National Republican., 1873-09-20

time, Would have controlled the others.
Yonr committee are forced to ne concluslon on Mot
ricK was 10 nave The title to the property eS-
amlned; that he was q party 20 thc epreenen'
isSs nade5 ssemsn wssn a. 10 the ans oi Wilmington
debt, aud a. to ita being the only defect IN the
title, he knowingly and wilfully stated what was
epEyss SECOND AND LAST CHARGE
against Mr. Merrick Ia, that Merrck aud AleNan-
der had combined to get possession OF his prop
Inc war Green mad executed a deed OF trust TO
VIM. II. Webb TO secure Columbus Alexander
the payment Of certain promissory notes; ina
Confederate lines. Mt. Webb advertised and
sold the property under the deed OF trust In 1882,
The As NJ SHss 9, ns
property. A long litigation ensued, resulting IN
decree In favor OF Green, the auditors report
an,ler at $4,000. From the decree an appeal was
taken by Alexander TO the Supreme Court Of the |
United states, but pending the appeal the matter |
was compromised. Under the terms OF the COM |
promise Green executed deed Of trust on the |
property involved IN the equity sut-nrst, to Sc
cure Alexander $4,000 At twelve months; sec
and and EosiisS Judgments, 4 they should be revived
on setr, .hefa'; and lastly to secure Mr.. Merrick
his fees.
Upon Alexander's note becoming due It was
not paid, and after some delay he, and he alone,
ordered the trustees to sell under the terms OF
the deed. The trustees accordingly advertised
1 u
| hill against Merrick and Alexander, No. 2s62
/ equity, seeking to enjoln the sale. The court In
this cause modified the terms OF sale in some re-
Trustees aid seII. and he properly Was bought In
by Mr.. Merrick to save himself. 1t Ia frum Mr
Mericks answer In this cause, on page seven
OF the pamphlet, that Mr. Green puol'sheswhat
purports TO be an extract.
The precise and complete ending Of the answer
Is as follows: "This defendant further says, that
In addition to the real estate held BY said Alex
| ander, and the recovery OF which said complain
ant sought In cause No. 1905, to wit lots 10, u
and north half q lot ~ in .qnare ~ smSrseng n
In his bill at from $4,000 to t5 00o said Alexander
also held and claimed, under color OF legal title,
sSqn Rs. e. ~ %o sf 2
is informed and believes, not less than two DO.
lars per foot, and upon which Is large brick or
formed and beiieyes, not less than eight thou
sand dollars, making the value OF said premises
e and improvements not less than ti2.a9i, ior
= OF ejectment on behalf OF said complainant
against said Alexander. That said Alexander
also held under color Of legal tltle lot H. 10 said
this defendant is informed and believes, not
sae .ssn t iSsars and f'i icr %Isas %soS
J, at the request OF said complainant, this defend
ant had instituted an action Of ejectmen gains
L tenant OF said Alexander IN the name OF Lizzie
= Green, the sister Of said complainant M tnss y, me tns
:, IS and the east half OF lot IS, IN said square
e claiming title thereto; that said lot 10 contains
s. nformcJ SnI beieyes is worth not less than on,
70 dollar per square foot making 1900; that SAID 10
z. IS contains 4,ls2 square feel, and "a worth no
than two dollars per foot, making ss2e4 that SAT-
east half Of lot Is contains s0sl square feet ant
le Is worth not less than 81 % per square foot,
this defendants Is Informed and believes, maxim,
OF o. 63s-said various parcels amounting In value
aforesaid, to the sum OF 81, ,G3I; that 10 and B.
