, 1863-09-10

Uncu1r couRT.
The Court, in compliance with what appeared
to be an expression Of the general Wish 1.-THE
bar, met yesterday ut zen o'clock, and will con
time to do SO until further notice.
The docket WAS called on the fret call to No.
f5o, but the Count declined to hear any new mo-
tons, On account Of the pendency Of the argument
On the mo'lon 10 set aside the Judgment in the
case Of Edmunds ct al. rs. Moody ct a.
Edmund ET AL rs. MooDr Er A1--The artCu-
inert on this motion, to set aeide, was then taken
up ard concluded, Mr.. Bsackctt closing in resist
ance to the motion, and Judge Wilson in Its be-
half.
HIS Honor, Judge Williams, then gave the opin-
ion Of the Court, In substance AZ fol1ows:
It is spparent that great deal has been brought
into this cafe which does not affect tho isaue be-
fore the Coutt. The question ia simply skall this
judgment be eet aside, and for the decision Of this
question, the Court Bits as Conrt Of Equity, not
try the case upon it. merits, but to say whether
there Is such conflict OF testimony a. to render
It proper, upon the whole, TINT the merits should
Tho question is to be tried, simply upon the
facts shown in the at6uayits and the testimony OF
as III msEe ao Ibe ey
7ect the decision Of the Court particle. =.
The Counsel maintain two different theories of
ea is claimed on the one hand, perfect sfairness
was need. then 1t eeems to me- there is no very
tn the claim for services that "a sst
tte inception and in the JustIce's Court, through
the Recorders Court and up to the Supreme
Court, at every stage Of the proceedings, defended
promised 10 pay Judge Skinner two hnnafed and
Bainga1l, and seventy ydre dollars to Msneheater,
ue, who have ? praetired there Know to % b. coasid.
erahle, nd: SO fsr as the question Of legal ability
is concerned, I DO net see as Judge DEammond's
character for ability, Is involved In the fasus at all
because # Is conceded that the case was tried by
Jndgc Edmnnds, about whoaa reputation for
ability tne5s sees to be 70 thsn 1a.a
exorbitant. Though It may have been little
| hard. an not prepared to Eay that It vas abso-
tsin}y. the fact that tie woman vas poor oaght to
but on the other land, there Is aa satiIeiy differ
al il bad faita. Il is said that the agreement was,
that 4 ths party vas eonsisted. nothing
aD Ill., 1
the afldarits with come care is not denied by the
afldavits upon the opposite side.
Tae q = whee asse
the caee was tried before tho Recorders Court.
Nor am obliged TO decide any Of the questions
that have been raised concerning the bond aud
Tie question is simply whether this Judgment
as It noT e1iets y to be sustained as q Judgment
tfop, it to there are certain facts, admit
ted on both sides, which the court cannot fguore
IN TIE a1st p1ase. The tact that the note made
in the penitentiary does Lot necessarily fnraltdate
It. 90 rot eay that it does. But It il ncyesths-
lcss fact which the court is bound to tske into
Neither would the Court be justified In over
looking The fact that the partIts to this transac-
tion stood to each other in the relation Of eouu-
with great et1ictness, the duties imposed By this
relation: Clients have right to expect Of an at.
totIney ny the h. most ss1npulous fidelity. They reveal
and he is lonnd to keep their secrets. We are
with our clients under all circumstances. In the
hours Of prosperity We contribute to tselr sue-
days Of danger and adversely.
Even af the approach Of death VIC are present at
their beds;des The client, In the eye Of the law,
ia ignorant. ard comes TO his attorney for knowl.
edge he ia weak, and comes to him for protec~
tion. The attorney. too, 4sAu officer oftha court;
and heEeyer. II dischaFctag his duties as attors
ney, hia conduct roisca suspicion OF fraud, his
relationship to his client Ia fact which the court
is bound to consider.
the merits Of the question upon these atbdayita.
