The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1863-11-11


ought to repay the money to the
county, andproposed to refund to you
the fee you paid me. This you refu-
sed to do, and so the matter has stood
from that day to this. Now where is
the wrong in this matter? 1t was NOT
in NY appearing before the Commits
sioners as YOUR attorney and applying
for the order. But in YOUR UNAU-
THoRIzEDLY COPYING the "Exhibit"
into your paper, and then CLAIMING,
OBTAINING and RETAINING the pay
o, Dick, what fool You publish to
the world your own infamy.
But you refer the public to Walter
Craig, John Mccormick, Joshua
Adams and numerous, others you
might name" for evidence that SIX in
my clients. Well, why don't you name
them? l rather guess you are about
at the end of your string. But since
you refer the public to these men, let
us see what there is in this wonderful
mares nest" Walter Craig never was
my client. This ought to be a sufi-
cient answer to this. But 1 will go
further and state the case you are
"smelling" after. In 1914, William
Craig, brother of Walter, employed
Dewey & Shotwell, of which firm I was
member, to attend to a partition suit
against Walter Craig for the purpose
of dividing large tract of land worth
some twenty thousand dollars between
them, and getting their mothers dow
er, therein assigned. We attended to
the business to the satisfaction Of all.
The attorneys fees in such cases are
allowed by the court and taxed as a
part of the costs and paid by the par
ties according to their interest in the
land. The court, in this case, allowed
us fee of fifty dollars, certainly as
all must agree, very moderate one,
considering the value of the property;
larger fees have frequently been allow
ed in Harrison county in smaller cases..
William Craig paid his part, but Wal
ter was slow about his, and we had to
threaten him with an execution, when
he paid it. You can can see the case
on Execution Docket L, p. 50. Now
Walter Craig having to be nudged up,
got out of humop; and has been miss
representing this matter ever since by
telling that we charged him fifty dol
lars for writing him q deed, which is
wholly false, and he knows it. If not
let him produce such deed or forever
after hold his peace. In 1887 John
Mccormick recovered a Judgment a.
gaint DR.. Thomas Campbell, of Cadiz,
for sixty-four dollars and ninty-three
cents debt and forty-eight dollars ant
sixty cents costs, which costs, Camp.
bell being worthless, he had to pay
See for this case Execution Docket G,
p. 39. With this case I had nothing
whatever to do; execution had been is
sued, but nothing could be made. In
, 1847 he proposed to u.s. Dewey and
, Shotwell-that if we would make the
money on this Judgment, or any part
of it, he would allow and pay us for
r our fees the half Of what was collec.
= ted; if nothing was collected, we were
s to have nothing. We agreed to this
and instituted suit accordingly, and
after year and ahalf's litigation, we
i. recovered a Judgment against two
= good men for two-hundred and one
: dollars and thirty-seven cents, the a.
5 mount due on the Campbell judgmen
= which we afterwards collected and
: paid one-half to Mccormick, and re
= tanned the other half according to the
i bargain. When we settled with Nc
' Cormick he wanted us to take less thar
, the bargain. We told him, "No, sir
/, Johnny" and so the matter was clio
sed. The amount we got was really
$ no more than fair compensation fo
= the service rendered, and whether SO O.
t not, it was just what he proposed ant
! agreed to; and he had no reason t
:. complain, but this was not the rea
n difficulty with him.
d A few years afterwards I was EN-
i ployed in suit by an honest man a
: gainst him for on honest claim, an
: made him do justice. He did not com
7 to terms quite as quick as you did il
a the Mafit case, but still he had t
u come; and SO he and you have abou
: the same reason to say hard things a
: gainst me, and do so from about tn
same motives.
} | have been employed by Joshu'
Adams on three different occasions t.