he the terms Of said compromise said Alexsnde
t-riol olfaad IN IN mnl N
he ant each and all OF said pieces and parcels 0
50 land, will appear BY reference 70 said agree
~ ment, copy Of which Is died 10 this cause, an
which Is also made part Of this answer"
s. BY contracting the Two It will be seen that tn
extract is an exceedingly unfair and garble
e; IL appears conciusyely from the evidence tina
Alexander did have possession OF lot H., and tha
ne Mr.. Merrick, at Green's instance, brought an az
s- tion OF eJectment against Alexander's tenant
recover possession, which suit was settled in es
press terms by the compromise signed by Greer
!? Alexander also swears that he had possession O
part OF lot 10; that he had no paper title bu
rs claimed q possessory title. Thts Is denied by MI
OF Green, and he has put In evidence lease TO
ey tenant OF the entire lot during the time tha
er Alexander claims TO have held possession oil
y, The Testimony all shows that Mr.. Merrick dl
render Mr.. Green, In his suit aAalnst Alexander
laborious and valuable services. one OF the mai
a. questions involved being at the time new IN TIL
I'd Jurisdiction, viz: whether the trustees could ex
ecute the terms Of the trust BY sale under al
N at the time was within the Confederate lines.
JUSTICE NlRTHUR,
In his testimony, says that the argument OF Nj
=. Merrick determined the opinion Of the court 4
ID Aiexander's testimony shows that Nj. Merric
n he sed u tus under the sopru
mise; that after Green had failed to pay the not
to OF 10000. Merrick solicited him tAexander)
is experience OF thirty years In litigation he ha
never known lawyer to act with more energ
nd and zeal in behalf Of his client than Mr. Meric
'et MI. Green, in his cross-examinatlon, admit
that after Mr.. Merrick had bought 10 the proper
~ Mr.. Merrick's counsel wrote to him, stain
n that Mr.. Merrick had bought the property Il
ut much less than lts value, and would convey 1t
I'M him on his paying the liens upon lt which b
tMerrick had paid. and within few mdnihs tn
eg Upon this settlement Mr.. Green executei tn
be following paper:
he "a decree Of the supreme Court OF the Dlsri,
OF Columbia has been entered. by my consen
ne dsmisslng the bill In the case OF Benz amin
| | Green, Richard T. Merrick and Others, No: $50
Sc In equity, on the docket Of said court; and no
Ie- agree and declare that the said Richard T. Me-
ne rick Is entirely discharged and acquitted frOi
at the obligation OF performing any further act {
"a. In the suit OF Biyne and English for the use
b.. seirs tacias 70 revive the Judgment renderC
by Columbia In favor Of Bayne and English AZ iin,
re Dun Green and Benjamin \. Green, being n
as iGlo, Ou the law docket OF SAID court Ana III
lat ther declare aud agree that all other matters
nd things, of whatever nature and kind, which haS
existed between myself and the said MerrlC
on have been entirely settled AMI satisfied aud thi
ng ! have no claim upon him OF any KIND or for AZ
cause whatever. BEN. l.. GREEN"
Your committee are OF the Opinlon that tn
ol- second charge Of Green is wholly ungrounde
IT, Is without scntilla OF proof to Justify or el
cusc Il, and Is untrue In point OF fact
nat Mr. Green admits that during the time the !
The vestIgation was being made by the cOmmttt
ej he was circulating his pamphlets, aud your col
Ihe mitee can but feel convinced that to crafty
malicious feeling against his former counse
* Benjamin L. Green, In publishing the plmph
:. Gus and untrue.
Ju- Your committee returns herewith full repo
'u Of the evidence before II, and submits for ado
led ton by the association ,Ge following resolution
TIE RESOLUTIONS
Resolved, That II Is the Judgment OF the ID
Association Of the District OF Columbia, after
he full and thorough Investigation OF the charg
ie; preferred against r. T. Merriek, ESQ, by Ben.
We Green, headed professional Ethics," and u
| dressed to the judges Of the Supreme Court al
- to the Bar Association OF the ID. strict Of ColuI
bia, and dated June 10, 1873, said investigate
taa and after an examination Of all tho evidence,
ne tcluding shid Green's own testimony, given und
10, oath, Il is found that said charges, collective
ok and 10 detail, are not only unsupported but
tind ,itssolr'd THIS In the opinion OF this associ
ight ia the conduit Of Richard Y. Merrirk In q
Eed meSsctions referred TO In said charges was n
~" mi 6Slrreproach,ble, but highly efficient, fai
and i anSnsyabe auduaguanimOLs.
bn. heSpecS,lly subi'Iied.
a EDWIN L. STANTON.
w. y. MATTISGLy,
II The report and accom- &C.
u" unanimously adop:ed Dy the BAT <ssos,stion.