New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-24
& OWN COUNSEL
AN ATTORNEY SUES Els CLIENT
A HEARING IN THE CASE

| Judge Montamat's court, yesterday, was
the scene Of an interesting and in some re-
spects unique proceeding, where and when
a nearing was had in the case of W. O. Dene.
gre vs.. Fanny NJ. Hinkley.
| The plaintiff, who is lawyer of some
| prominence in this city, was engaged by the
| defendant some time last year, to act as her
counsel in suit instituted against q certain
Ida Brown, for the recovery Of rent and
| dam ages.
| After suffering untold hsrdships from the
laws delay, the suit or suits were decided
agains. Mrs. Hinckley, and as 6 matter of
| course, the costs had to be paid by her.
She. however, refused to pay Mr. Denegre,
on the ground that he mad neglected the
case; refused to act on the suggestions of his
client in several important instances; was in
the employ ofthe defendant pending the pro-
ceedipgs against the said defendant; was
not present on certain occasions when the
suit was called up for trial, thereby forcing
Mrs. Huxley to employ other counsel.
Mr.. Denegre, denying these allegations,
brought suit for the recovery of ninety nine
dollars. hrs. Huxley, acting as her own
attorney, yesterday appeared in court and
fled the following answer, which explains
itself:
W. O. Denegre VS.. Fanny II. Hinkley-
In answer to this suit, ! say that l deny
owing plaintiff anything. He brought two
Brown, in a contract which the Judge Of the
Seventh District Court decided to be contra
bonis mores, and lost it; that he ought to
have known he could not gain such q suit,
especially as he was told so before he
brought the second suit; that by bringing
the said suits he mulcted me into heavy
costs, and his services, therefore, were Of no
value, but great injury to me. Moreover,
when he was told the contract was IN VIOLA
ton of statute, he said there was no such
q law, and that he could gain it, and
| thus induced me to let him go on with such
| a suit. he ought to have known the law,
and should have protected his client from
a vain suit. His failure TO do SO l consider
| unprofessional He was. moreover, absent
| from the court On one occasion when the
case was called for trial, and | was forced
| to employ another lawyer to have the case
continued. By this neglect Of the case
| have suffered loss and damage more than
| one hundred dollars, and ask the court to
dismiss the suit.
FANNY II. H1NKLEY.
| February 10, 1870.
When the case was called up Mrs. Hinkley
asked for q continuance on the ground that
the most important. witnesses for the defense
| were not present. The Judge declined TO
grant the continuance, declaring that the
| defendant had her witnesses present, and
| that the time OF the cour: could not be
| trifed with.
Mr.. Denegre took the stand, and after tes.
titying that he had faithfully discharged his
duties, was subjected to fierce cross ex-
animation by the defendant which he showed
little disposition to meet.
Mrs. Hinkey displayed legal ability of nc
ordinary type, bus finding il Of no avail,
she gave notice that she would seek justice
in higher court, andlso the matter ended
| for the present.