The Canton mail. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 18??-1882, 1875-11-20
HOW Is THIS roa r. ! seasszessz


We pu, The quc>,io": a..sts,;ato The
ease as ii appears III record and Us
stated TO US b5f fr&.ti.ss who know
az z>ont II:
Sumo time sflS,1, Mrs. ]. G. Kirk
patrick Instituted an ejectmcnt suit
in wllch Edward Grant, jailor, and
the county ct Madison We're made
defendants; tho property sued for
Icing the county jail lot, adjacent to
The ODD graveyard, and the amount
Involved about 81 900. District At
torncy Pratt, who is also attorney
Tor Madison county with fixed
annual salary of $500, defended the
suit, and called to his aid VI. d. Ne
Micken, Esq, rs associate counsel.
The plaintiff to the suit, we are re
liabiy informed, expressed desire
TO compromise with the county, and
SO instructed her agent, who agreed
to dismiss the suit upon tho pay
Tnent of 500, in county warrants,
by the defendants. The compro-
mise was refused the case went to
trial, and judgment was obtained
against plaintiff, who has since APP
pealcd TO the Supreme Court, where
the matter, for the present, rests.
In r@~.I,x- Nov- IL To IL
en-, associate counsel to the county
attorney, presented the modest lit
tie bill of $500, to The Board OF Su-
pervisors, and that intelligent body
allowed it-actualiy allowed $500
and the clerk issued warrant there
for, when 500 would have been an
enormous fee for the amount of SER
vice rendered. We have not seen
Attorney Pratt's bill for what he
did, but 1t is reasonable to infer that
the principal attorney is not going
70 put his services at less figure
than his associate, and for aught we
know he may put it at double. But
grant that he charges nothing, the
fact that the Board of Supervisors
has paid Mr.. McMickcn sum equal
almost to the proposed compromise.
at once writes down that august
body as a set of fools and Mr.. Pratt,
its legal advisors culprit of the deep
cstdye. Why, we may ask, did not
the associate wait until the Supreme
Court had disposed of the case ?
Why hurry his bill through with
such indecent haste? There can be
but one answer, to-wit: the new
board, with at least three intclIi-
gent and honest men, men who pay
taxes and have suure-=sSard for the
suffering and oppressed taxpayers:
would see McMicken's $500 bill in
Jericho before they would allow it.
Why, too, did Pratt approve the
bill There can be but one an
swer to this question. He has been
so long connected with the all-grab
party that it is matter of habit.
His conscience is Of that India-rub
Der quality that it can be made to
stretch to suit any emergency.
But what is to be done in the mat
ter! The mischief 5 done, and
it is now too late. There are those
too, probably, who will say "what
is the MAIL man fussing about-the
matter can't be mended (" Well it
may be too late to mend this case,
but it is never too late to punish
fraud and Offenders. 1t the arm of
the law is two short, public indig-
nation should at least have an OPP
portunity to express itself
Since The above was written we
learn that L. b. Pratt attempts to
Justify bis action in the matter, by
saying that several prominent law
yers assert that McMicken's bill is
not an unreasonable one. These at
torneys say they gave their opinion
as to the fee under misapprehen-
sion that the matter was mIsstat-
ed to thcm, and they thought the
Jail building was involved. Now
that they understand the matter,
they give it as their opinion that
Zee OF 500 would be ample, yes, a
big fee. What has Pratt to say
now?