National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-02-07
THE STRONG CASE.

Arguments by Messrs. Cook and Riddle.
The court, in banc, was occupied yesterday
for the fourth day in hearing the argument in
the cases Of Samuel Strong against the District
Of Columbia which grows out Of the difference
between the amount paid aud claimed for con-
tract work performed by the former. The
audience was large, and among the spectators
was Louis L. Payne, United States District
Attorney for Wyoming. When the court con-
vened It was expected that Hon. Matt Carpen-
ter would take up the argument In behalf Of
tho plaintiff, but it was stated that he was
quite sick, and Colonel William A. Cool; closed
for that side.
He went over the ground thoroughly and
cited numerous authorities to sustain their
view of the case and maintained that fair
legal trial had been had the verdict was just
as far as it went, the amount allowed being
less than they were entitled to, and they ought
not to be compelled 10 60 back aud retry the
cause.
After brief recess the hearing was re-
sumed.
Hon. A. q. Riddle at halfpast one p. m.
commenced the closing argument for the de-
PENDANTS. lie said that he was not q little sur
prised at the comment of General Butler
when he said that there never was such n case
as that before, and he hoped there never would
be another. He could only say that he did not
bring 1t TO the court and had done all he could
to get rid of it. Some singular vicissitudes
had been experienced by the case. There was
a difference of $47 900 between the claim before
the Board of Public Works and the one
brought into court. When it was referred to
the board of audit they reported $4,000 as the
difference for settlement.
The auditor of the court reported 100000.
The Justice presiding at the trial in the Cir
cult Court did what he could, In decent way,
In fol q for a
plaintiff in the sum of 100000. and that same
| jury brought in verdict for S133,000. That
was what he called a burlesque trial by jury.
| 1t would not take much time or trouble to
find judicial pretext and authority to upset
this verdict, but the necessities themselves are
sufficient and outcrying that 1t should be set
| aside. 1t had been said repeatedly that they
were trying to cheat good Mr.. Strong, and
came in there for the purpose of cheating him
out of his money. Probably it did look some
thing like it, but he believed that he was
justified in doing anything honorable to defeat
the payment of this claim, even if he did walk
out of court and leave only one counsel to con-
duct the case and preserve the honor of the
bar. Heaven save the mark
He should not go outside the record iu the
case; but for that matter he could not, unless
he went outside the District of Columbia, for
wherever the geographical lines of this terri
tory ran there would be found Strong's claim.
lie nau mauc inc same questions below that
were raised in that court, and it was not his
fault that hecame up. He did not appeal the
case, but the law took it up. He contcnded
that if this claim was referred to the Board OF
Audit under the act Of Congress that the action
there was complete settlement of the case
and must be conclusive. If the court set aside
this judgment lie was content to let the verdict
Sand, for it was then harmless aud the cause
was legally dead. So far rs the protest in re-
card TO receiving the cert hcatps was cOncernc ed
it had no Office to perform, never did have, and
it might properly be considered that accepting
the money destroyed any beneficial effect the
protest might have had for the claimant.
Concluding his argument on this point, the
court adjourned until this morning.