The New York herald., 1876-12-06
THE CASE OF MRS. BURKE.
Nsw York, Dec. 5. 1874

NKw York, Dec. s, 1876
To THE EDITOR ugRALD:-
In an obituary notice OF tho late Mrs. Virginia G.
Burke which appeared in the HERALD OF yesterday
there is gross Misrepresentation Of facts which does
great injustice. In that and other notices Of this
natter your reporters have pcrsscntly sought 10
press the pabic mind-First, that had volunteered
o try said and without charge;
,econd that had drawn the money that was in the
trust company without her knowledge and against her
consent; third, that had paid to her part Of
and was seeking to make her pay me still more
Now, what are the facts When Mrs Burke applied
70 me to become her counsel were utter strangers
The lady who introduced US did so not at my request
put at the special instance oil Mrs Burke who stated
hat shc wished TO retain in tins case
rhis same lady when introduced witness by Mrs
Burke before tho referee did only TESTIFY to this
act but further stated that she heard tho converse
lion that took place when We were introduced, and
that distinct aud clear understanding that II
successful was TO be well paid, but that was TO
ccive compensation II successful. The truth is
Mrs. Burke had made personal appeal 10 thirty
H the leading lawyers OF this Bar to tako her case
lpon those conditions and had been able lind not
snc willing to do IT, she represented to mo this
and tho further iac,s that she from tho South
poor and IN view OF all the circumstances did agree
20 try her cause gratuiiousiy II unsuccessful What
l0iiowedf Was iOur yeur IN her service,
timcs called out Of the state to take deposition
in her cahc. during which time my Office had 10 bc
closed, Tor had no partner. | gave her about 2U0
consultations, oil IRON one to iour hours each. did
about threc weeks hard labor tho prcpa ration OF
about nifty ailidavits to secure Oruer OF arrest |
then gave weeks and months OF iue tho mastery OF
every fact and every legal princpo involved IN the
case l then went INTO court aud stood NY icet
Through three long and iaborious weeks trying that
cause, and was eventually rewarded with a verdict
tbU, 0U0 OF that sum | collected from the Union
ffust Company, under order her eigra-
lure, $4,000, halt OF which l paid 10 nes
The FIRST instant saw her after had collected H. and
hen when found that her estimate OF ,hc value Of
ny services was neither liberal or Just, offered "a tho
presence oil her own cousin TO permit her select any
reputable lawyer IN the city she might prefer, and
submit TO HIM statement OF my services and abide by
whatcvcr decision he might mako as 10 she,r value.
This she declined and moved tor substitution whicn
necessitated reference. | asked her counsel
10 select reputable attorney TO whom 60 refer
The matter. He did IT, Tho reference had. nut
In all her testimony while reserved three iourths OF
mine yet the report OF that referee, chosen by her
own counsel, sustained my conduct throughout upon
and sustained me. The reporters hear only side
aud assail me. Is 1t jusy DO not wish to stoop
quarrel with either client or clients trends the
press but these malignant assaults are calculated
inJure my professional reputation, wlich prize above
I'll price, and ! must ask you 10 publish this reply
that liberal minded mon may know that these unjust
charges are sustained by not single shadow OF truth
Respectfully. ANDREW H. II. DAWSON.