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

May g. 1871 tho said Alexander stewart adj
mitted TO various parties the employment Of
Claimed that July IL. 1878. Kneeand wrote &c to
Mr. Chapman informing tho latter that suit Ind
1878. Kneeiand again wrote to Mr. Chapman
enclosing copy OF the summons and CONF
plant Mr.. Chapman then testnes that he read
both letters and the summons and complaint TO
been done. aud ratified the same Direc!ed as
tho line Of proof is. to transactions and inter-
views before suit brought. and those occurring
after II had been commenced. tho same order
Did Knceland WRIT on tho 9th day Of June.
1876, to the plaintiff. Alexander Stewart. for au-
thority to use his name 2 The fact that be did
BY Mr.. KnsSland himself, BY Mr, Chapman. Who
Stewart and his son Robert. by tile letter OF
Chapman TO Kneeland Of the date az July g.
Stewart SnG his SON o5e have Just bTons6t
AFFIDAVIT. Of Mr.. Henry II. Armsden. who de-
land TO. Stewart was shown to him In August.
1876. IN regard TO the letter which Armsd?n
the AFFIDAVIT ns one that purported TO be in
replyto one or moro that had been written to
said kneeland from said Stewart. or some one
one. the existence Of which is in dispute. was a
volunteer letter from knecland TO Stewart sug-
the latter 10 Judge Hilton, which appeared in
the Ne,c York Herald. On the other hand. Mr.,
hlPAuuuef NlcWNFts Ills WHO. ana tue members
OF his family deny the reception, OF my letter
Whatever from Kneeland. II such n letter had
been sent. and received by stewart 1t Is impos-
sihle 10 conceive that IL would not have been the
subject Of conversation In his household. and II
TINT letter had resulted in the formal au-
thority to Chapman and knecand to COM
mence an action in his name. then when
tho otter OF June II. 1873. was sent By kneeland
20 Chapman, and the extract therefrom stating
the commencement OF the action. given 10 him
Stewart and when also that OF Aug. 10. 1873,
was received enclosing tho copy OF summons
and complaint, 1t Is impossible to conceive that
Mr.. Stewart would be going from one man TO
another. exhibiting the extracts from the letter
m SSTp m Psoa ana ana aSI
knowledge upon tho subject All this. he un-
doubtcdly did do. rs Is abundantly proved by
acter. The evidence upon the point will DO
referred to hereafter in the discussion OF the
question. whether Stewart. after the action was
commenced. formally assented 10 and adopted
II We are now dealing with the problem OF
an an original employment in 1876. and in solving
Kncelnnd on June Q. 1876 wrote to Stewart for
authority TO mako him plaintiff in the suit to be
gave the consent asked for. Granting. for the
sake OF argument. that Kneeland wrote the
letter Of June Q. 1876. and that Stewart received
Y the Important tact still remains 20 be afilrmg-
lively shown that Stewart gave TO II a favorable
response, one which would authorize not only
an examination OF his claims. but a formal
power TO enforce them by suit. In determining
this point we, naturally turn TO the letter Of
1876. claimed to be an answer written at
Stewards request TO tho Communication Of
I K9celnnd Of June .; 1870 II Stewart
that otter have so o" deciSreSY Not OS word u" Of
the late Alexander T. Stewart is given. and he
Is several times styled our client" but not
single word about the commencement of any
action can be found therein. Tho expression.
our client" could properly Ice used II n suit
had not been detcrmined upon and the whole
the letter to Mr.. Chapman's version OF tho in
terview, which produced IT, IA contained in his
affidavit Of sept q. 1873, the same absence OF
any direct authority 70 commence a suit is con-
spicuous In that AFFIDAVIT. after stating the
ert. mud tho exhibition Of tho Kneeland letter.
he thus states the interview: They both
wished me TO answer kneeland's letter. lis
from his llps. in tho letter TO Kneeland which
"a attached to his deposition herein, dated July
wanted | should help him get his rights in
wy4n ne Gned laEgc properly and said that
staT sh9Sd ib be Te pgd Aer writing
book: July 6. 1876. Robert G. Stewart and his
father, debtor 70 time and consultation and
yard said Alexander has often talked with mo
about his claims as heir TO the large estate. and
was ALWAYS induiring how the matter was going
on. did not make any further charges against
nm Th s1 next event IN order was the letter OF
otter Of july g. 1916 is from lawyer err" 10 "a"
Spouse, TO ono asking, for power 70 do
writer OF letter. who knows that tho point in
controversy is the direct authority 10 commence
an action. IL such authority was given II
should have been given IN plain words. and II
Intended 20 be expressed by the phrase our
client the counsel failed so 10 say in the letter
which he wrote though therein. ms he swears.
he states the old mans story rs II fell from
his lips. md in the AFFIDAVIT which he has made.
the Interview Of July G. 1876 A. to confer
authority 70 bring an action. and he sweare. in
TetIlfetad by Stewart In direct = II kupNlnnl
an attorney Of said city. 20 take such stops us
he should soc IL 70 procure his part OF the
letter written July g. 1876. which purports to
give all that Mr.. Stewart said. and a detailed
version of that interview in a subsequent afil-
onvlt. that no authority 10 commence an action
was conferred. There was, II Chapman's state
ment Is true. general conference upon the
matter. enough said TO enable Chapman TO
speak Of him ms our client" but no author
izaton OF the use Of name as plaintiff in any
SUIT or proceeding 10 be Instituted. IL there
was some conversation about Stewards right TO
share In the estate OF a New York merchant
| held a. early rs tho year 1875. in view Of the
fiat denial by Stewart and all his family of any
| actual authority conferred to institute n suit
and moro especially on account Of tho re-
peated declarations which he made to many
persons after tho suit was commenced. and at
| date when he had not been brought in con-
| tact with Judge Hilton or any Of his friends
| tina; he had not authorized any. 1t is impossible
| Tor mo To ludirially hold that authority to
| bring an action was given prior 10 the institu-
| ton thereof.
| Tho next question Is has Alexander Stewart.
| since the suit was actually begun. adopted IT, as
| ono authorized by him2 The answer 10 this
also depends largely upon the evidence Of Mr.
| Chapman. The testimony on this point begins
with letter from kneeand to Chapman. dated
| July H. 1873, relating in part TO private bust
| ness between them. but also containing this
| clause, Your client Alexander Stewart. heads
the list Of plaintiffs in my partition suit against
| the Stewart estate. don't know that he can be
| proved an Il, ir. but his name makes him q con-
| venient ngurchead' Mr.. Chapman says that
he copied this extract from the letter, with few
additional lines. and TINT he read this para
graph fully and clearly To him. Ho was
| delighted that the suit was going on.
and said that II would stick by him
and get his rights. ] should be- we'll paid"
| Mr., Stewart says that when the extract WINS
| given him. ItOok the writing home. and. being
| unable To- read IT, handed II to my daughter.
| and she read it TO me. and was mad" &c. As
| TO which is the more natural story. that he was
| delighted" or mad " on being called q" a con-
| vonient ngurehead,' does not require much
| argument. Mary Stewart, the wife ~ AeXan-
| der. and isabella Jcffs, daughter. both testify
| that when the extract was read mt homo Mr..
| Stewart directly and fatty repudiated the suit.
| EX-Gov Rylnnd Fletcher also deposes that in
| July last he tStewarU showed mo n paper which
| purported To bo an extract of n letter from
| s. +, kneeland 10 Clark II. Chapman, and said
| 70 me Mt tho time that he knew nothing OF this.
| don't know what II means, | have received
| this paper from Chapman" Henry A. Fletcher.
| a son OF the Governor, testiiles to similar in