The watchman and southron. (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, May 17, 1911, Image 4
Cbf oulattbiiLi.ii atti ^oatljuu.
Published \\ ? <11I i > iiimI >uiur<luy.
?-BY ?
OS1LLN PUBL'SHING COMPANY
srM i i.u. s. c.
i 1111
$l.iU per annum?in advance.
IdvcriLsemcut
One Square that inserti n.Il.ou
Every subsequent Insertion.;>0
Contracts for three months, or
longer will be m tili- at n duod iat?.\
All commuiti'AtloiM which sub
gnrve private Interests v. .1! i>e charged
lor M id\t n i>-no n's.
Obituaries and tributes of rssp? ct
will be charged for.
The sumter Watchman was found
? i In 1850 and the True Southron in
iM The WatiNniin and Sou&iron
I >w has th* combined circulation and
illu? nee cf both of the old papers.
? ad i* manifestly the be?t adverfslng
medium in Sumter.
Governor Blease takes the humane
a4 the only proper view oi the l'eni
entlary tubercu'osls situation. It
.alls for immediate action and if he
? loses the hosiery mill and has a gen
tral cleaning out of the Penitentiary,
ie will have the support and en
orsement of a very large majority of
he i .'ople of the State regardless of
hell,v. they are political friends or
sag
With Roosevelt's protlge. Stimson.
'unnlng the war department the dan?
ger of war with Mexico is greatly
ufuinented. A war would afford
opportunity for Roosevelt to fake
he country once again with his spe<
acular yellow Journal methods and
^et into the lime light and to a man of
lui notorh?t> peeking disposition a
srith Mi v? would be a cheap price
to pay for his rescue from political
bae'jrity an I I ^significance,
s a *e
Jones. ?he Union county nits pois
ner has not >et I., . n granted the
xpected. pardon, but it was almost
ton sauch to expect, even of Governor
Please, that he would set aside the
erdtct of the co^rt in the face of the
eports of Judge Memminger und >o
icltor Seaae. who- strongly und un
Uulvocally disapproved of the pt
tlon for a parden.
? ? ?
The Charleston S. A. L. baseball
'.earn Is going after the world's record
eld by the Manning State League
seen fet th ,-ast flv?- ?r -i- \<
BgJPtail .g that ree >rd s II Im n i
V>b|u? f it than winning s p-nnanl
Its
Farmers who are growing von, on ?
the WlPlamsiin plan have had the as- |
elstance of nature In the stunting
proems thus far.
? ? ?
The suggestion that the water
works pumping station b ? > |a< trifled
fa entirely feasible, is, the Sumter |
Lighting Clmpani waats more bust
sees and will make he city a reason
able rate osj the power assdad to
eperate the pump-. The drnyage
bin on the coai eosunssaed at the
pumpittg station Is a dl^er-n-e be?
tween the actual COSt Of SOW ST and
the cut at the pumping station, un?
der prsgaSJI conditions, that affords
n opportunity t<? the Sumter Light- J
ig Company to furnish electric pow
?r for the operation of the pumps at
. profit to |tself and at a saving to the
By. It would pay the city to make
. contract for electric power, even if
t cost as much as is now paid for
oal. exclusive of drayage. and saved
lothing at all on the other operating
xpen*es. although It ought to be pos
Ible to cut down the operating ex?
panses and repair bill 'materially by
he substitution of electric power for
?team. It would cost a consid
rablc amount, of course, to install
dectrte pumps, but we believe the dif?
ference in cost of operation would
more than pay for the new machin?
ery in n f. w \ ? irs.
St h i rttl'HTKKs TO <u:<. \m/j:
M < alb I I' i **al in .'as at the
Olli? c of the < nil|||J Mi|? i inleiMb lit
of I in h at lou.
Tie trustees ,,f f. varlo - ho ds
In the county are io no<t Saturday
at the ssnee ad th.mn i ipvrtnten*
dent of ednantlog to organ a < trus?
tee .i^-o 1.1 ? 1 ui t r Sum', i i cutty.