That is the functions Of another tribunal. sit
here simply ns chancellor, to decide whether upon
a tne Sht 70 ee o opta'neG 1his om fae adats It
Gated, and the claim upon which It is based made
| the eubject OF further Investigation
| Nor nm certain that understand the law as 1t
is understood BY the counsel on either side, with
reference to the right OF the Court to remit any
| portion Of the Judgment. Such remission would
The theory Of counsel for the motion GOES to tho
very root Of the Judgment aud ii they are correct
thcjudgment should be set aside altogether. while
q Epceal eotfaet aastsang the ~ who1a jaas
nent and leaving, If their theory be true, nothing
lam not At the ontset to look into the atItd.yits
| for the purpose Of ascertaininS whether the per
| eous who hare sworn to them can o. can NOT be
witnesses IN trial Of the merits. lam simply to
[Hr $NhY fa
Jury, OF whether any other action upon ii eeems
Necessary. making it proper that the Judgment
Three Of The ahidavits, which hare been filed in
support Of the motion arc, / think. to be looked
upon with come degree Of suspicion. I confess
as aSsoaiey ns The 1esses IS %
not come into court IN way to command absolute
confidence; The principal witnesses hare AL
stsnd that il Is Necessary hat Ill the statements
in the afadavits should command implicit belief,
II nu that appears Of the ttanEactiou seems to re-
qu1re that Its merits should be Investigated by q
ssss @ s t. nc tha that The only 2ssstton IN M tsis
th{s judsment: But hete there 81 appears to b. "a =
conflict Of testimony: M. Moody tays. that the
snosss dne y othts t. hSs
nesEcs testify that ehc did know It year and q
bali ego. From all that appeare, ! am not INCLINED
her affidavit be true, her knowledge Of tho exist
ence Of the Judgment dates from eome time last
fThe Court here read and commented briefly
npon one or two cases touching the question Of
1aches.l
The Judgment WE entered up while Mrs. Moo
There IL another feature Of this case, which
would. Of itst1, be sufficient to induce the Co1rt
to set aside this Judgment and TINT is the attoz.
the Judgment
Tie iscts ii this esse take very wide range,
| and their Investigation lies properly within the
province Il Jury.
The Court then ordered that the Judgment be
set aaidc; permitting it to- stand, however, as a
lien on the property until the litigation In thi.
case should be brought to close.
Council reeisted the motion. excepted to thu
ruling Of the Court, and were allowed thirty day
IN which to complete their appeal.
REcoRpEn's corRT,
The following Is the record Of the transaction.
In the Recorders Court:
Common LAx.-Bauelschutt ye. Wcttstadt-
Parties and }nsy Present. verdist foE plsIntlf
to 1ti1state By plaintiff sustained, on payment o
costs OF this term; continued. Kennedy vs. Nc
Mabon ct al.-Detault OF McMahoa and Donovan
cHHcznr:-Kellerv vs. Keller -ozae. on defend
ant to plead inttanter; default taken and entered
bill takel FRO con}esso. Taylor rs. Taylos-Ordel
Botsch- Same order. Clifford Is. Clidord-sAn.
. order; proof heard and decres ordered. Payn,
: vs. Pay9e-same order; proof heard and deere
| ordered.
. cnaA1SA1---Peop1c "a. o'Maley-Jury trial
B Verdict guilty. Ono year penttentia1y. Peopl
t | II. George Thompson-plea Of not guilty with
drawn. Plea Of guiltyi under age. Same rs
4 The Grand Jury returned the following tsu
D bills:
! People vs Mary Drown-larccny. Plea OF no
: | guilty. People rs. Eliza Furlong. three indict
mcnta- Larceny. Plea Of guilty in each case. PEG
pie ". Louis Wehrman-larcenY. Plea Of no
guilty. People 70. John Conley- larceny. Pie
4 Jndge-lasceDy: Plea Of not guilty: 6, Gllmaf
/ tin and J. Phlbin securities in $500 until mex
term. People u. James Wilson-burelary. Picl
Plea Of guilty. People Va. Erpat Faust-larceny
p!ea Of not guilty. People ys. John Dow-.asaauit
o. not er9 ca
1e!dmlaFseny Ile3 Of not gailty, People Sys
Tn