Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-12-20
rhs lJ.rsld upsn me .icowisl Case y

The Herald upsn ihe "cowiss Case "
The Herald Of last evening, in an article de-
Tending the course Of Councilmeu Hcrrck and
winslow in forcing the city into ufeess litiga-
ton, has nuubef Of false statements in
speaking Of the refusal Of the Council TO pay |
the claim Of e. Cowles q Co., Benedict or Fair
banks, or whoever the scribber Of that article
may be, says
"Cowles approached Mr. Craw ford claiming
that the latter, as a Republican, should admit
his printing bill anyhow, right or wrong
This is deliberate and unqualified he. If
Mr. Crawford says Mr.. Cowlea approached him
ia that manner, he tells what he knows to be
lie.
The Herald again says
ga special committee, of which Mr. Wins
low was chairman, found that Mr. Cowles had
ovetcharged, during the year, $3.50 J."
Tnis is mis-statement No. No special
committee ever found that Mr. Cowea had
Overcharged The special committee appoint
ed to investigate, merely reported that there
was diversity OF opinion among printers and
publishers in regard to the correct mode OF
charging.
The Herald goes on to say
"As some Of the Council, among them Mr.
Crawford, thought it best for the city to get
out Of Cowles' clutches as cheap as possible,
it was proposed il Cowles would subtract the
$40 from the last bill they would pass that and
let the old bills 60
This is'mis'statement Nc. 3. No such prop
osition was ever made to MIR. Cowles. The
majority of the Committee on Judiciary report
ed in favor of paying the whole bill, except
reduction Of some Sl9. This the Council re-
fused, and Crawford voted with the nays.
Again it says ....
The result of that suit is Just this Judge
Bishop refused-in obedience, as he thought,
to some rule of law--to 10 behind the settle-
ments in which the overcharge of Sl60 existed,
but merely took into consideration the last till,
| aud having deducted the $50 overcharge on
that, gave Cowles Judgment"
This is mis-statement No. 4. Judge.BishOp
did not deduct $50 from the last bill He did
not even deduct in the way the city claimed
that it should be done lie decided that the
sontfsct was so indefinite in its specifications,
that he should have to put 1t aside. and give
what the witnesses for the city testified was the
customary price for such printing The plain
tfTs and the City Attorney figured the deducN
lions to be just s2l from a claim of some S3lg.
The city claimed reduction of some s35 Ou
the bill The Rule of law alluded to above is
to the effect that the Court cannot go back OF
settlement, except in a case OF fraud or mistake
The city not proving fraud or mistake Judge
Bishop of course did not go back of the settle.
ment.
The Herald further says
"Of course the judgment carries costs, al
though the great mass of depositons in taking
which the costs accrued had no more To do with
the case than if taken in the noon"
All the Dispositions except one proved clear
ly that the plaintiffs charged according to the
custom OF the trade, and when the Herald say $
that these depositions have nothing to do with
the case any more than if they were taken in
the moon, all we have to say i'll reply is that the
Cont thought differently, as it was through
these dispositions that the case was decided as
it was.
/. will be an easy enough matter for Bene-
dict Il Co. to refer to the Council proceedings
published at the time, and which they wi fit d
by referring to their own files, and prove their
assertions in the case of mis-statements NUM-
Der two and three. In regard to ms-statement
No. 4, they have the opportunity of proving
that we are in the wrong, by any members Of
the bar who heard Judge Bishop give his 90.
cisicn, or by the City Prosecutor, who estima-
tad the deductions with the Plaintiffs c..