the different cases, aggregating, as per the report, the sum of $818.85, which it would appear to most any one reading same that I had actually overcharged said amount, collected it all and put it in to my pockets, in the face of the law, conscious of the fact of the same be ing illegal. It is impossible for me in a short time to make a full reply or explanation in each case, stating the caption of each case, and if I could do so it would be entirely inpractica- ble for the reason that it would re quire a great deal of space to print same and incur upon me considera ble expense for publication, and I take it that the charges involved are practically the same in all the cases, and that a general reply to the speci fic charges made by the Commission in the report will be sufficient at this time, and further that the matter of taxation and collecting of costs of the Common Pleas Court is something that the public in general is not spec ially interested in. but only those par ties directly affected, and I state to each and every one of them so af fected that I will take pleasure in go ing through the records in all cases with them and make whatever expla nations they may desire. I may, how ever, in this reply point out gome er rors of the Commission, in some of the cases charged against me. Take the first nineteen cases in exhibit “C” in which it appears I have over charged the sum of $178.75. The re cords of my office show that only 8.75 of this amount was costs owing to me, anSi of this amount I deducted when settlement was made in five of the cases, Nos. 28. 39. 43, 73 and 80, the sum of $7.20 leaving according to the Committee’s contention the sum of $1.55 overcharge on the costs of my office in the nineteen cases, and the costs of three of them are yet un paid. Tho balance of $170.00 was At torneys costs in these cases, which at that time under the law in certain cases was allowed to be taxed by the plaintiffs attorneys in the causes. Of the $170.00 Attorney’s costs taxed only the Sum of $21.00 passed through n*y >jands, and of this amount $11.00 was /paid by me to Mr. N. W. Hardin as Attorneys costs in case No. 43, and I have his receipt for it. Also in case No. 14 Mr. Hardin has $11.00 taxed in his fator as Attorney’s costs, and I presume collected same as execution w r as issued to Sheriff J. B. Ross, and the matter settled up in his office. At this time. I am unprepared to say whether or not it was illegal to tax Attorney’s costs in the cases reported as I haven’t had time to look It up. but certainly at the time it was done, during the first year of the existence of the County, both myself and the Attorneys of this bar thought it was legal. In case No. 219 J. D. Jones vs. J. WL Jones, et al, the Committee re ports $12.00 overcharges. On the margin of the taxation of costs, I made a pencil memorandum of a set tlement with Mr. Jones for the costs In this rase, and in this I included a bill of $10.00 for recording ten deeds, including Auditor’s fees, and this transaction had absolutely nothing to do with the taxation of costs in the ca v ' , ' lit the Committee charges it against me. The $2.00 will come un der my general explanation. Cases Nos. 205, 249. 279. 329, 53G. C46 and 683 are some of those in which the property as sold for partition brought less than $1,000.00, and as so}d under foreclosure of mortgage the amount claimed was less than $500.00, the statutf providing in such cases that certain costs should be cut one-half. Iri No. 64C the costs were all cut one- half, except the referee’s fee, which was agreed on by the Attorneys, aart should not have been cut. Accord ing to this, the error, if any, could me only $4.74 instead of $19.74, as re ported. With only a few exceptions, the costs were all properly cut when required. In No. 53G Attorneys costs of $11.00 was taxed, and I am sure this item is correct, although the Committee seems to have charged it to me. The Committee in examining these cases made many pencil memoran dums on the taxations, but it is abso lutely impossible for me to check af ter them and arrive at anything near their flFures on any of them, not having been furnished with an item ized lint by the Committee. In these cases not only the Court costs were taxed, but the County and State taxes on the property, costs for making ••lei, reference and report, advertis- •tal. Sheriff’s costs and often times many other items of cost and ex penses about the case and sale which was necessary, and which were al ways agreed to by the Attorneys In the cases. Sec. 3097 Vol. I, regulat ing costs on partition and foreclosure cases only applies to costs prescrib ed by that chapter, No. 103, when ap plicable, and does not apply to print ing and other items of expenses of making sales, and only applies to re feree’s costs when the fee is not agreed upon by the parties in inter est. I will have more to say about this feature of the report further on in my general explanation of the spe cific charges. Coming down to the specific charges against me in the committee’s report; 1st charge. A failure to make re ports of sales to the court as prompt ly as should be done, and In some cases none are made at all, but charged for, etc. In answer to this will say that my sales book shows the date of each