, 1875-12-19
H. 8. Hu!RD.
Ills Reply to Fir. n. ). Browns
Pamphlet.
Tho Main Points Of MIR. Browns
Publication.
n. g. HURD.
;H1s REplr TO CERTAIN ATTACKS.


| CHICAGO, Deo. IA false and malicious at
| tack has been naade upon me in the ohape OF II
anonymous pamphlet widely circulated b,
! hndrews j. Brown, Of Evanston, now general,
known to ba the author Of the sams. This Mr.
Brown having. witI, The aid OF his brothera-in-law
Dunlap and Forrest, and their partner, F. e.
Benson (the latter Of whom h65 since served 4
term Of five yeats in the Peritontisy), hunted
me through the courts Of this Saate for nearly
ten years, and having been finally and com
pletely worsted IN bis many suits against ne
now comes forwnfd (cftet the lapse Of mapJ
years sincs the litigation has been ended) IN the
shape Of An anonYidous and malignant pamphlet,
hoping no doubt in this way to defeat my alec.
ton I'd the Judgesbip OF tho Suprama Court and
thereby crafty his desire for revenge. Tho
Rhuftnsas OF the TINA before tho election will
not permit my making m elaborate reply at
present. In due time the public Wtil know IN an
authoritative Way how falsely and grossIy havo
been abused. Before proceeding to speak In do
tail of tho several cases referred to by Mr.
Brown in his pamphlet, call the readers atten-
ton to the following facts: flrst-Ihat in ev-
cry case except two in which my namo figures,
Brown, &nd his brothcr.in-law Dunlap, and ha
brother-in-law Forrest, and the brothers Of this
btothsr-in-law Forrest. md the coavict Benson
OF soms one or more OF them, wero parties o-
witnesses, or both, ana in ths two excepted cases
Brown acted Is attorney.
Sccond-The pretended statements OF facts in
tho aevetA1 cases referred TO are not axtfhc!s
from the records n those cases. but the elander-
uus words Of Brown himself.
Third-Where extracts from opinions Of the
Supreme Court are given they are gasbled and
uuttuthful, rs instance the following from tho
last case Of Brown vs. Hnrd OF al., page II Of
pamphlet: :: It is With reluctance that ne feel
compelled to a6irm the decsoe OF the tourt VI
10" 10 this case. MATE the s!aIs4 ana
mark what thoy stand in place Of and what
Brown onits. The omitted words are as 1ol"
!o"8: !" But 10 entlf!o party 70 de-
cree TOT q na" TRIAL ~ law Il mass ap-
pear thaE s1efa Vas ace.dent, nlssake, or
mistake OF tho ;parslse, no accident that pte-
vented the appallan: (Brown) from proving bis
case, nor II there any fraud on tae part OF
Hurd that authorizes Court Of Chancery
to interpos9 Ita powers u grant : relief. Jhe
extract IN the Eaton case page OF pamphlet
meht OF Brown. Is even worse, a. Will be sedn
oy reference TO the oplnlon itae!f, wh1oh ls TOO
!on8 70 be quoted mere; tho point IN tne oec1s-
ion IS. that there was other property. out OF
which my Judgments against Dnnap ntgns nave
naen made u had been mora di!tgent IN enfoss-
inE them; should ho estopped from making
tnem out OF tue property IN quesnoo IN she
handa OF snosequens puTchaser; Was TOO
easy 1aasmont eroa!tof' 1nat "as al. 49,,
In tho case OF AusQ Fs- SaaN. Iotn Ill. 5o4-
- S.0..', - v - ~
to be indicted Tor stealing soma sorews DC. Tho
supreme Court say W this 1nolc1tnens the
name OF huto rs "itness nos
marheu, enough = apesa1s ne We nnoIn ano
teSuneu On oenal' OF !ne psosecunon, WHICH 70
suited 70 me a.lo1tsas o. oha" aSanss ss.ong
clscums.ahslst es'aeuco u us }ooaw ~ Run';,
espec1at1y tnat OF ne oansnter. oc11Ysa 1na".
Ine Co1tt aeolaea .als cass III my iafo5. h5o"n
vas at tue tllno my II" partner and aoVisea ali
that was aone n tno c1ee. =, .,s ~,
1toaltpn vs. Hnfo. sofh A. w. IE's Was
nnothet easo rh1;h asoss s ~h.le u Bro" wss ny
Il !" partner. ana n wh'ch be parac1pase7. Al
s1at was dono 10 she ' ease "as taliy apnfased oy
hn. ana nnoeser W. @ teaa & ne case WI 81 sa5 vas
1aonesti1 ana iesIsy donc. Ihe 1xcs or tne case
ore ~ Follows !: a: mtstake rhs made IN DRAWING
= mortgage on tho seie or some propetty
belonging to - minor Of whom |
Was guardian, the "orsis "falluro TO pay
having bean. 1afs out OF the usual
clause OF forfeiture. 4 bill Was filed to correct
this mistake and foreclose the mortRage after
failure OF payment had occurred The proof
fully show7d tho omission. aad the 0ottt ORDER
ed the mortgage corrected ana foreclostd. : The
Supreme Court 1orersoa the decree. On tho tech
hical ground That Court or Equity had no p5N-
er to reform b mortgage as against a married
N,tn n ar&f> rf7la 1f f1~ hns In