This I?* \ nio\e in the Uns of progress
that h, i|lH; taken up in many of
the ? untie* of I be Stale and Sumter
Cksanty, ? i to be left behind, Is now
to hi ? .i a lt.i n ' 'a i n n of it- trustees,
Th. lot that the association was
to hs oesjnnssed became known some
time ago ajad many ad the trust.. - in
various parts of the county have tn>
preased tin ii }nb rest In Its] move?
ment ir.d their hope that It Would be
successful. Sumter county nofj hni I
rery Ihe I' H- h. is' association In the
tounty. a rural school Improvement
association and h is lately celebrated
Its first fo b' day. wbb h was a most
Successful event Th- or.: iniz.it h.ii
among the trust, es has now been tak?
en up and It Is hoped that It will he as
successful and do as mm h good as
the organisations among the r. ,. p , ,
of the county have d >ne.
QRGAT TRUtiT ? ?UTLAWBD,
INI) \im> (?II. MONOPOLY <?li
DEBUU i?i^sm.\ i n i\\ m -
PRKMfc ( Ol UT,
< Mel Justice While i tenders Momcii?
tons Decision in Ixmf Continued
( ase tgain*l R( ckcfcller*! Trusl?
id.mi on Trust Held to i?< in
\ .< latloa ??r Btwrnaan <\ntl?Tru*i
i i end \n Illegal <'ombin itlon hi
R ?traint of Truth.
Washington, Ma) 16,?The stand?
ard (?ii Company of New Jersey and
Us i!? tube!diary corporation! wer?j
declared today by 111* - oupreme court
ol the United Btatei to be a Con?
spiracy and combination in restraint
of trade, it also was held t<? i>e mon?
opolising Interstate commerce in vio?
lation of tho Bherman anti-trust law,
The dissolution of the combination
was ordered to take plane within six
months.
Thus ends tho tremendous struggle
of yean on the part of the govern?
ment to put down by authority of law
a sembtnattoi] which it claimed wai
a menace to the industrial and eco?
nomic advancement of tha entire
country.
At the sam.' time tho court inter?
preted the Sh-rman anti-trust law so
M to limit its application to acts ol
'undue" restraint of trade, and "not
every rsstrainl of trade.*1 it was on
this point that tho only discordant
note was heard In the court. Justier
Marian dissented, claiming that caa s
already decided by the court had de
tannlned once far all thai the world
"uniiiK1" at Unreasonable" or similar
WOffda wa re not In the statute. 11c
declared that the reasoning of the
oonii in arriving at Its Undings was
in effect legislation wtveh belonged
in every tastance t<? congress and not
to tho courts.
?very since tin- decree In tins c ase in
the lower court, tha United Btatei cir?
cuit court for the Baetern district ol
Missouri, was announced, hope has
been expressed by the "business
world" that the law would be modi
tied so as not to Interiors with what
- designated as "honest business."
Tpffilghl that Section Of the opinion
calling f<?r the use <>f the "rule of rea?
son" in applying the law as regarded
in many quarters as in answer to the
privets of the "business world."
The opinion of the court was an
Chief* Justice White, in
. It COntalaed neue than
*. For nearly an hour
< ice discussed the case
Isasa m\am\ aSjBCh, golm; over most of
t! v points in the printed opinion, but
hot once referring to it in order to r<
fresh his memory, liefere him sat a
distinguished audience of the most
famOUl mon of the Country. Senators
and r? presentsttvee left thalr reapeo
tive ohamben In the capltol to llaten
to the ? porh-making decision of the
ourt. Most eater to> hear were At?
torney General Wickeraham and
Frank B. Kellogg, epeclal counsel of
the government, who had conducted
tin- great tight against the standard
(?ii.
Mono of the brilliant array <?f ooun
m 1 for the corporations or individual
dsfendanti uas present in the court
during the reading of the opinion.