report when made, and except for the first year or two It shows that they were practically all made. Some times it is deemed unnecessary to make the reports until all the funds are paid out, and sometimes they stay In court a long time. It Is not supposed that a case can come off the docket until the report of sales is made confirming the title in the purchaser, etc., and the attorneys in the case always stw* that ft Is done, when necessary. I never heard any complaint from any one before, that the reports were not promptly made. I think, the committee is in error in saying I have charged for reports I didn’t make. Second. Deducting all commis sions on sales out of first payment when lands are sold on time, etc. So far as I am informed, this is the cus tom in all the counties, and I know it is in the counties I have visited. It amounts to about the same thing to the estate in the wind up. The only possible difference there could be would be the amount of interest a party could make out of his share of the difference on the commissions, and the commissions generally being very small, and in most cases a num ber are interested, each one’s share would be too small to calculate any interest on. The plan adopted saves a great deal of trouble and time In settling matters of this kind. There is only one case of this kind unset tled in the office, and there is practi cally nothing involved in it. It will be settled on February 1st. Third. Sometimes charged more than ten cents per one hundred words on recording court papers, which the law requires to be recorded, etc. Secs. 910 and 911 requires all origi nal papers in suits to be filed, and most of them to be recorded. Sometimes we have large packs or papers in cases, and when a case is ended the attorneys come in and have me tax the costs. I do not think any attorney or any one else would like to wait long enough for me to count every word in every paper re corded in some of the eases. It would be almost an endless job. At first I tried to count them and got to under stand, as I thought what a fair aver age would be of any paper to be re corded, and charged accordingly. I think they would average a little un der as many times as they would go over. I understood the committee counted all the words in papers charged against me, but I think they lost sight of the fact that I was en titled to 25 cents for each of the pa pers filed, and this would make a dif ference in all of them, for they are all marked filed. In addition to fil ing and recording, all papers have ro be properly indexed and arranged in judgment rolls, etc. Fourth. That I charge $2 for ap pointing and recording guardians ad- litem, and they find no law' allowing the clerk a fee for same. All masters are allowed this fee. We have no master in this county, and I have al ways understood that the clerk was master ex officio In counties where the office of master does not exist and allowed practically the same fees. However, I am not positive as to this, and haven’t looked it up. The probate judges are allowed $1 for this besides the fee for filing record ing and Indexing, which would amount to $2. I do not think the law would contemplate that the clerk do the same work as the master or the pro bate judge and not allow him a reas onable fee for same. Apart from this, and while the clerk’s fee bill doesn’t mention this thing specifical ly. at the same time it does mention several headings under which this could be classed and charged for. For Instances it allows the clerk $1 for every special writ issued, and this could be termed a writ. It allows him 50 cents for every official certi ficate under seal, etc..’ and they are all sealed. Then would come the filing 25 cents, recording 75‘cents to $1, making in all at least $1.50 to $2. Fifth. That I charged 50 cents for signing and sealing all summons, but some were neither signed nor sealed. The Statute allows this charge. At the first, I signed and sealed every one of them, but later I was told by clerks of other counties and by at torneys that It was not necessary to do so. However, every original sum mons in the office is marked filed on the date of filing, entered on the file docket and my same signed to same, which, as I understood, it complied with all requirements of law. My signing them and putting the seal on inside would not have made them any more valid, though I could have done it at the rate of one a minute. There are not many of these filed, and, as a rule, I can’t collect for more than one-fourth to one-third of them that are filed. Sixth. That I failed to cut the costs one-half in certain cases re quired by law, etc. There are very few Instances of this, and I suppose the ones referred to were settled be fore my- attention was called to the law. I have not intentionally over looked a single one since I was ap prised of the law. I said a good deal on this before In this reply, and do not deem it necessary to add any thing further. I have endeavored to answer every charge contained in the committee’s report the best I could in a short time,’ having been very unwell every since the report came out, and before, and haven’t worked on the matter but very little. By making my reply much longer, I could have gone more into detail, but as I said at