, 1876-11-05
LAWENE'S CASE.

To Gs Editor of The TF1b7tne
CHICAGO, Nov. TN to-day's TRIBUNE Is
published an article headed "Ex-Ald. Ntzger-
aid, and What It Costs to Sue Him." This con-
tains number OF very material errors, and as
they misrepresent to my detrimens the facts OF
my connection With the case Of Mr.. Lawene, l
ask for the publication Of this statement When
h1r. Lawcpe engaged me in Sept, 1879, to
prosecute his case against Fitzgerald, he stated
be had obtained a Judgment against him in 1873
before Justice Boyden; that defendant bad taken
an appeal before the Justice, but that 1t had
never been carried up to the upper Court. He
engaged me to perfect the appeal, and have 1t
docketed in the Circuit Court. He wished me
to bring it to as speedy trial as possible, watch
to trial. At this time there was no consnlta-
tion on the merits OF the suit as tried before
Boyden. a1y duties we're simply to see
that speedy trial was had asked
him for lee Of $40, told him he would have TO
advance $3.50 for Clerk Of Court for fee to
docket case and for rule to refund, and s1.50,
also to Court, to enter his appearance IN the
sut-SS in oil. He couldn't pay me the fee OF
$40, but did pay IS, together with the - to
cover costs above It was understood Was to
up the balance Of my fec. had his case dock
eted, and thereafter regularly noticed It for
trial, and frequently advised him through the
POST Office OF its approach to trial. In due
LIME II was C1lIGQ. Ou LnR LElal IL HAo eAUHu
that the suit was brought under the mechanics
lien Law Of 1871, which required that employees
Of sub-contractors should bring suit against the
owner and sub-contractor Jointly. Iawene
and Burns took the Job to do work on titz's
house from Neil, the contractor OF Fitz, and
under the law they should have sued Neil and
Judge judi Bh Both It it, was as she shown that the
original summons was against Fitz alone
Nell had not been joined, nor sued at Ill. This
was an error, and fatal one. The article am
replying to SAYS Lawene sued. both Fitz and
Neil before Boyden, and that Fitz appeared and
not sued. This error preceded my connection
with the case, and, supposing the case to be all
right, as Judgment had been given for plaintiffs
below, ! had omitted to either 60 mfnutely into
the evidence of the previous trial or examine
the summons. The article am commenting
on states the suit was entered by my instruc-
tions against Fitz only, gave no instructions
whatever. The Clerk Of the upper Court
dockets appeal cases by the same names as
are shown to have been the parties below, 8nd
in this case docketed this suit against Ftz alone.
suit The article states when this error was
discovered had nothing to say for myself. 1 |
did say that the error Wns not OF my making,
and this said to the Court and to Lawene: |
81 am willing to shoulder blundcrs Of my own,
but not those OF Others" and this blunder only |
appeared in the course Of this trial before Judge
Booth, but it went back to the original COM
Of the suit, long before had any |
connection with it.
fortunate ending Of his suit, and, in all my re-
}ations with him, have been free from any error, |
mistake, or ignorance Of my business.
GEORGE " KNOX.