The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-08-15
LAWYERS. CHARGES.
TROY Press.1

Troy frcSS.J
The Press recently informed its read
ers through special telegram rom
New York of certain high fees charged
AS was there stated, Mr.. H. L. Clinton
charged $25O,O0O. Mr.. Clinton was
attorney in the case, which was we'll
worked up, and probably his bill con-
tains items of money expended by him
for detective service and other matters.
Judge Comstock, of Syracuse, charged
and received $4,000. We learn that
Mr.. Vanderbilt declines to pay Mr..
,ClintOn's tremendous bill, and we don't
blame him, for it is utterly absurd that
any lawyer should receive in one case,
and that only of short duration, a
larger sum than most lawyers make by
q lifetime of hard work and we think
that Judge Comstock (whose bill for
sitting in this case and looking wise
and occasionally arguing a point of
law was very modest in comparison
with Clinton's) has great reason for
commencing Mr.. Vanderbilt's gen.
erosity.
We learn that Mr.. Scott Lord, the
counsel for the contestant of the will,
received 100000. These immense fees
are beyond anything ever known or
heard of, not only in this country but
in foreign lands. The famous lawyers
of England or France have never re-
ceivcd such large sums, even in cases
of much longer continuance. To be
sure, there have been very few if any
cases involving such an immense sum
of money, for thore have been very
foW men in the world worth so much
property as Cornelius Vanderbilt left.
During the entire eight years which
the famous Warren Hastings trial
went on, none of the lawyers received
such heavy fees.
In the even more famous case of
nJarndyce and Jarndycc" the reporter
of that case is silent in regard to the
fees of tho counsel, but we presume
they consumed the estate. Erskine,
tho leader of the English bar in his
time and one of the most brilliant
lawyers Great Britain ever produced,
never received q greater yearly income
than 100000, and not more than
$25, 900 in any one case. Sir James
Scarlet, afterward Lord Abinger, a
very successful lawyer, had an income
certainly not to exceed Erskine's. The
same is true of GarrOws, another great
English lawyer. Ballantyne received
from the British government a very
largo fee for going to Calcutta to try a
murder case, but a large portion of it
was consumed in expenses. America
takes tho lead in big lawyers fees, and
it is only within Il year or SO that our
lawyers have been so lucky.
Pinckney, Webster, Choate, or any
of our great lawyers in times past,
never dreamed of such cxtravagant
bills. Tho first great fee ever known
in this country was received by Hon.
Clarkson N. Potter, in the foreclosure
of tie Canandaigua Railroad, not many
years ago; it is stated that he received
800, 900 in that case. 1t is reported
that Charles O'Conor received $75, 900
in the Jumel will case, and $1OO, 900 in
the Parrish will case. In the latter
case Judge Porter and Daniel Lord re-
ceived large fees. To come to our own
city, which is seldom far behind in
anything, the late Henry Burden paid
his lawyers upward of $75, 900 in tho
famous Spike case, and ex-Chancellor
Walworth, the referee in that case,
received $4,000 referees fees. In the
Marshall will case Townsend & Brown
received $4,000.