Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-11-30
To the Public.
Have Not Taken the Money.

u pubic WaN ana Ut tuC SGluG LltuC COIIGCt al
impression that appears to exist with a few
persons that the corporation appealed the case
to the Supreme Court, / deem it proper to
say that 1 have not settled nor do l intend to
do so until every loss sustained by myself and
children are fully compensated for as far as a
money Ell award can accomplish that result.
This must surely be the final conclusion of a
stupendous outrage that strikes directly at all
that is dear 10 every citizen of this communi-
ty. The case was appealed to the court OF
last resort in my behalf, and as certain as
night follows day the decision of mat tribu-
nal win be in my favor, and through which l
hope TO have the principles of natural justice
applied to my case. The taxpayers of this
city are undivided in the opinion that the in
terest of all will be best served by observing
o due regard for and carefully protecting the
humblest citizen in the exercise Of just rights.
In my troubles with the city authorities, TO
many Tor q long time lncomprehenslble, but
now understood by all classes, there is a deep
interest manifested, for thinking people who
have interests to protect feel reasonably
alarmed because there as no telling the time
when others may become victims to the same
influences that have brought ruin upon me,
and which has swept away the property of
others who were powerless to protect their
rights. The constant assertions put forward
and impressed upon the minds of my friends
and the public that what | have been after
was the money alleged to be IN the treasury
of the city makes it incumbent upon me to
state that of all the petitions presented by me
and received as information by the present
Council, there is not one that does not con-
tain earnest ~pleadings that an investigation
would be made as to how and in what man
ner a valuable property had been virtually
cOnfscated and my right TO it
or control over it denied and
proposition calculated to accomplish this re-
suit, but all to no purpose. 1 also suggested
than certain citizens, w~ell-knOWn, Capt. w.
w. Gordon. Capt. John Flannery, and Mr.. j.
j. Dale, who were appointed to assess the
value of property in the late burned district,
would be selected to determine all matters at
issue between the city and myself. This prop
OsitiOn was not deemed worthy Of a reply, or
even the consideration of being received, in
the usual manner, Tor information. These
gentlemen, regarded as perfectly competent
to satisfactorily adjust matters involving
the rights of a large number OF citizens, and
at the same time guard the city's interests,
were not. it would appear, to be trusted to
do the right thing between the corporation
and myself, and for the reason that
1t was not desirable that they
shonld become familiar with the
details of the crime of which l complain.
And prior to this effort | suggested the names
of q number of citizens who, by the rectitude
of their private lives, are worthy of respect,
and whose interest in the city's welfare could
not be questioned, and of those mentioned
will name a few from copy OF original CON-
munication now before me. The three gen.
tlemen already alluded to, Mr.. William Hun
ter, the proprietor of this paper, Col. John
Screven, Capt. l.. j.. Gullmartin, Mr.. NJ.
Hamilton, either of the firm of Weed & Corn
well, Mr.. A j. Miller, aud others unnecessary
to mention. My idea was that the city would
select any three of those named, and l would
be concluded by their decision. These prop
~ositions, so reasonable and based upon prin-
ciples resorted to since time out of
mind by the nations of the earth in
the arbitrament of national disputes,
private individuals in the adjustment
of business complications, were not regarded
as of sufficient Importance to merit the slight
est consideration. Such conduct can only be
attributed to a state of things to be deplored,
for it would be quite reasonable to suppose
that Council would be pleased to afford every
facility to the end that a rigid investigation
would be made instead of preventing il, and
thereby become themselves liable to be re-
garded as tit subjects for an investigation and
the unenviable criticism of their fellow citi-
zens, who see through and fully comprehend
the peculiar methods employed Ia dealing
with the rights of those who, owing to supe-
rior influences. become DOwerless to protect
their rights.
