Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1883-09-20
REPUBLICAN INFAMY.
Another of the Foraker "Ben Abou's"
FalschOodS
Shown to be a Shameless Fabrication.
A Striking illustration of Fosters
Campaign of Lying.

COl. ben ADOu' Lakes letters To the
Commercial Gazette appeared in the
Toledo Blade of August 29th, with ed
itorial comments pointing to it as anoth-
er illustration of the manner in which
Judge Owen 'despoiled those who were
so unfortunate rs to become his clients"
and, as an illustration of Judge Owens
"open conversion of his clients money
to his own use :"
"BEN ABOU'S" FAISEHoOD.
Midway in the sixties William S.
Lewis became Sheriff fof Williams coun-
ty. He was one of those big hearted,
loose handed men, who invariably make
a muddle of business from lack of pre-
cision of detail. Among the business
transacted by him was the sale of the
real estate oil Henry Miller, deceased, so
that the heirs might have partition.
The sale amounted to some $4,000.
Among the heirs We're Mrs. Iavinia J.
Fetterhoof and Mrs. Myers. Selwyn
n. Owen, now Democratic candidate
for Supreme Judge, was their attorney.
They were each entitled to one-eighth
of the proceeds of the sale. As there
were deferred payments and interest, it
was some time before the last pay
ments were reached.
"In 1873 Mesdames Fetterhoof and
Myers made a demand of Lewis forS134
each, as q final settlement. Lewis
claimed to have paid the money to
Owen, and to hold his receipt, but un-
fortunately could not lay his hands on
the receipt. 1t was to be presumed that
an attorney Of such high character as to
aspire to the Supreme Bench would
have all his business in such order that
he could rely on his books to tell him
the truth.
"WhateVer Ovens books told him he
denied having been paid the money,
and brought suit for his clients against
Lewis and his bond to recover the
amount named. Lewis was pretty near
in hole, but by another and more care
full search he discovered the receipt in
question, displayed it before the aston
ished and confounded attorney, and
triumphantly secured dismissal of the
cases of FetterhOOf VS.. Lewis and Myers
vs.. Lewis on PLAINTIFFS motion at plain
tiff's cost. This shows more daring au-
dacity and less senuous craft than any
other stories. None of the rest accuse
him of any such open conversion of his
clients money to his own use as this"
The following reply to the above was
sent to the Toledo Blade, but up to the
present writing has not been noticed in
the columns of that paper:
STATEMENT py A pppr-p11c,x
n. ,.' - : ~ i'i1- : D',,oAH. w..
,,,.. Dh1 M an, w., oepl. ~, 1905.
A1IiIoi t ioie,,o tl hee'eee:
l. nave seell Ine foregoing statement
"y correspondent oi tne CINCINNATI
~ u','ie., With "ppears WIN c0illihents 20,
mpnt is so nntrna in aIorv ,artin,ior
and so uniust to Iudno Eu;on tLot
hope you will publish this statement:
am and have been for more than %
years the husband OF Lavlnla }. Fetter-
moor, named IN the article, and know all
ABOUT the cases mentioned. Elon Lam
gel, Esq, then an attorney OF this coun-
ty, was the attorney who procured the
partition of the Miller land. Owen had
n0th5l,g tohdteUer to do in the matter.
When the cases We're brought against
Lewis, Fisher y Smith were the only
attorneys for my wife and her sister,
Mrs. Myers. Pratt Il Cowen were the
only attorneys for Lewis. Owen had
aothGn9 to d0 with either case.
ihe 1 o. Ga9es . were nos GlsillSsed oy the
lH;'i, ''iilUiit nuU LEWIS Pui't 'he money 10
,ttornaVs, fnos1 % to NV ,,ieS ;yit t"'a d ~ iess
Myers. From first to 1oet Ownn 9; In3;
9ofhino fo Io ;rjtb the coses or" or ,v%pt1 TTu
rTE M0NEv ~ '' VI Win
I am a Ronublicon h,+ T l,o,,, M
,ooson whv should not E stoto HhoT tho e, ao
,bout this mottar '' '''''' '''e i''''
THos T Frrrrp,5oov
,.r - i'l'-ioi'
'iAlhNhNI of AN ATTORNEY IN THE
CASE
BRYAN w., sept. 10, 1858.
Because it is the truth, | cheerfully
'ay | was a member of the firm of Fish
II X Smith, attorneys, named above. I
know that Owen had nothing to do
With the cases or with the money sued
or III them, and that no such thing as
$ stated in the Commercial Gazette con-
'ernlng receipts erer occurred, nor any
'hlng that could furnish q basis for the
tt, 'aatellleli.. LEWIS palu the money on
" oa VI 'lle tases 70 our trh' ana
,ppears of record in conrt here % ''''' 90
N>', pm rr,,e, c,,,r,,
~ '0-. -
CERTIFICATE OF Ihh CLERK OF THE
eo'hr.
4avlna j. tetterhoOf, plaintiff, V. VIM.
5. Lewis ct al, defendants.
1916. Civil action.