Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-16
PRoFEsa1oNA1 oApAorrY.

on 3 suit so unfounded. I express the &C.
tual feeling that I entertain, st the same
time that Iagsin and again express my
regard for their
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY.
II General Humes and I had led our
clients into such q case "a this before the
court, and urged with so much zeal BY
plaintiff, then I should say chat three
hundred thousand dollars damages would
have been q poor compensation for having
employed such counsel.
We did not stop there, Here is another
case Il Mclean, $685. Il Is cate that is
thoroughly maintained and investigated.
Paine ct al. VS. Wright and the ~IRdiansp-
Oils and BelfOntaine railroad company
These cases were before as, and I
studied them sttentively. I gave my adj
vice to those clients In this transcendsntly
important matter with due elaboration,
and II they are to be held responsible now
for q malicious prosecution, in the Light OF
these books that I rave read, I would Ike
to ask these learned gentlemen what pos
sible csse they can imagine In which they
may advise their clients where they can
protect them7
Mark you now, admitting the full force
ofthe Dodge sndWoolsey case to hsVe been
decided against ali these principles, I say
that where I can find
CONFLICTING AUTHORITY,
authority of such eminent quality as thai
/ bav5 read, haven't l the right to try the
experiment before the cOurfs2 Are my
clients to suffer because I do it2 How
many thousands on thousands OF cases
arise where previous decisions are quail
hed. and yet in every case whers these
qualifications are inside, If there had been
a failure, malice and wsntsof probable
cause would be a~ssignedf
What other advice could I have given2
Was 1 20 sacrifice the opportunity on the
idea that there WIS no law in these books2
l shall show your honor before I am done
that the Dodge and Woolsey case suztains
every principle there. If I do not, I will
give up the case. Now says Judge Nc
Lean:
This principle is exemplihed in a case
where a plaintiff, being a citizen Of an
other State, sues in the Federal court,
making The person against whom the re-
lief is prayed, and others, citizsns Of the
same State, who are jointly interested in
the
RELIEF PRAYED.
The rule is, that the court having juris-
dietiOu, relief may be given TO the parties
on the record, whether plaintiffs or de-
PENDANTS, IS the principles Of equity shall
require" Now, what does this Judge fur
Their say2
''Ths corporation, however, should have
answered, admitting the fscts stated IN
the bill, and praying that equity may be
DONE"
Here is n case where the attorney rep
resents the corporation and the party, and
c0mss before the court and tells It 50, ard
the court does nOs consider it a cOntinu-
snce. There WA no refusal here, but q
demand, and the court decides IN favor O.
the stOckholdsr and grants relief to the
corporation.
In this other case there was neither 6
demand or refusal, but the court was so
far from being affected by this enormous
fraud that these gentlemen have been
again and again
HAWKING THROUGH TIE TOWN
as having been committed, that ths court
says, complscently enough: 1.-THE corpo-
ration, however, should have answered,
admitting the facts stated in the bill. and
praying that equity may be done"
Looking at Mr.. Williamson and Mr..
Murphy, and their known standing here,
L don't see how e is possible that they
could strike any one as being capable OF
committing a frsUd-innocent men, as in
nOcent OF wrong IS you or I. We do not
find them even as directors OF the gas
company doing anything more than main
tain their corporate rights, and yet the
opposing c0unsel dEslt upon the subject
until that jury Of tolsrsbly fair intelli-
gence were overwhelmed with passion.
ard have given q verdict that, were II not
for the moral sense of this community,
would have ruined Mr.. Murphy in halt
an hOur in business and in credit. No
man of any intelligence feared it and,
therefore ne was not run upon and de-
stroyed.
DRY GOODS at q sacrifice 81 A. Ssessel
| q Sons clearing aale.