Today, as.on previOUl decision da>>
for months past, rival brokerage
ag nf- with messengers in line to the
various telephone and telegraph in?
struments throughout the capitol,
wer?- on hand) but to their dismay
tho announcement of the decision was
pot begun until an hour after the
( losing of the stock markets.
Many expected that the decision >f
the court in the dissolution suit
Sgalnsl ths tobacco corporations
would be handed down Immediately
after tie- decision in tin- Standard Oil
ease. This was no| done, however,
but the decision U expected on May
the laat decision day of the court
until in xt ( tetoher,
. The opinion of the court today was
construed to mean thai the tobacco
case, like every other rase In which
restraint! of trade arc alleged, must
be subjected to tie- |ie\\ |esl of t ea
sonaMenes* of the restraint, as laid
down in the Stand ird ( >il declsli n.
I* far tin- greatesl portion of the
opinion of the chief justice wua de?
voted on the Justlflcatlpn ??f the court
In requiring thai the "rule of reason"
? ?? applied to restraints of trad< be?
fore ?luv were held to be violation.;
of tie- Sherman anti-trust law,
Th court found this Justification In
tie- common law of the forefathers
and in the Kenerul law of the country
it the time tie- Sheiium anti-trust
law was passed, In ahort the court
held thai the technical worda ??r the
statute were to be given tb ? meaning
which those worda bad in common
law ami in the law of the country ;>t
the time of the enactment, This
meaning of the words, according lo
the court, called for the exercise of
reason In determining what restraints
of trade were prohibited,
Chief Justice White in hll opinion
first reviewed the preliminary pro?
eeedtnga in the case in the circuit
court of the rnit
ern district of >
the essential point* In the bill of the
I i ernment, aakliU) for the dissolution
< r the Btandurd Oil, and the answer
iiueatlonlng the jurisdiction of the
? eouri and denying the statements of
the government, He dismissed the
object! ri to the jurisdiction In a few
wards, 1?) holding that it was not well
? founded. He then came to the argu
I menta as to the law and 11*? facts in
? the ra.-?- aaying thai oul of the "jun
\ v. e" of law and facts both sides were
l agreed onlj In one thing, and that was
i that the determination of the contro?
versy rested upon the proper construc?
tion and application of tin lirst and
second ???? ctlona of the anti-trust acts.
I The views of the two sides as to the
law, the chief justice said, were as
wide spart as the poles, The same, ho
said, was true as to the facti.
"Thus, on the one hand, with re?
lentless pertinacity and minuteness of
analysis/' said the chief justice, "it is
insisted that! the facti eitabllshed that
the assailed combination took its birth
In a purpose to unlawfully acquire
wraith by oppressing the public and
destroying the just rights of others,
and that Its entire career exemplifies
an inexorable carrying out of such
wrongful intents, since, it is asserted,
the pathway of the combination from
the beginning of the time <>f the tiling
of the t>iii Is marked with constant
probfi of wrong Influence upon the
public and Is strewn with the wrecks
, resulting from crushing out without
regard to law the indiv idual rights of i
> there. 1
I *
"it Ii asserted that the existence of
ie princ ipal corporate defendant, the |
Standard OH Company of New Jersey,
? it Its vast accumulation of prop
tjerty, because of Ita potency for harm
? land the dangerous example which Its
continued existence affords, Is an open |
, and enduring menace to all freedom
i of trade and a byword and reproach
I to all modern economic methods.