the out set, I will be glad to show any one concerned the records and make fur ther explanation if desired. The committee complimented me by | saying that the affairs of my office ; were conducted in a business-like way, and all papers and records, etc., ’ were properly filed and kept in the right place, for which I thank them. i They also said that they found in some instances where I ' failed to i charge all the costs I was entitled to, but I do not know if they gave me credit for same on the amounts they claimed I had overcharged. I do not feel that I have overcharg- 1 ed on a single Item mentioned by the committee, but this is a matter of dif ference opinion and a difference in the construction of the laws. Every one knows that most laws are capable of more than one construction. If this were not true, we would have comparatively little litigation, and many young men would be looking out for other fields than law. Fortunately for me, I have attor neys on each side of every litigated ease to review the taxation of costs before they were approved and pass ed, and I cannot help but feel that every case has had due care and dili gence shown by both the attorneys and myself, and I do not believe the litigants have suffered in the least from any official misconduct, over charges or anything else. Both Mr. Speer and Mr. Hardin have had num bers of cases in the courts and have reviewed taxations of costs time af ter time before they were approved and passed. Some of their cases aj»- pear in the report against me. I believe I can show wherein the parties in the cases referred against me have been saved as much or more on costs than the committee’s report shows they have been overcharged, even taking the contention pf the committee as correct, though I do not concede that it is. Sec. 911, Sub. 8, says the clerk must keep a book of pleadings and judgments in which must be enter ed at length all complaints, answers, etc., which would cost in each case from $2 to $3. This book has not been kept in this county for I was told it was not necessary, though I know it is kept in some of the coun ties. I am allowed to charge 50 cents on the trial of every case, but have not done so except on jury trials. 1 am required to keep a book of rules (file docket) fo r entering complaints, etc., and I have always done this, but do not charge for it, though I believe I am entitled to do so. TTitil very recently. I have never charged litigants the fee for taking affidavits in cases, and there are hun dreds of them taken during the ses sions of the courts and at other times. There are other items for which I do not charge in cases in : the courts that the clerks in other counties charge. At the time I was elected clerk in 1897, I was the youngest clerk in the State, and knew very little about legal matters, but had some experience in book work, j I depended largely on the information I received from other clerks of court, who had been in office a number of years in adjoining counties to get me started off right, and I visited the York. Uniop and Spartanburg clerks, and spent some time at each placo, and tried as best I could to familiarize myself with the workings of their of fices. I brought home with me cop ies of their taxations of costs, fee bills, etc., ours being the same, and tried as nearly as I could to follow them, supposing of course that they were right, and I believe yet they were, but I heard afterwards that. I had failed to charge as much as some were charging. I had one of the best deputy clerks in the State to stay with me several weeks when I went in and help me during our first court, and having visited other coun ties numbers of times, since, I am 1 quite sure our courts are run in as business-like way and as economic ally as the courts of any county in the State. And the judges Tiave , nearly all told me so repeatedly. Soon after I went in office. I reduced inv fees on recording deeds and land mortgages, some 25 cents to 50 cents 'each, voluntarily, and thereby saved the people hundreds of dollars. | About the year 1898* the members of the legislature fromjhis county saw proper to again reduce the fees on all papers, and passed a special act for same, which was unconstitulonal, bnf I have stuck to the new fee bill, and again saved the people many hun dreds of dollars. The records of this office show that the costs In only about one-third of the cases are paid, and considering this and the low fees I receive for recording, and the very low salary of $250 per year for all county work, I think I have had a very hard way of getting reason able compensation for the work done. . i have handled, during the time I ’'have held the office, about $226,000 1 court fundi, $46,000 pension funds, j $5,000 fines and licenses, and several | thousands as administrator, making! approximately $300,000 dollars In all, and the committee did not report a single dollar short, or unaccounted for, but found every dollar of bal ances In my hands deposited in the hanks. 