The ledger. [volume] (Gaffney City, S.C.) 1896-1907, January 03, 1908, Image 1
#
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.