New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-12-25


interview by Stewart with him on the same subject
Other witnesses also testify 10 similar statements.
Stewart approved the act. which the letter informed
MIN Of and we now pass to conduct Of Stewart on
was abju, month later, and IN August 1875.
Mr. Chapman says: ~ think gave this complaint 10
him. while IL was IN mis- hands read portions of 1t TO
him. explained TO him that was complaint 10 an
in the Stewart estate in New-York; lie was
very much pleased that Kueeland had commenced ana
him. and Their explanation by Ma. Chapman, Mr. stew
art 6 Ten! Lea. ana saSs and Js took to
Ex-Governor Ryland Fletcher, and wfen she came nome
ae SSa c e a f e e TO- SnS the With me- tie
day Sunday when his son would read IL ior me-
The reason he could not then read 1t was because
stewart thus details his visit TO Goyern1r
both the father and son, also one with
Mrs Thompson aud her husband. Deputy-sherf who
ter Mrs Jetfs again confirm Mr.. stewart That lie Wis
tied Ex-Governor Fletcher aud son TO learn the contents
Thompson deposes the fact that Sunday, August
Is, 1873" stewart called TO see hn. ana sara: t.
Thompson, wish You wonld read this; have shown
It 10 Isabella. and she couldn't read II all or make au
out" The witness then read lAe documents and after
about the need OF stewards going TO
NewlorR. stewart further sad " dld moi hhoM any ny;
know anything about II until Clara II; Chapman rii
handed me this. 1 have here an extract writ
me" The witness theL states the exhibition To him
Of the extract from the letter OF Jny II 1878 Is hot
Mr. Chapman II the SUMMONS and compliant had oeeli
fully explained. and Mr.. stewart satisfied ard pleased,
persons, and why did lie wish 10 employ ana retain MI
Walker his counsel, rs the latter s"eas ne dd
party fully informed To bis rights ald satisfied win
the counsel III whose nHnds he had rrICsed them would
not be seeking for Information from his nelgho- as 70
the contents Of papers already explained AMI uIdr-
STOOD, nor bo Anxious 10 secure new legal talent
at "a heavy expense. COntTadIcied 10y Stewart. the
wife ami daus hcr, and bY the eNo1ts when
there occurred. am unpreparcd TO hold that Mr.
Stewart ruiiiied aud cOuliI neu suit la reaching
conc
Reference has not rcrn made 10 the CYL cDce OF
stewart, isabella Jcs and others stating adi' by
both KUeeand and chapman, that Ihcy had not Dccn
en- IlOyed; nor TO tGat Of william H. Walker, BusD,
johnston and Others who testify tO conversations with
stewart, III which, with more OF l'sH 9lsnclheSs ne
recognized an employ ment 1i kheeiand ana Cnal man
purposes. Ii would b. Impossible, IN du ophnn
which ought 10 be bepL WITHIN reasonable limits 10 dis
cuss every particle of evidence contained IN papers nu
mtlOus ana yOIumlnous Del Ond precedent
cline leading points, as 'LeS 'e.m 70 me, na ave
own Judgment Is reasonably clear, that whatever MI
power conferred upon hn and whatever conversations
and talks may have been held about Alexander Stew
arts lets a supposed heir OF Alexander I. Stewart,
deceased SUIT III his Dalno WAS never authoflAtu;
one brought without his AnoW'e~ge Iailhed ana
We are now brought TO the last que which this
presents and that il. assuming All original Gun
plO ment OF huee"nd and Chapman has their conduct
IN the management Oh the interests claimed 10 nave oeSh
committed 10 their charge been such as To justify the
appears t4crin, further occupy THAI rUsitiOni IL
needs authority To prove that tue Court has the
Ors seek Justice 10y honest and honorable mcans;
but II canuOl will not allow its process and powers
to be Invoked either Tor dishonorabe ana UNJUST cns
nor IT'S ma, nnery Kept In motion by disLOnUrabe anu
unjust means. II the plaintiffs IN TINS action have
CLAIMS, Wulch they deem iust ana honest upon llc
stewart estate, they may select their own attorneys 10
enforce them but such attorneys IN their presentation
pow nov, ~ r. IeI CO. E rorI for its own honor
and dignity, Will either its own motion, OF AT the IA
stance of parry who eJOiDed attorneys remove
them from charge Of he attIon.