Upon the con fusion of the case could have
taken the amount of the judgment. about
$4,000, and my counsel intimated to me that
if 1 could settle with the city authorities, l
might take the fee allowed by the jury, which
was a finding against the city. The sugges-
ton of q settlement, | have reason to believe,
was made upon the idea that in view of all
the facts in the case, the corporation ought to
be more than anxious to add several thousand
dollars to the amount of the judgment, with q
view to compromise. This proposition or sug
gestiOn was intimatcd, presume,
because Of the long and bitter contest
through which l had passed, and
with the hope that a state of things which
would continue 4 severe strain upon my mind
might terminate and so relieve me from a
position most unenviable, and in which | have
been placel for nearly four years, during
which time my situation can only be likened,
and, in fact, but slightly comparable, to the
victim OF the highwayman or midnight
assassin. for the result of sgch agencies of
destruction could be forgotten, but not so the
conduct of the corportIOn of this city.
AS to taking the fee allowed my counsel, if
it was the entire amount of the judgment and
take all or any part of it, for 1t was but a
moderate compensation for the services rem
dered. and if not for circumstances of which
l do not now care to speak double the amount
would have been allowed and also heavy dam
ages to which the jury that determined my
case believed l had an undoubted right, but
that phase of the case being taken from their
consideration they could not carry out their
desire in the matter of damages.
Thai there may be no misapprehension as
to my being in a position to take the amount
of the judgment if | desired to accept it, l
feel justified in citing the following undOubted
authority in proof of the fact and for the
benefit of one at least of the present Council,
who, in his great charity, sand before the trial
nish the bond required.
'GENTLEMEN OF H r In the opinion
of the court the trusteeshIp of Christopher
Murphy did not terminate with the death of
his wife or the sale of this property. He Is,
therefore, still the trustee Of his children, and
as such trustee is entitled to receive and con-
troll whatever may be due this trust estate.
To this extent the decree Of July ], 1881, is
renewable. n. L. ADAMS, Judge.
"Ju1V Is. 1884,"
The decision IN the same court on July /,
1881, it will be understood, was in substance
the same, but in different language:
81 decide in this case that under the deed
from Banks, trustee, to Murphy, trustee, the
trusts are still eXecutory. 1t does not make
any difference that the words in trust are not
"Jaiy1, 1851"
These conclusions of Judge Fleming are
written over his signature, and now in the
keeping of my counsel, andI may add here that
during the argument in the case before Judge
Fleming, if l am justified in honOring the pro-
ceeding with that character, and while an
effort was being made to deprive me of rights
that were mine. the court stated in strong
language that l was the natural and legal
guardian of my children, and entitled
TO control their persons and property.
If this be go, how came the decree and through
whose agency was it obtained? Echo answers,
Mum is the word" But whatever may be the
character of the decree or through whatever
influences obtained, there is some facts in con-
nectiOn with it that must appear strange to
the average mind. and one of which is the
StuDDOfnu6SS WlJu WHICH Tue dtInOflJleS OF Lle
city declined and prevented the facts from
going before the court or concede the right.
much more desirable of an investigation. Had
their conduct IN this respect been different the
result just obtained could have been accom-
plished in those long years at any time, and
an expense Of $500 saved to the taxpayers
of the city, $1,000 interest on money
alleged to be held in the Treasury, and SI,500
elunself fees, besides the cost of court Of a seven
days trial, which cannot be less than $3.50. If
have been pOwerless to get an explanation, is
it not due heavily burdened taxpayers that
they should be enlightened as to the cause for
this expense? $500 means money in these
times, and the people who have to pay it
should be informed as to the cause of their
enable than that this should be done, and l
venture to predict that in the near future this
very reasonable demand will be made by in
terested citizens, and it must be answered in
plain and unamblguOus language.
But to return to the subject of the decree
so remarkable as a legal production: One of
the strangest circumstances connected with it
is its review on the plea that my wife's death
determined my right TO regulate the affairs of
my children, which are now and must remain
inseparab.e from those of my OWE, for in no
part of il is there to be found even a remote
reference to the effect that unfortunate oc-
currence had on my trustee rights, and that
existing rights except to the extent of its
Indebtedness is an enigma hard to solve,
and a decree obtained on that idea
will be as difficult of satisfactory explanation
as its review on a subject upon which it is
silent. 1t is indeed difficult to be patient I'M
der a state OF things l understand so well. and
which is too clear TO my mind (but what can
/ do about it?). 1t Will be in order, however,
in the near future. that l should explain how
the decree was obtained. unless the authOri-