The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-08-05
AN OLD SUIT REVIVED.
A Probability that the Public will Get
Glimpse ofthe Short Cut to Fottune which
Some Lawyers Know How to take.
Nc,rs md Courier.

The c0se OF the State OF South Carolina
against Corbin & Stone, the trial of which
was commenced in the Court of Common
Pleas here to-day, Judge Hudson pre-
siding, promises to he long and interest.
ing. There does not seem to be any very
saDguine hopes of recovering the $28, 900
which the counsel have pocketed in the
way of fees, for the reason that neither of
the defendants are known to have any
thing tangible in the way of assets, but
the pleadings of the evidence will doubt
less throw some light upon what has
heretofore been considered 4 very dark
and mysterious transaction.
THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The suit against Corbn arose upon
the collection by Corbiu & Stone of GER
tain phosphate royalty from the Oak
Point Mines in 1875. Corbin & Stone,
it seems, were employed by the State,
Chamberlain being Governor, to under
take the suit against the company to re-
cover the amount of royalty alleged to
have been due the State. The suit vas
commenced on the 9Th Of July, 1874, and
on The 18th of November they recovered
judgment for S2S, 900, which amount WAS
paid 10 Corbin & Stone by the Oak Point
Mining Company. Out of this amount
the State claims that S3,740 was due to
Corbin g. Stone as counsel fee, and that
the balance, $24,260. belonged 10 the
State. Corbin & Stone. however, paid
to the State treasurer $206.06 and claimed
the balance as their fees. The suit is
therefore brought TO recover S24,053.94,
with interest from the 11th of November,
1874, and cost.
4. The defendants in their answer admit
the receipt of the $4,000, but declare
that Stone retired from the firm in Sep
tember, 1877. They claim that they were
entitled to 624 per cent. of the amount as
counsel fees. This amounts to SIT ,646.90,
to which add s325.50 disbursements, ag.
gregates SIT ,972.66, leaving SIC, ,262.66 to
be accounted for to the State. This
amount, Mr.. Corbin claims, has been &C.
counted for as follows: For legal services
in the Savannah and Charleston Railroad
cases in 1875 lin re. Daniel Handy S1O,-
056.60, leaving balance ofS206.06, which
they say they paid into the State treasury.
The defendants also claim to have
loaned Cardozo, the spurious State treas
urer, in December, 1877, $lS,770, which
was used in paying off the Mackey House
(which elected Corbin to the Senate, for
which he holds the pay certificates of SO
members of the Mackey House and 18
members of the Mackey Senate.
The suit came up regularly for trial in
the court to-day. The State is represen-
ted by the attorney. general, Leroy F.
Youmans, Esq.,, and Mr.. G. r. Miles, of
Charleston, and the defendants by Amos
T. Ackermau, of Georgia, and VIM. E.
Earle, of Greenville.
Mr. Earle did not make his appearance
in court, and Mr.. Corbin stated that he
had received telegram from him stating
that he failed to make connection on the
railroad. He said his case could not 20
on without the presence of his coun.
sci.
The Encouragement said the State
would not take any advantage of the alb.
sence of the counsel, but the State had
two witnesses from Charleston (Messrs.
A. D. Cohen and Henry Buist) who were
compelled by professional engagements
to return to Charleston tonight, and
their testimony was regarded as impor.
tant.
After some consultation it was decided
to begin the case by reading the pleadings,
and the jury was organized after which
motion was formally made to strike out
from the answers and dismiss all the
counter claims set up by the defendants.
The argument on this motion, however,
was postponed until the arrival OF Mr.
Earle.
Mr.. A. d. Cohen was then called as
the first witness for the State. He testi-
fed that be was the reference in the Oak
Point Mines suit alluded to in the plead
ings. The case was heard by witness in
Charleston and he made report as to
the fees of the counsel. In determining
the amount of compensation, he took the
testimony of Messrs. Buist, Magrath, T.
Y. Simons and Simonton. Corbin
& Stone also appeared and made state
ment of their claim against the State, (60
to 65 per cent. of the amount recovered
in the judgment.) The testimony of T.
Y. Simons recommending rs per cent.
also of H. Buist recommending che same
percentage, of G. H. Simonton recon-
mending so per cent. and disbursements,
was read by the witness. The witness al
so read his own report recommending
62l per cent. and the disbursements as
the proper compensation. The only
judment That was brought to the attention
of the referee at that time was decree
for $5,9S4.
A very strenuous objection was raised
here by the defendants attorney, who
claimed that the judgment could not be
explained or proven by parol testimo-
ny.
Judge Hudson ruled that the witness
could not state what amount he had ref
erence to in awarding the percentage un-
less he knew as substantive fact what
amount had been actually collected. If
the plaintiffs desired to prove that there
was decree before that fixing an amount,
they must prove it by the decree itself.
The question was then asked: What
amount nad Deen Corrected at tnat time
Answer, $5,9S4. Witness knew this,
because it was understood by all the ref
erence, that was the amount to which the
percentage had reference. This was the
general understanding at the reference.
The lawyers who testified came at MIR.
Corbin's suggestion and at witness re-
quest. In November, 1875, witness re-
ported that there was $22,O16 due the
State. No reference was had to this in
considering Corbin & Stones percen-
tage.
Cross examined Witness stated that
he did not say whether or not Corbin ac-
tually told him that $5,9S4 was the
amount collected. That was the under
standing upon which Corbin acted. Wit
ness knew the amount that had been ad-
Judged, and Corbn knew that witness
knew it.
Mr.. Henry Buist was next examined.
He testified that he had beed requested
by Mr.. Corbin to give his opinion upon
the subject Of compensation. He had