"On the otb.r band, in a powerful
analysis of the facts, it is Insisted that
i they demonstrate that the origin and i
development af the v ast business j
which the defendant's control was but I
i the result of lawful competitive meth- I
1 Oda guided by economic genius of the
highest order, sustained by courage,
by a keen insight Into the commer?
cial situation resulting in the acquisi?
tion of great wealth, hut at the same
time serving to stimulate an Increas?
ed production, to widely extend the
distribution of the products of pe?
troleum at a cost largely below thai
which previously prevailed,"
In this state Of affairs, the chief
Justice seised upon the single point
? f concord, namely, tha application
of the two sections of the Sherman
anti-trust law, as the Initial basis ol
an extension of the contention. The
rest of ins opinion div ided lts< if into
? c< nslderatton of the meaning of the
Sherman anti-trust ?law in the light
of the common law and the law of
the United states at the time of Its
adoption, the contentions of the par
tlei concerning the act and the scope
and effect of the decisions of the su?
preme court, the application 10 the
fact and lastly the remedy.
in striving to get at the meaning
of the two aectloni of the law, he
said the sole subject with which the
first section dealt was "restraint of
trade," and that the "attempt to
monopolise the monopolisation" was
the subject of the second section.
The chief Justice said that in getting
at the meaning of the words he would
be guid< d by the principle that where
words are employed In a Statut?',
which at the time had a well known
meaning in common law, or in the
law ?'f this country, they were pre?
sumed to have I.n used In this sense
unless ihe context compels to the
centre i y.
He summarized his search Into the
com ion law and the law of the coun?
try u the time the Sherman antl
I trust law was passed so far as the
I first section was concerned as fol
? lows:
"A. That the context manifests
that the staibte was drawn in the light
Iof the existing practical conception of
I the law of resralnt of trad - because
i
j it groups aa within that class not
I only contracts which were In ro
Istrain! of trade in the subjective
sense, but all contracts or acts which
theoretically were attempts to mon?
opolise, yet which In practice had
come to be considered na in restraint
of trade in a broad sense.
" 11, That in v lew of I h many
forms of contracts and combinations
I Which were beim: evolved from exist
I inu economic conditions it was deem
led essential by an all-embarclng
enumeration to make sure that no
form of contract or combination by
which an undue restrain! of inter?
state or foreign trade could nave such
restraint from condemnation, Tie sta?
tute under this v i. w evidenced tli?-?
intent not to restrain tho right to
make and enforce contracts, whether
resulting from combinations or other
| Wise, did was not unduly restrain
j Interstate or foreign commerce, but
to protect that commerce from be?
ing restrained by method- whether
old or new which constitute an Inter?
ference that Is an undue restraint
"C. And as the contracts or acts
i
he provision wa re not
?d, since the enum ?? ?
j
ti"ii addressed Itself simply t'? class i
of acta .those classes being br no
enough i" ?'ini'i'.ii f i r\ concelvabl j
contract or combination which could
be mad concerning Ih trade or
comm Toe or the sunjects of 'w< b
commerce) and thus caused an> act.
done by any ol tin . numerated m lu
ods anywhere In the whole Held of
human acth ity, t<? he lib gal, f i-i
restraint of trade, it follows, its pro?
visions necessarily called for th i
ere I so of judgment which r< itiir^d
that some standard should be ?<?
sorted to for the purpose < deter?
mining whether the prohibitions con?
tained In the statu?, bad or hajl not
in giny given case been vlloated, Thus,
not r.pecifylng but Indutably contem?
plating and requiring a standard, it
follows that it was Intended that the
standard at the common law and In
this country In dealing with subje 'is
of th-- character embraced by the
statute, was Intended to be the meas?
ure used for the, purpose of deter?
mining whether in an given case a
particular act had or had not brought
about the wrong against which the
statute provided."
As to the second section he said
the investigation of the common Law
and Of law at the time the Sherman
act was passed established that It
was intended to supplement the flrsi
and to make sure that by nb possl >ie
guise could the public policy .'-m
bodled in the first section be frustrated
or evaded. Having In the first section
forbidden all means of monopolisa?
tion of trade, thai Is, unduly restrain?
ing it by means of t very contract,
combination, etc., the second section
according to the chief justice, seeks
if possible to make the prohibition to
the act all the more compb to and
perfect by embracing all attempts to
reach the end prohibited by the first
section by any attempt to monopo?
lise, or monopolisation th reof, even
although acts by which SUCh results
are attempted to be brought about or
are brought about, he not embraced
within the general enumeration of
the first section."
