The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-12-25

witness thon read the document, and after some
conyersntion about the need Of Stewards going
| to New York, Stewart further said: did not
know anything about all this. What does II
| mean 2 did not know ANYTHING about il until
Clark H. Chapman handed me this have
| mere an extract written on n piece OF pa
witness then states the exhibition to him
| Of the extract from tho letter Of July IL. 1878.
| Is not the weight OF tho evidence upon this
point also, against Mr.. Chapman? II the sum
and Mr. Stewart satisfied and pleased. Why did
he seek information from SO many and various
personsi and why did he wish TO employ and
/ retain Mr.. Walker ms his counsel. ns the latter
his rights, and satisfied with the counsel in
| he seeking for information from his neighbors
us to the contents OF papers already explained
| legal talent 9t hcavy expense Controdicted
| by Stewart, the wife, and daughter. and by the
events which there occurred am gnpreparedd
| TO hold that Mr.. Stewart ratified and confirmed
tho suit. In reaching this conclusion MI tho
| evidence has not been ndverted to. Reference
Lewis, b, Gastin Jayne. Robert Elton. Mary
| missions by both Kneeand and CHAPMAN that
| they had not been employed nor TO that Of
| William II. Walker, Bush. Johnston and 9th
Grs; wil9 tcstiy 10 conVSrshonS wtn stewart.
| recognized an employment OF kueelqnd and
chapman Tor some purposes. II would be i'm.
| within reasonable limits. to discuss every par
4 ticle OF evidence contained in papers nu-
|
| Tho leading points. rs they seem to me have
| been commented upon, and the conclusion of
whatever Mr.. Chapman may have supposed Tres was
| the extent OF tho power conferred upon him,
and whatever conversations md talks may have
| supposed heir OF Alexander 7. Stewart de-
ccased q suit in his name was mover authorized,
nor ono brought without his knowledge ratified
We are now brought to the last question
| which this motion presents. and That is, assum;
| Chapman. has their conduct In the MANAGE
ment Of the interests claimed to have been COM
| the Court In permitting Mr.. Knccland, the at
| torney. who appears therein. to further occupy
| that position. II needs no authority to provo
that the Court has the power which is INVOKED
| It's doors are open 10 oil sutors who seek JUS
| tice by honest and honorable means; hut II can
not. and will not allow its process and powers
| to be invoked either for dishonorable and un-
| Just ends. nor IL. machinery kept IN. motion by
tins in this action have claims. which they deem
| Just and honest upon the Stewart estate, they
| may select their own attorneys TO enforce them:
but such attorneys in their presentation must
| not seek TO impose upon the Court. nor use its
powers 70 accomplish their purposes BY wicked
its own honor and dignity. will either on its
own motion, or at the instance OF the party, who
employed the attorneys remove them from
In considering the conduct Of. Mr.. Kneeland
| In the management OF the suit which he has in
stltuted, the fact cannot be overlooked that he
| has wlliully made amisstatement In tho body of
plaintfrs' Ann Jane Bailey. To verify His own WIN
AFFIDAVIT comedies that the .resldence Of Alex
ander Stewart was stated rs In whitehall. In the
| State OF New York. purposely to avoid motion
reason which. induced the false statemen, was
plaintiff. was resident Of this State. but tho
false statement Is very slgnincant as TO NE
suit TO q successful issue. Explain. as in
| genious counsel have attempted TO do. such con
| duct. the fact remains that nm attorney Of this
| Court. charged with most important suit. II IL
| hns any basis whatever. undertook to deceive
| his opponent and the Court alike upon r matter
ministration OF Justice as he supposed. be ma
| terial, and permitted his client 10 verify tho
| complaint which contained the fasenood by
him knowingly inserted. For such an net ms
this 1t would be entirely potent for the Court
TO grant this motion. Though tho attorney
deemed his cause to be just he had no right. by
a wilfuy false statement Of a fact in plead
ing, 70 seek to attain any advantage whatever.
and II the Court should arrest his further pro;
codurc in the cause for that act alone II would
| not be an unreasonable exercise OF its power in
behalf Of its own dignity and the purity Of its
own Officers. The act was plainly misconduct
in his office rs an attorney for which kneeland
could DO punished and the adoption thereof by
dscloses he observed i, by not insisting upon
the correction of the wilful untruth. makes him
Passing however. from the point Just made,
the good faith Of the suit. and tho modes and
| methods relied upon for SUCCESS will now DO
considered. In his letter to Kneeiand Of July
| 6. 1876. the first written, and the one claimed
to be !he G1t90ry for the , 1G NJ Chapman
| something in II, this claim Of our client 10 n
cousinship to The dead New Yorker. But very
| much doubt IL tho heirs can set aside the will.
And yet no mortal or divinity can guess what
a New, York jury would do; A Detroit Jury dis
Michigan millionaire. and so forced n settle
| ment, by which the heirs got n slice and 1t Is
possible the Manufacturers might 20 and do
likewise" This letter is remarkable for lis nj.
| missions Mr.: Chapman very much " doubted
a NJ hall N thn ~ hn fsl
| he claims he was authorized 10 empower Knee
land TO bring. yet. relying. upon the ignorance
| thinks n disagreement " Ia possible" and thus
a settlement may be forced" Comment upon
| such confessions Ia useless. No standard Of
professional ethics yet established would Justify
| asuit with such views OF its integrity and such
Ii may he argued however. that Mr.. Kneeland
| entered upon the action with no such thoughts
| Untorunatey the evidence IL very clear that
he did. Mr.; Robert Fition OF Cayendish. in the
county Of Windsor and State Of Vermont. who.
in April. 1878. was connded 10y Chapman with
Knceland tcstihes that he saw Kneeland in
New York and after Obtaining a new note from
him, was ntrusted by Kneeland with Il message
10 Chapman. That message. TO insure accu-
racy in its delivery. was written down by Elton
It's substnntial accuracy IS not denied by Knee
that In a few days shall be ready 10 move on
the Stewart estnte. and that there II money IN
II for him and me. that tho Stewart estate did
not want TO be sued. and that Judge Hilton
would pay well not TO be moested in his prop
erty. Wnlcn ne knew ala not belong 10 MN. ana
that every suit or move made him blue. md
that all they had to do WIS TO sue and see him
squirm. and that he would pay well to go, rid "
a suit against the estate. He also told me TO
tell MrChapman. ~ max the suit more secure.
he would swear that Alexander Stewards res
idenco was in Whitehall. New York instead Of
| proctorsvic. Vermont as II would be better To-
have II appear that Mr.. Stewart was New
Yorker. and thar by SO doing thoy would not
have 10 give security for costs" This message
was communicated to Chapman, who very
prudentlY, requested Elton TO say nothing
about II.
On July H. 1873 Kneoland wrote to Chap
man; Your client, Alexander Stewart heads
the list OF plaintiffs IN my partition suit against
the Stewart estate. don't know that no can hc
proved m heir but his name makes him con-
venient flgurehead.'
From these letters and the verbal message il
Is clear that both Knecland and Chapman had
no faith in the Justice of their cause; their
hopes were In the fears OF their. opponents and
n possible disagreement 81 the Jury which
would force settlement. About this there can
he no mistake ms the evidence is furnished by
Themselves Now what next was done? Mr..
Pryce Lewis. u New York detective. after con-
siderable search. found Stewart and brought
him to New York. This occurred early I'm Sop
tembcr. kneeand, having learned from Chap
man that Stewart was in care of Lewis under
| tho nnme OF Brown. sought interview and