1 was denied the privilege and the courtesy of a hearing before the com mittee before making their report, though I asked for it a number of times, even until the very last, and I felt all the time I could make satis factory explanations to them of most of the charges, and most likely the report could have been greatly re duced. My reason for inserting the card in the same issue in which the report was printed is that the com mittee after filing the report with the printer informed me as to the contqrits of game, affecting me. and I thought it entirely proper that I should insert some kind of a card at that time. I failed to state that in about forty of the cases reported by the committee no costs have been paid at all. In conclusion I wish to say that I do not claim that I have made no mistakes at all. but I do say that if any of the errors charged against ir.<- were wrong, even only technically, that I was not conscious of the fact at the time, and that I have not at any time, knowingly, overcharged any one anything on any costs, or done any act of wrong in the adminis tration of the affairs of my offiep. The taxation of costs in every case was consented to by the attorneys in interest before it was approved and passed by me, and in every litigated case, the party against whom cost was taxed, or his attorney was serv ed with a copy of the proposed tax ation of cost several days before tin* same was finally taxed and approv ed by me. Respectfully, J. El). Jefferies, Clerk of Court. A Card. To the Public: I was first commissioned probate judge for Cherokee county on April 21st, 1897, and have been commis sioned to said office for the three cucceeding terms, this last one end ing January, 1911. This being one of the new counties, there were no precedents governing the conduct, taxation of costs and fee to which I could refer, and on which to rely for information. So. I had to begin the conduct of this office anew, “from the stump.’’ Naturally, I consulted the records of the probate court of one of the oldest and best counties of the State, Spartanburg, and with which I was most familiar. I made several visits to the judge of the court of that county, seeking information on all matters pertaining to the business and conduct Sf the court, and after employing the clerk of that court, Mr. D. J. Cudd, wko was thoroughly fa miliar with all the duties and busi ness of the office, he came over to Gaffney, and remained with me sever al days in starting the business of the court for this county, and espe cially showing the manner of pre paring, recording, and filing estate papers, and taxation of costs and fees allowed in the office. I adopted the practice relative to costs and fep s charged in Spartanburg county, for the law was the same as to costs here as there, except that in a Tew instances my charges are less here than In that county; and I never heard of any objection to my taxation of costs, as I now remember, except by the executors of one estate (and those executors I satisfied bv cutting their costs in two) until I found the Investigating Committee taking a dif ferent view from me, In some res pects. as to costs, and the right to charge therefor. The probate judge is allowed, by law. three dollars ($3.00) per day. not to exceed, however. $12.00, and in almost every case there is some matter of contest, some Issue Involv ed. to be passed upon, whether testi mony is taken, and argument made, or not. (and testimony is often taken) but my charges have never amounted to $12.00. the limit for said service, end I have found It the practice to charge for the time consumed, not exceeding, however, $12.00 in any one case. Since my attention was called to the small matter, by the committee last spring, that of issuing warrant of appraisement and oath, and the fee. 30 cents, allowed therefor (which altogether escaped my attention be fore) I have strictly observed the law and confined myself to the one charge, 30 cents (no charge for swearing appraisers) but I have knowingly and voluntarily declirted to charge for many services rendered in this office, for which I was entitled to charge, but of this, more hereafter. As to land devises, while I have used the book provided for me by the county, and entered all lands to par ties interested, and coming Into pos session thereof by will, and charged only the fee. $1.00, each, as provided bv law. I will ask the proper authori ties to provide such books, as will conform to the Ideas of the committee (if they will give me their ideas) and transcribe, properly, all such land de vises from the old, to the new boobs that shall be provided, and for which there shall be no extra charge; and this offer is In no sense an admission of error or mistake in the method of entering said devices heretofore, or charges therefor. It Is alleged that my fees for recording papers have, at* times, exceeded the limit. 10 cents for every 100 words. Well. It may be possible that, In some instances, the charges may exceed to some ex tent the exact amount, as measured by strict count word for word, figure for figure, and sometimes the charge may be less than the exact amount that might be charged, but a busy officer scarcely has sufficient time to count every word, and bring it down to a cent when everybody is in a hur ry to expedite business. In copying papers, settlements, decrees, etc., the rule Us simply to estimate, jind not enter into strict count, but we try to “keep within due bounds,’’ and make no intentional overcharge, however small it may be. . As to "petition for settlement of estates,’ 1 have thought, as other probate courts have, and as is the practice, I learn, that they are on the same footing, and included in the law allowing $i.