Here the chief justi.,. first spoke
of using the "rule of reason" In ip*
plying the statute o any given case.
1fe said:
"And . f course, when the second
section Is thus harmonized with and
made, as it was intended to he, the
complement of the first, it becomes
oblvious that criteria to be resorted
to In any given case for the purpose
of ascertaining whether violations of
the section have been committed Is
the rule of reason guided by the es?
tablished law and by the plain duty
to enforce the prohibitions of the act
and thus the QUbllc policy which its
restrictions were obviously enacted
to subserve. And it is worthy of ob?
servation, as We have previously re?
marked concerning the common law,
that although the statute by the com?
prehensive ness of the /'numerations
embodied in both the first and second
sections makes it assiduously certain
that its purpose was to prevent undue
restraints of every kind or nature,
nevertheless, by the omission of any
direct prohibition against monopoly
in the concrete, it indicates a con?
sciousness that the freedom of the
individual right to contract, when not
unduly or improperly exercised, W8S
the most efficient means for the pre?
vention of monopoly since the opera*
tlbn of the Centrifugal and centripetal
forces resulting from the right to
freely contract was the means by
which monopoly would i?o Inevitably
prevented If no extraneous or a >ver
elgn power imposed it, and no right
to make unlawful contracts having
a monopolistic tendency were per?
mitted. In other words, that freedom
to contract was the essence of free
loin from undue restraint or. the
right to contract."
The chief justice next considered
.in- cotnentlon of the parties as to the
meaning of the statute. fie said in
substance the propositions of the gov?
ernment wer,, reducible to the claim
that th.- language of the statute em?
brace d "every contract, combination,
etc., in restraint of trade," and left
no room for the exercise of judgment
but simply imposed the plain duty of
applying its prohibitions t<> every case
within its literal language. The error
of th ? government on this point, Chief
Justice White said, was in nssumlng
that the decision of th,' ( .ort had
been in accordance with the conten?
tions.
"This is true," said the chief jus
tlce, "because ;|S to the OMSe Which
may come under the classes stated ? i
ib.. i.rst section nnd the restraint of
trade to whi.h that section applies
ire not specifically enumerated or
defined, it is o!m lous, that judgnv III
must in every c;ts.. be called Into
iday in order to determine whether
i i 'v'.icular act \< embraced wltlt-u
the statutory classes and whether If
the act i^- within such classes its na?
ture causes it to be restraint of trade
iv it bin the Intent of the fact.
"To Ichi to the contrai y w ould
itilre th. conclusion either that every
?ontract. act or combination of any
kind or nature, whether it operated as
i restraint on trade or not, was within
the statute nnd thus the statute would
?e destructive of all right to contract
? r agr e or combine in tiny respect
whatever as to subj ?? ? - . rubra i l i;i
Interstate Lrade or commerce, or if
thin conclusion were noi reached,
then tli" contention would require it
tf> be held that If tin- State did w?\ d -
line the things to which ;* rei; i i and
excluded resorts i<? i] < only means >j
which tin a<ts to which it relatvs
could be ascertain c" the light a'
reason??the enforcement of Lhe Ftat
ute will !?<? Impossible be< ? Its
i net: rtantity,
"The merel) generic enumeration
.vhich the statute makes of the acts
i<> which it refers and tie absenci of
any definition of restraint of trade as
used in the statute leaves room for
itiit one c6nclusioni which is that it
expr< ssly designed not to unduly limit
the application rf the act by precise
definition, but while clearly fixing a
standard?that is. by defining the
ulterior boundaries which could be
transgressed with Impunity, to leave
it to ho determined by the light of
reason, guided by the principles of
law and tho duty to apply and enforce
the public policy embodied in Ihe
statute, in every given case, whether
any particular act of contract was
within the contemplation of ?.he
Statute."
