
    STATE EX REL. HAY v. FARNUM.
    Contempt. — If the return to rule to show cause why party should not be attached for contempt is verified, and no evidence is offered to the effect that it is false, the return will be accepted as true and rule discharged.
    Application for attachment for contempt in State ex reL J. T. Hay et al. against J. S. Farnum.
    
      Messrs. J. T. Hay- and J. P. Lyon, for application.
    
      Mr. T. M. Mordecai, contra
    January 16, 1906.
   Per Curiam.

Heretofore this Court granted an order requiring the respondent to produce certain letters and papers relating to dispensary No. 12, in the city of Charleston.

In pursuance of said order, the respondent produced certain letters and papers, stating that they were all that were in his " possession at the time said order was granted.

Afterwards- ,another order was issued by this Court requiring the respondent h> show cause why he should not be attached for contempt of Court in failing to obey its mandate.

The respondent made return to the effect that he did not have at the time the original order was issued any letters or papers in his possession of the character described in the petition except those heretofore produced.

The Court will not issue another order requiring the respondent to produce said letters and papers, but will simply consider the question whether the respondent should be adjudged in contempt of Court.

The return is verified, and there is no testimony to the effect that it is false.

Under these circumstances it must be accepted as true, and the rule discharged.  