Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-09-25
KERCHEYAL.
Some Suggestive Facts from His Career
as an Attorney.
How He Came to be Under Bond fol-
Contempt Of Court.
A Client Who Has Khistled Four
Years for His Money.

Years for His Money.
Is This the Kind Of Man We Want for
Mayor Of Nashville /!
We stated few days since that the
UNION AND AMERICAN ignored politics
entirely in the present city canvass and
was endorsing Mr.. Howell for the position
of Mayor, not because he is the nominee Of
the convention, but because we believe him
to be capable and honest. Mr.. Kercheyal
has fully established the fact, during the
two wears he has served as Mayor, that he
is not capable of filling that position; and
as to his honesty, we leave our readers to
iudee after they have read the following
documents. The first is copy of judg-
ment taken from the records Of the Circuit
Court, and is as follows:
Charles Burrell VS.. Thomas A. Kerche-
val. Judgment by motion.
On this the 18th day of June, 1874, ap-
peared by his attorney, Charles Burrell, in
open court, and moved for judgment against
tue defendant for the sum of Sl,l30.l4,
money collected by said Kercheval, the at
torney of said Burrel, which he failed and
refused to pay over to said Burrell and for
interest on the same; and for 12s per cent.
damages and all costs.
And it appearing to the court that
written notice of this motion was
presented to said 'Kercheval, on
the It'll day of June, 1874, and that he
then acknowledged service of the same,
and waived any longer, further, or other
notice Of the same.
And it further appearing 10 the court,
that said Kercheval is a licensed attorney
and practicing lawyer in and under the
laws of the State of Tennessee, and an at
torney of this cOurt, that prior to the 10Th
day of May, 1870, he as such attorney re
ceived from said Burrell, for collecting a
claim against Il. G.. McNaiTy x
Co.; that as such attorney he
recovered decree in favor
Of said Bunel in the Circuit Court of the
United States, sitting at Nashville, on the
10Th day of May, 1870, against II. L. Kirk
patrick, X. G.. McNairy and F. p. Cahill,
securities on an injunction bond, for the
sum of 81 ,24S.25 and costs; that on the
Both day of May, 1870, said sum of 81 ,24S.-
% and interest, making in all the sum of
S1,255.71, having been collected by the
United States Marshal from the parties
against whom the said decree was render
ed, was by him paid over to said Kercheyal
as attorney of said BurTell.
And it further appearing TO the court that
said Kercheval has failed to pay over TO
said BurreIl said money, or any portion
thereof, although frequent demand for the
same has been made by said Burrell's attor-
MES; and it appearing to the court that,
after allowing said Kercheval ten per cent.
as his commission on said collection, there
remained due TO said Burrell, on the 30th
day of May, 1870, the sum Of Sl,130.14
which should have been paid to the said
Burrell, and said Kercheval this day az
peared in open court and confessed judg-
ment for said sum, together with the inter
est and costs of the proceedings having
agreed that judgment by motion mig III
be rendered against him therefor, it Is
therefore considered by the court that said
Charles Burrell recover of said Thomas A
Kercheval the sum Of S1,404.19, being said
81, 1904 and interest on the same at six
per cent. from the 30th of May, 1870, tC
this date, and that said BuITell also recover
of said Kercheval the costs of this motion
for all Of which let f. ia. issue.
Another case Of a somewhat similar char
acter is now pending in the Supreme Court
where the records show these facts: Kerche-
val was one of the counsel in a case wherein
be was afterwards appointed receiver. A
considerable sum of money came into hi:
hands, in connection with the case, whicl
money he accounted for with the accepiior
of about $500. A decree was issued by the
J. 70
which decree he disregarded. When tn,
case was carried into the Supreme Cours
an order was issued requiring him to show
cause for having failed to comply with in
structiOns from the lower court, but h
paid no attention whatever TO the order
wheRupOn another order, more preremp
tory was given, and upon his still refusing
to obey, he was arrested and ta6eI
before the court for contempt. ii,
begged the Indulgence of the court, anC
was finally released from custody upOT
giving the following bond:
We acknowledge ourselves jointly anC
severally bound to the State of Tennessee
in the sum Of $1,000.
The terms and conditions of the forego
ing obligation are such that, whereas tn,
| above bound Thomas A. Kercheval, fOrmel
receiver in the case of j. W. McAliSter rs
b. +. Foster, ct al, is under arrest for hi.
appearance from day to day before said Su
preme Court to show cause why he has MOI
| Obeyed the former orders of said court anC
purge himself of the contempt therefrom
and, whereas, the said Kercheval has asked
a continuance of said attachment cause Il
the next term Of this court, which has beer
granted on condition that he execute bono
tor his said appearance. Now, if the saiC
ThOS. A. kercheval shall well and truly
make his appearance before our honorable
Supreme Court at its next term, com
mencing the first Monday in December
1874, and from day to day thereafter unit
he is discharged by the court, then thi:
bond to be void, otherwise TO remain il
full force and virtue.
(Signed.) THOMAS A. KERCHEvAL.
EDWARD II. EAST.
The documents quoted are sufficient &c
show how Kercheval's clients have Jared
In the one case he cOnfesses to having with
held for more than four gears a sum q
money paid to him on behalf of a litigani
whose interests he had, as OfficerOfthe cOuri
for all licensed attorneys are such in the
eve Of the law-swOrn 10 subserve. In the
other case, so fragrant was his dereliclion
of duty, that the Supreme Court was com
PEELED to proceed to the extremity of put
ting him under arrest for contempt of that
august tribunal. He must remain
under ban until the last cent has been
handed over to his client.
The statutes of Tennessee provide that
when an attorney acts in this way, his
name may be stricken from the roll, and
that he shall not be permitted
to practice ia any court of the
State until he has settled in full with
his client, but Kercheval seems tC
have been treated with extraordinary leni-
ency, rs the facts stated in the documents
given above are well known to both bench
and bar.
And now, are the property owners, the
merchants, the professional men, the me,
chanics, and the taxpayers of Nashville in
general, willing to put themselves in the
place of Kercheval's clients?