<)0 for ’petition for guardianship.'’ As to the Benj. Purser estate, O. E. and Elzy L. Tate, executors, at the request of Dr- J. M. Purser, of Dublin. Ireland, who wa s the administrator of the estate in Ireland, of his mother, .Mrs. Anne Purser, widow of Benj. Purser, who died in this country, I furnished certified copies of the es tate papers here, for use in the court there, and made only the usual charge therefor. 1 approved only such claims as appeared just and correct. As for approving two claims tor eighty dollars ($80.00), these were at torneys fees for It. K. Carson, and myself for defending the estate in a suit, “mill dam’’ case, in the Court Common Pleas, as per contract made with the executors. Probate judges, as attorneys, have a right to practice in courts other than the probate ecurt. The executors presented a favor of $5.00, I think, to a minister for his kindness, or service extended the deceased, which I did not, of course, disapprove. Dr. Purser, in Ireland, heartily commended the man ner in which his father’s estate was settled here before this court, and this in u letter from him to said ex ecutors, ;ind which estate was a good large one. 1 respectfully refer any one to the executors herein for any information as to this estate, as they are among the most honorable citi zens of the county. As to the appoint ment of guardian ad litem to repre sent minors, i find only two cases in which appointments were maue for each separately, it is discretionary with the court to such appoint ments, as I see it. The court Is not limited to one appointment for all minors, and if an attorney were ap pointed (and such is not the practice in this court) and he to file an swer for the minor, then he, the at torney, would be allowed the usu .1 fee, $10.00. as in Court Common Pleas. In these appointments we ap point men of discretion, and nearby, who, if they do not witness all the proceedings, usually examiru the de cree of settlement, and approve the same, and for which such guardians make no charge; but the only charge is for appointment and recording, which was $2.00, (same as usual fee charged elsewhere, as I am informed) until my attention was called to it last spring by the Committee, and thereafter was reduced to $1.50, or $1.00 for appointment and 50 cents for recording. Personally i'always prefer an attorney to represent an estate in settlement, but that is a matter for the executor or adminis trator to determine, and sometimes thev have an attorney and sometimes do not; and sometimes the heirs have an attorney, and when there are at torneys employed, the cost$ and ex penses are submitted to them for ap proval, and should error or mistake occur in matters of costs, etc., the same would have been readily cor rected. I do not know how the Com mittee arrived at this conclusion as to alleged overcharges, for my atten tion was called only to one case, the C. B. Byars estate, the first one en tered in this court, and I was guided in that as in others, as to costs, by the Spartanburg Probate Court prac tice. The amount of costs and fees due me in this office, as appears from cost boob, from Dec. 31st, 1897 to Dec. 2nd, 1907, amount to $240.13. yet the Committee states I collected my costs as earned. Scarcely any costs of this office are collected as earned, but they are charged and so ove;- until fall, or In certain cases un til after twelve months, or more, when the estate is finally settled. The Committee further says I do not allow executors, etc., their commis sions until final settlement. The es tate funds are In the hands of the ad ministrators. <*tc. and they ean use the money as they see proper. I do not assume to direct in that matter. I have donated to some parties the feeg of thi g office, and to some others, have out the fees -in two: and cer tain fees I could have legitimately charged, which I have not. such as 25 cents, probating annual returns and other papers, 15 cents for every search, and I could have charged $6.00 for issuing papers and appoint ing guardians, but I have issued strictly the necessary papers, as I consider it, and charged only $4.75. the least permissible. Beferring again to the estate of C. B. Byars, deceased, N. Wl Hardin. Esq., and P. R. Byars, being the pxe- mtors. It ig true that an error crept into the settlement of that estate, to which I have called their attention, which was last summer. I asked them to come to my office and let us correct the settlement, and that It must be done before I could discharge them from their trust. This error. | it seems, came about from the fact , that in their annual returns, seven in number, they deducted their com missions as they went along and , which was overlooked In the settle ment. It will be necessary for the executors to refund some of their commissions, but the whole settle ment will be opened and gone over, and everything appertaining to the estate will be carefully reviewed, costs, expenses, commissions, and all, and there will remain yet some money from the estate which the heirs there of will i>e entitled to receive. I now ask