The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-10-27
SERIOUS CHIRGEs 1GfINST 4 RE-
publican CANDIDATE.
George r. nnnforth OF Rochester not Fit TO
be u judge Of the Court Of AppenIs.

| GEORGE r. pnnforth Of Rochester not Fit TO
be II Judge OF the Court Of Appeals.
To THE PUBLIC: In 1sGS, Mr.. George F.
Danforth OF Rochester was employed by Z. ID.
whitney Of Philadelphia to defend various suits
brought 10 Monroe and other counties adjacent
thereto, in Western New York, seeking to make
him liable as a general partner In firm In which
he was the special partner-all the suits, In fact,
involving one Transaction.
The conteAt being finally determined adversely
TO Mr.. whitney by the Court of Appeals In one
OF the cases Ut being made test for alb. the
Judgments or amounts In controversy In all the
cases were promptly satisfied by his sending to
Mr.. Danforth a certificate Of deposit In Messrs
Belmont Co.'S bank Of a sum OF money more
than suhicientto pay all the recoverles against
him. including the costs and Mr.. Danforth's dis
bursements and fees.
During the litigation. from time to time, Mr.
Danforth frequently and freely drew, and called
on Mr.. Whitney for money in various sums, and
In every case hls drafts aud requests were
promptly complied with.
1t was on the 18th June, 1873, that tho certiH-
cate OF deposit was placed In Mr.. Danforth's
hands-more than sufficient for all the de-
mands, with the request that he would pay all
the Judgments, his disbursements and fees, and
send MIR. whitney a statement OF the same, and
Subsequently, and after repeated and frultless
efforts to procure an account or statement, Mr..
Whitney sent his son, a resident Of New York
CITY, to Rochester, who then obtained from Mr..
Danforth statement Of his account. by this
account, dated Oct. 20, 1873 Mr.. DinfOrth
CHARGED Mr.. whitney the round sum Of 81 Ol5g w
as disbursements during the progress OF the
several suits" &c, including printing ana 9th
or expenses III the different actions" &c. He
credited Mr.. whitney with items Of cash from
Oct. Q, 1868, to May 20, 1873 amounting to 81
iFatr l.al
disbursements, OF $1.Uf.B.
By the same account MIR. Danforth stated his
charges against Mr. Whitney for fees. IN TINS
wise "ls9s. september to May 1879, services i'm
ten actions, including trials at Circuit, at Special
Term General Term and Court OF Appe Is,
$flOJ." and de luctiug thcrefrom the above bal
ancc 81 SlGl1.35 he stated as tho amount due
MIN S2is'.bo, which he deducted from the sur
plus Oi the sum sent him To pay the judgments,
. Upon receiving the account from Mr.. Dam
form, Mr.. Whitney's son expressed to him some
surprise at the large amounts charged FOR uis-
burseme nts and bis fees but Mr. Danfortn said
they were all ftgnt. ana ADDED, IL may have
omitted some credits; get your father to exam
m we account ana u nave notify me and
they will oe corrected. ms was on the 3Oth
OF October, ls11 ia Mr.. Danforth's offi'e at
Rochester. lhe account wd, sent to Mr. Whit
neY Ia Philadei9hii. and ON the 4th OF
rendered by MIR. Dtnforth 1t was found to
sir. Nhiiney's surprise that he had failed to
credit IN the account the payment Of his draft
on Mr. Ditney In philadelphia Tor $3.50. ana he
so wrote to Mr. DanfOrth ON that day and re-
questeu MIN TO send MS CncCk Tor the amount,
but Mr. Dini"rtn made no reply to the letter.
ana was silent on the subject. his surprised Mr..
whitney even more than the discovery of the
omission OF credit. Mr.. Whitney, at that time,
had "A business house IN New York. where some
Of the payments to MIR. Dantorth were made
and the omission Of Mr.. Danforth to credit
In his account the pyment made In Pnlade-
pha Induced Nr VITO have AN examination
M de Of his New York books when II was
found that Mr.. Danforth h d failed to credit
m his iccount payments made to him In
!. at In. a -
the S.6iA., credited bv him, the amount
should have been increased more than a
thousand dollars beyond thut sum. Mr. Dan
forth was Immediately notified of his failure to
cr' at these various sums IA his account which
were payments made directly TO him as Mr..