The chief justice took up the facts
and the applications of th..- .statute- t ?
them. The court found that the re?
sult of enlarging the capital stock ? f
the St:o dani Oft Company of JCev
Jersey nd tie acquisition ?>' that
compan? nf lhe shares ? f tie- stock
of the ulhor corporations in exchange
for itt certificates gave r ? the cor?
poration an enlarged and more per?
fect sway and COI tr< ! over the trade
and commerce in * i Li i m ar.d l*s
product. The effect of this, ?.'hie'
Justlle White said, the lower court
held, was to destroy ? pot ntial ty
of competition" which otherwise
would have existed to such an extent
as t? be a combination or . nsj I racy
in restraint of trade in violation of
the fust section of the act, and also
be an attempt to monopolise, and a
monopolisation to bring about a per?
ennial violation of the second section.
"We See no cause to dOUbt the cor
rectness of these conclusions," said
the chief justice,? "considering the
subject from every aspect, that is.
both in view of th< facts as estab?
lished by the court and the necesssay
operation and effect of the law as we
have construed it upon the inferences
deduclble from the facts."
In scrutinising the acts and doings
of the Standard Oil in the past for the
purpose of getting assistance in dis?
covering intent and purpose, Chief
Justice White left a cutting remark:
"We think no disinterested mind
can survey the period in question
without being irresistibly driven to the
conclusion that the very genius for
commercial development and organi?
zation which it would seem was man?
ifested from the beginning soon begot
tlie hitent and purpose to exclude
others which was frequently mani?
fested by ac ts and dealings wholly
Inconsistent with the theory that they
were made with tho single concep?
tion of advanc ing the development of
I usiness power by usual methods, hut
which, on the contrary, necessarily
Involved the intent to drive others
from the field and to exclude them
from their right to trade and thus, ac?
complish the mastery which was the
end in view. And, considering the pe?
riod from the date: of the trust agree?
ment in 1 STD and lssrj up to the time
of tiio expansion of the Xew Jersey
corporation, the gradttal extension of
the power over the commerce in oil
which ensued: the decision of the su?
preme court of Ohio, the tardiness or
reluctance in conforming to the com?
mands of that decision; the method
first adopted and that which finally
culminated in tin- plan of the New
.Jersey corporation. all additionally
serve to make manifest the continued
existence of the Intent which we have I
previous!} Indicated and which,
among other things, impelled the ex?
pansion of the \ew Jersej corpora?
tion."
finally the chief justice cam-- to
apply the remedy, lie said that ordi?
narily w here violations of the act were
found to have lieen committed it
would BUfllce to enjoin further viola?
tions, in a case, however, where a
monopolization or attempt to monopo?
lize was established, or the existence
of a combination Is proved, the con?
tinuance of w hich was a pern nniai v io?
lation of the statute, tlu- relief was
? ailed for.
Tin- lower court. In pointed out. had
first enjoine ! the combination and
.n effeci dir. ? ted its dissolution;
second, forbidding tin- New Jersey
corporation from exercising any con?
trol i>y virtue of iis stock ownership
over the subsidiary corporations and
enjoined those corporations from rec?
ognizing in any manner tin- authority
or power of ti?.- N. w Jersey corpora
lion by virtue of su<h ownership;
third, enjoined in the sixth section of
tiie de, iee ihe subsidiary corporations
after Hie dissolution, from doing any
in t which could create a like Illegal
combination; fourth, enjoined lhe
Now Jersey corporation and all the
subsidiary corporations from doing
any business in Interestato i ?mmerce
pending the dissolution of the combi?
nation by the accomplishment of the
Makes Home Bal ing Easy
POWDER
Absolutely Pure
The only baking powder
made from Royal Grapo
Cream of Tartar
HO ALUM.H0 LIME HiOSPHATE
tracer of stocks which the decree in
its essence required, and fifth, gave 30
days to carry out the direction* of the
conn. Tli ? court said tnis decree was t
r :iu and should he affirmed except
as to what it termed "minor matters."