thaae executors, both of them, to come to my office on some day de signated by them, or I will appoint a day fo r them to come, and said settlement will be reviewed and cor rected. so that they may receive their letters dlsmissory. I feel quite sure that I can satis fy parties concerned in matters set tled, or in process of settlement in thig court, that no overcharge has been made and collected, or intended to be made, but In this article I can speak only generally, for I have not had time to particularize in the various cost referred to by the com mittee (having been sick a good po^ tion of the time this fall and winter) and further, it would cover too much space for an article of this character. Returning my sincere thanks to my friends for the many expressions of confidence extended, I am, Faithfully yours, J. E. Webster. Probate Judge. W- D- Camp’s card. To ray Friends: The long looked for report of the Investigating Committee of the offices of Cherokee county has at last ap peared, and the uninformed public has it that the officers have been flayed alive. I have had the pleasure of carefully reading and digesting said report and find nothing but en- eornniums and praise cast upon the au ditor. Also find nothing in said re port that I wish to critidse. You see by the report, the duties of the aadt- tor have boon well performed. The returns correctly taken and legally put on the county duplicate. The taxes correctly computed and the treasurer's duplicate correctly cjrpiod :-nd turned over to the treasurer. All abstracts made and sent in in proper time, and after a full investi gation of ten year’s service, have found what (they consider) a small error in allowing the treasurer credit of one months salary to a teacher, that had not been made out in legal form, although approved by the super intendent of education and ordered paid by the treasurer. If I construe the law aright, there was no err-’yi: in the case. The superintendent of education department has the whole and sole control of the educational funds, and in this case he says (in 10“ explanation) he knew that ser vice had been rendered. He approv ed the claims and ordered the treas ure to pay the same. The order was mandatory, the treasurer had no dis cretion in the case. The treasurer held that order as his voucher for paying same. Then In the annual settlement with the treasurer, he presented that voucher and claimed a credit for that amount of money legally paid. I allowed the treasurer credit for same. I can see no error in allowing this claim. Had I not al lowed the claim I think I would have made an enormous error. I most res pectfully submit the whole matter to the judgment of the people. Wl D. Camp Auditor. A Masquerade Skating Party. A pleasant feature of the holiday festivities was a masquerade skating party at the rink Monday evening. The floor was crowded with gaily dressed skaters, and a large number of spectators was present, and fun and frolic prevailed. Two prizes were awarded—a three- pound box of candy to the young lady wearing the fanciest costume, and a necktie to the gentleman most comic ally costumed. A committee of three gentlemen was appointed to act as judges and to award prizes. Miss Lula Garrett was awarded the ladles’ prize, and Mr. Will Lipscomb the gentleman’s prize. Miss Garrett was dressed to repre sent an Oriental girl, and her costume was most appropriate. Mr. Lipscomb was dressed as a pompous old fat man. and by his comical actions provoked much amusement. Many of the costumes were meri torious. Mrs. Malcom Goudelock. as Madam Butterfly, Misses Volina Ham rick and Stella Hamilton, as “happy little Japanese maids ” Miss Rosa Little, representing Night, Miss Myrtle Little, as a Western girl, and Miss Raymond Tolleson. as a college graduate, deserve especial mention for the appropriateness of their cos tumes. while a numbe r of others were very eommically dressed. But in The Ledger's estimation the ■ costum worn bv Miss Christine Baker eclipsed all others. Miss Baker was dresses to represent The Ledger, in a costume made entirely of Ledgers. The costume provoked a great deal of comment, and it shows that Miss Christine knows a good thing when* she see 8 it. MAKES LIFE MISERABLE Troubles That Keep Half the Gaffney Doctors Busy- Half the prescriptions the Gaffney doctors write are for troubles that result directly from a weakened stomach. Strengthen the stomach muscles, increase the secretffm of gastic juices, and you will find that common afflictions—indigestion, with its headaches, dizziness, depression of spirits, spotg before the eyes nerv ousness. gleeplesness and general de bility—(have been overcome. From now on build up the strength and health of the stomach with Mi- o-na tables. You will soon find your self strong and never know the mean ing of Indigestion. If Mi-o-na did not have an unusually curative effect in stomach disorders, it could not be sold on the guarantee given by the Gaffney Drug Co. to refund the money unless It does all that is claimed for It. The Gaffney Drug Co. gives aa absolute, unqualified guarantee with every 50-cent box of Mi-o-na that the money will be refunded unless the medicine cures. They take the whole rlsb, And you certainly can afford to get Mi-o-na from them on this plan.