whitney AT orney and counsel; aud IL
seemed to he "A large dtscrep iucy. even IN
the accounts II LAWYER. Numerous letters
we're written, ana several telegrams were
sent to MIR. DanfOrtn req ies.ing hin to
refund this IN uey, when lie made no pre-
| tence int he had any risht to, and which he 80
| uuJustly withheld but no response to either
letters or tcle9rams could be elected from him,
| Mr. Ddnfortn IA the While maintaining un-
| hr. whitney had vouchers which were
S pn' '4H MS: '"0T nr %nd' he cco a1i
slowed tue utmost limit of his eli irses Tor all
possible expenses and service IN the suis. 1t
secWed 60 ue his c,esr aud plain duly to refund
the excess OF payments, beNOhd what he hal at
| tempted To show. or could by any possibility
| show that he was entitled to. aud Mr..
D.niOrtn. refusing to make anv cxpianai ion
! or answer any letters or tele9rnms on the
/ ID l.
! les TIE ueard from MIN Ia he souaUle time he
Sd uld ri"ce the acc luut III the hands Of "a law
- go 'Y'l'' ''""' - iNSp"l9' - u duc u
! tuis ietter, ana .r. hlihcy pla ed the account
| in tue hands a. kuber, II. ~trtuan, ESQ. Tor
| collection. Mr.. Strtndu wrote 90 Mr. D,nfurth
oi thi, Tact expressing the hope that tue matter
could pc ARRANGED uy cDrrcsuUndenCc. Hut Mr.
Dauturth did not even answer A,r, Strahau's let
| ter. and ma ~ sutt WAS commenced against Mr.
Ddutortn; aud whether IL was his inaliliiy to
| make a reasonable answer To the cOmul ant, or
! his unwiiungncss 10 part with Mr.. Wmtnev's
| Az Dr i4a
possibly hold II, he applied u tue court IN Rocn
| ester Tor two different extensions Of line OF
twenty days each to answer, naking sixty days
| b. fore ne made MS answer lie also applied to
| the court Tor an order 10 change the vi see OF
| ON tie ground that Mr.. hituey was "a non
resident II the SITE OF New YORK.
At TINS juncture Mr. Muitney discontinued
| the suit, snd os-igned the cilin to Mr.. l.. B
whitney, VINO brought an acion ia his own
name, tho complaint in winch was identical
with tue Others verbatim.
MIR. DaniOrtE, on the twentieth day. obtained
| from the Court another extension of twenty
| daN-' mahiug forty days time 10 answer IN TINS
{ .se Wuen lie put In AN answer identical with
his answer ~ tne other suit
Thus driven To- explanation, Mr.. Danf0rth de-
ci1ed to defend the suit ana Try ~ keep the
money.
The Hon. stephen ". Fullerton was appointed
referee IL tue c,se. lhree hearing, we're mad
before tue ref rec. MIR. Danforth appearing IN
person with his counsel Air. STAR. and Mr.
whitney with Mr.. strahau, at cacn sitting. The
referee listened carefully TO the statements and
testimony ol botn parties, aud written argu-
forth and Mr. S,rdhan.
GA the 2dth August 1870, Mr. Dlnforth wrote
to MIR. Strahan, .ylng he had been informed
tndt Judge Fullerton had decided the case
against him, ana said, " The question Il one that
cannot be reviewed. and that he would pay the
amount III a few days, and sad there would Ue
no occ sion for entering judgment against aim.
Mir. Dsnlorth did pay tue amount, principal,
interest, aud costs 10 MIR. StrAhan on or about
the itn Of september last.
Before learning OH Ially what the referees
decision would be, Mr. Danfurth received the
nomination Tor u nisn office in the gitt OF the
people Il the Stt'e 81 New Nur, and this, It j.
believed, induced MN 10 hasten 10 uaN tue
amount found ~ inst nim without makiug any
more putlc record Of the Sc.
Ihis Is "a correct statement substantially. 0 (
the ca1e. L.. ID. WHITNEY,
loO Fifth avenue, New York, Oct. 20, 1916
"Pcacc on Enrth-t'0Od wa to Mcn."-Not
10 be Caught BY Chnn.