One of these was the extension ??f the
time the de. ree ould be put Into
f?ff< ct from one month to six months.
The ether modification was more i:n
p? riant and had to do with the Sixth
pect I on of tin- decree, which forbade
the format!* n by the g ibsidlary cor*
? orations or their stockhold rs of like
e mblnattoas.
"We construe tin sixth paragraph
of the decree," said the chief justice,
'i i s depriving the stockholders or
> ? rpt rations to live under the law of
t] ? land, hut as compelling obedience
bat law."
Kcal Estate Transfers.
The following transfers i f real es? ^
tat.' were recorded during the past
week in the office of the County
<'!erk:
Mrs. Julia I.. Hirns to Mrs. Fannie
i.. Waiters.. 2<m? acres In SKtloh town*
ship, $1.050.
Harriett Ii. Eberhardt to Emmie A.
Panders. 10:5 acres near Hagood, $5,
00??.
Mrs. Lola Young to Charles L.
Cuttlno, lot and premises on Broad
street extension. $25 and the asfum
ption of a $700 mortgage.
11. T). Lee, ct al. as executors, to
T. J. CummlngS, as executor, 120
a.cres in county, $6.000.
Bmma Oamon, Peter Bradley, Ed?
ward Bradley, Rena Robertson. Carrie
Tomlinson to Thomas Bradley. 2*5 1-2
i acres in county, $196.33.
i Kussel D. Zimmerman to Mary If.
Plckney, 10 acres and premises, $650.
Margaret Moore, et al to Ida
Moore. 36 acres in county, $1.00 and
j other consideration.
\V. Et Wells to W. W. Skinner. 51
1-2 acres on Sumter-Bishopville road,
$1.057. /
I Master to Hugh C. Haynsworth, lot
on Manning avenue, $30.
K. E. "Wright to J. C. Spann, lot on
Purdy street, $525.
W. T. Hunter to Hardy Anderson.
4 t'.-10 acres on Sumter-Wedgefield
road. $5.oo and other consideration.
Kembert Company to (i. a. Mur?
ray, jot in town of Reinheit. $275.
\. H. Banders to Robert Moody.
!ot and store at Hagood. $1.175.
Lavtnla Johnson to HetUe McMil?
lan, the custody ot in-r Infant son,
$ To.
J. H. Archer to j. k. Ltgon, 5.55
acres in county, $l,lao.
Sumter Ice Light and Power Com?
pany to Perry Moses and r. a. Butt
man, three bds and buildings situat?
ed on them, $ i $0,000.
Perry Moses and F. a. Bultman to
Ii. T. Hartman, three lots in the city
with buildings on them, $300 and oth?
er considerations.
Ii. T. Hartman t ? Pumter Lighting
Company, three lots iti *? it>? with
uildings on th? m and all appurte?
nances formerly belonging to the
Sumter Ice, Light and Power Com?
pany, $38$.000,
Sam J. Jenkins to Bmma J, Wilson.
l"t In t ?wn of llayesville, $200,
In The Police Omit.
There a*ere only ^ few eases to be
luard in the Police Court Monday
morning by Recorder Lee v hen his
court convened that morning.
IHltard Cooper was found guilty of
riding a bicycle at night without s
light. He was fined $2.00 fir the of
light. H was f,n. d $2.00 for the of?
fense and $1.00 for not appearing in
Willis Taylor was charged with
vagrancy t? which charge he plead
not guilty, lie was unable to give a
good account of himself, however, and
was sent ?c d to pay a fine of $15
ot to serve 30 days. He did not have
the mono) to p,\ the tine so took the
Willis Taylor w is also given a pre?
liminary for grand larceny. He was
charged with stealing $00 from G.
Schladaressl and held ov< r tor the
court of general sessions. Fail was
Axed
not \\