The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-08-06
THE WESTERN UNION.
The Case of r. o. j. Smith Against
That Corporation.

AS the particulars in the above case, re-
ported in our columns yesterday, may be in
teresting to many, we produce them here.
This is bill in equity, commenced in the
U. S. Circuit Court of the Maine District, by
the late T. 0. j. Smith against the Western
Union Telegraph Company in 1875, wherein
he claimed that they should account to him
for large sum said to be due him. Mr.
Smith died in October, 1876, after some testi-
mony had been taken, he being his own
counsel, and Bion Bradbury counsel for the
company. The case being a very complicat-
ed one, and the estate proving insolvent, the
executors, who entered upon their duties in
1877, continued to negotiate with the re-
spondent company through its attorney, with
the hope of effecting an adjustment of the
matters in dispute without the expense incl
dent to such trial, the case being very great
ly complicated and embarrassed by the
death of Mr. Smith, whose testimony as well
as his intimate knowledge of all the facts,
would have been of great service to his own
side. Finally, all the other important mat
tiers having been closed, the executors, in
April, 1885, for the purpose of bringing mat
tiers to a head, filed formal motion for bill
of reviyor, required by the U. S. Court, but
not by the courts of Maine.
On the first of June, Hon. 0. d. Baker,
Attorney General for Maine, appeared in the
ent. In July he filed his plea to the motion,
and Judge Colt directed the plaintiffs to file
their replication in August; but in the
meantime, the executors, Judge Goddard,
Judge Waterman and ID. w. FesSenden,
ESQ.,, clerk of the Court of Alabama Claims.
"a fn fr1 lyn nnf hn nj nd or,
the motion hearing was had Tuesday. 1t
| seems that the grounds of the respondent 5
| plea was that the executors had been guilty
| of larches, in not sooner filing their bill of
| revivOr, and that six years having slipped by
| they were barred by the statute of limita-
ton. The compliments, in their motion be-
| fore coming to their replication retaliated
with a charge of larches on the part of the
respondents in that their attorney failed to
file his plea at the June rule, as REQUIRED by
the 56th rule of the Supreme Court of the
United States. To this respondents attor-
neys replied, first that there was no June
rule, no judge being present to hold court,
and second that there was an understanding
| between Judge Goddard and Mr., Bradbury
that the case should be argued in July, in
| stead of in June To this the compliments
| reJ0lned that the presence of the court was
not essential to a rule day, the clerks office
| being open, and that any misunderstanding
| between the counsel referred simply to the
argument of the question and neither did nor
| was intended to include any waive of legal
| right on the part of the compliments or re-
lease of the respondent company or its attor-
neys from any obligation imposed by a rule
| of the court. The presiding district judge,
Judge Webb, was of the opinion that in
| view of the Importance of the question in
| volving the practice of the court under its
rules, it should be heard and determined by
| the full court, the more so as Mr.. Baker had
in July filed very elaborate brief and ar
gued the same before Judges Colt and Webb
| The court therefore continued the case tC
the. September rules, and also, on the COM
| plainants' motion, extended the time for the
filing of the replication until after the decis
| ion Of the court, upon the motion to strike
| out the respondents plea