I'm cousl1gluE The conduct OF Mr. kneplahd In the
mann cement u The tt winch he has instituted the Lace
cannot be overlooked that ne has wilfuly made
statement IA the body II complaint wmcn he has per-
mtIrd OF the Dia nuns, Ann Jdu, Bailey, 10 NelJ
nm. own hIyi comedies tndt the residence OF Alcxa
der Stewart stated Whitehall, III the STATE OF
ntv for co.ts prob bly, the reason which induced the
false statement unsOund in law, as Ann
Jane Bailey, the cOpalniln resident OF TINS state
tut the ia statement II very significant
which be cd 10 the suit to success
fu Issue. Expain ingenious counsel have Attempted
to do conduct the fact that attorney OF
this court Win most important SUIT, IL has
any whatever undertook 10 deceive his opponent
the Court alike upon matter winch might, Tor GER
Tain purposes Ia tine administrations OfJusce as ne sup
posed, materia aud permitted his client to verify
inserted For such this would he
entirely competent for tue Court TO grant TINS motion
Though the attorney deemed s cause 10 De us ne ad
no night by "a wiiully false statement OF lsct
whatever aud If the Court should arrest his
further procedure IN tho cause ior that act
alone. 1t would not he an unreasonable exercise
OF It's power behalf OF its dignity and the puiity
OF It's own officers. Tue act pialy misconduct In
OiuCB attorney, lOr WHICH huttldnu Cbuu DC
punished, tnu the adOptru thoreo by MI Chapman on
It's discovery, affidavit GiscOses he obserle cd IT,
by not insisting tic correction OF the wiiul un.
truth, makes HIM sHaer IN the sut Justly attached
tOIt
faith Of SUIT the modes aud methods relied npOn
Tor success 81? considered la his letter 10 Knee
ued 10 be the authority for the suit Mr.. Chapman
says: :" am inclined ~ mink there may be something
dead New YORKER Bat rery much doubt u ne heirs
can set aside the piH Aud yet moral dlyniy can
disagrccd on the allowance Of Wards will tthe hichi
gan onare and so forced settlement by which the
heirs got slce and IL 10 possible the Mdnhdt,dnet5
ght gO anu likewise" THIS letter Is remark tbe
for its admissions. MIR. Chapman very much" doubted
IL the will OF hr. stewart could be broken. He DID not
believe In the just OF the suit which he claims he
authorized 10 empower kneeiaud to bring, yet rely
ing upon the ignorance prrjudces Of JurJ o. Man,
haltaners" thinks disagreement us possI6te ANA
thus settlement may be forced" Comment upon such
ethics yet established would justify suit. with such
Il may be- argued however. hat Mr Knee aud entered
upon the acton with no such thoughts Unfortunately
the evidence is very clear nat hc did Mr. Robert FIT
ton OF Cayends IN County Windsor aud state Of
Vermont. wno in April 1873. was eonhded by chap,,
against Kneeland, testlhes that be Kneeland III
Ncw-York, ana after obtaining new note from him
Chapman That message, to insure accuracy accuracy IN
It's delivery was written down by, ftttou uiS
landj, and IL in thee words "1e Chap
that few days snail be ready 20 move on the
Stewart estate, and tnat there money III IL Tor INN
and that the stewart estate dd not want 10 bu sued
Judge liIliOn NOuIu pay NcH De uOtsttu
in his property winch lac knew aid not belong 10 him.
and hat eysIy suit move made him blue, and mat all
taey had do and MIN Hquirm, aud that
lac would pay well To get rid Of suit against the estate"
lie also told tell Mr. Chapman make the SUIT
more secure be would that Alexander Stewards
rosIdeuce Ia Whitehall ~ w. Instead OF PrOctOrs-
vile, VI, II would be better 10 have u
appear that Mr.. Stewart Newly orker,
AID mat by doing they would not have 10
give security for costs" Ibis message COmmunl
Gated TO Chapman, who very prudenty requested
flttOn to say nothing about IL.
On july IL, 1878, hnceiand TO Chapman:
Your client Alexander Stewart heads the list OF Dain-
ts in my partition suit against the Stewart estate.
don't know that he eau be proved heir, but his name
makes him q convenient hgure-heId"
l.tt 1tnaaa II