The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-06
TWO CANDIDATES In COURT.
Hugh D. McMullen's Conviction of a Dis.
reputable Business Transaction.
How John Il. Sullivan Worked Over Bad But
ter, After It's Rejection, and Sold to the
Insane Hospital-P0litical Notes.
A D1sREPUTABLE TRANSACTION.
A Federal Court Case Which Shows Up

Federal Court Case Which Shows Up q
Democratic Candidate in a Bad Light.
In the records of the federal court, no further
back than 1883, may be found the entry of case
entitled Burbank VS.. McMullen,' and the bit of
history to which it points is very damaging to the
Democratic candidate for Attorney-general, for
the defendant is the same McMullen whose
name appears upon the Democratic State ticket
for that Office. The papers accompanying the
complaint give the story in voluminous detail,
and all the statements are presented in incon-
trovertible form.
Edward w. Burbank, the plaintiff, was resi-
dent of New Orleans where he was engaged in
the wholesale grocery business. Among his
customers was William Maybin, who became IT..
debted to him to the amount of 81. l59. 81, and
afterwards moved from village in Louisiana to
Dearborn county. Indiana. Maybin refused to
discharge his debt, and Burbank employed the
law firm of McMuen & Downey to enter suit
for the recovery of the sum- Their prosecution
of the claim resulted in verdict being rendered
in the Dearborn Circuit Court on
Oct 4, 1881, for the full amount
1881. the complaint charges that McMuen and
Downey without the knowledge or consent of
this plaintiff. and without authority, and in vo
iation of their duty to him, agreed with said
MAY Uln IHdb IL ne WOulu pay TO Jnem Ln6
sum of 1880, they would consent, as the
plaintiffs attorneys to the verdict being set
aside, and judgment entered in said court in
favor of the plaintiff for only $780," Maybin
In the meantime had filed a motion for a new
trial. Burbank was kept in ignorance of the
fact that judgment had been rendered in his
fvaor. In accordance with their agreement with
Maybin, McMullen and his partner appeared in
the Dearborn Circuit Court, and without the
authority of Burbank, procured the rendering
q a y
ST., $50. They received this from May bin,
but accounted for and paid over to Burbank only
500. Through letter to the Dearborn county
clerk Burbank afterwards learned that he had
been given judgment for the full amount. He
was, however, unable to get anything more
than the remittance of 1878 from Mr.. Mullen
and his partner, as they claimed the balance of
the sum was due them for their services. In
consequence suit was instituted against them in
the federal court through Herod & Winter. of
this city, in 1882, for 81, 800.
Among the dispositions on file is one from
Omar T. Roberts, who was judge of the Dear
born court while the Burbank Mayhem suit was
pending. given in the interest of the defendants.
Judge Roberts testified that McAlullen always
appeared in court as the representative of Bur
bank. The deposition of Burbank, besides re-
citing the facts given above, states that Nc
Mullen failed to give proper attention to the
case, and. although four letters addressed
to him between October and the last Of January,
nothing could be learned from him as to what
he was doing in regard to the suit. No in
formation was obtained from him
until after Burbank had directed
another law firm in Aurora, Steadman e Co., to
inquire into the case. The testimony produced
In the federal court fully sustained the com
plant against McMullen and his partner, and
the jury. after short consultation, returned,
on Jan. %, 1885, the following verdict:
We, the jury find for the plaintiff and assess his
damages at 81 ,O61.08.
JOSHUA c. MoKINsTRY, Foreman
The transaction was of such rank character
that Judge Gresham, who was on the bench
when the case was tried, felt moved to denounce
it in open court in the most emphatic language.