The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-07-12
From the RepubLican.

4
connection Herewith. 1t seems that
Mr. Howard sWears one way and
Judge Cunningham another. kfr. /
Howard was hurt. He ought to know
who hurt him when he was looking
right at The man who struck the blow. |
The technical point that the BUSH
ness was carried ON in the name of
Mrs. Howard. and that Mr.. Howard
was never thrown into bankruptcy at
all, is not well taken, if we con-
slider the religiously accepted theory
that man and his wife ale one. Not
withstanding the affidavit of Mr.. Cum
bingham and the showing he makes,
we still adhere to the declaration we
made that the affidavit of Mr.. Howard
''has never been denied in any authOri-
tative way Before the bar of public
opinion a man can'tplead the techni-
calities that frequently defeat justice
before court; and, therefore, the plea
that Mrs. Howard and not Mr.. How
ard WAS tue legal head of the business
involved. is not good grounds for Mr.
Cunningham to base his affidavit upon,
when il is known that Mr.. How
ard managed the business. Mr.. C..
might swear that the allegations in
Howard'S affidavit were false. shielding
himself under legal technicality, but
we leave it to the reader to judge
whether, as matter of justice, MIR.
Howard has not good cause of COM
plant when he considered Mr.. C. his
attorney, or, in strictly legal sense, if
you please, the attorney for his wife.
Taking his action toward Mr.. and
Mrs. Howard, in connection with his
unprofessional conduct in the supreme
court, for which it appears to be true
that he was 'whitewashed"' and his
further action in trying to rob his
client by getting tax deed
OH the land, the title to which
he was employed to defend. all
i'll the same line of treachery, leaves
the weight of testimony against him
as it strikes us. The following ex
plains the action of the court in rep
rimanding him and then ''whitewash
ing" him over. which in effect says
| lyon must not do it again" or we viii
disbar you. The action of the
court in regard to the tag deed is, also
herewith presented.
From the case of Farlin VS.. Sock re
ported in 20 Kansas. at page S97, il
appears, that r. w Cunningham be
gan said suit for the plaintiff, in Chase
county, and was defeated in the dis
trict court, and got leave to make 1
case for the supreme court within six
-ty days; said case was then to bt
served upon the opposite party. whC
was given twenty days after service
to examine it and suggest amend
merits thereto, and then it was to bC
presented to the court for final settle
ment and authorization. Cunning
ham instead of serving said case made
upon the defendants attorney, as il
the universal rule among attorneys
went to the defendant himself and OBJ
| tanned from him an acknowledgment
of service, written on a separate piece
of ,per, and retained by Cunning
ham.
On March 18th, three days after TIN
time for serving said made case haC
expired, Cunningham presented sale
case to the defendants attorney, ant
asked him to accept service thereof
Said attorney did not know of the ser
vice upon his client and Cunningham
said nothing about it. Said attope.
told Cunningham that he was out q
time, and his case, for that reason
was nudity, and he ha'
no suggestions to make, and withOu
examining said case, accepted service
When the case was called in the sU
preme court, the defendant moved
dismiss for the reason that said mad
case was nullity. Then for the frs
time Cunningham produced the pape
he obtained from the defendant. Thi
paper had the effect to hold the case il
court just as it had been prepared b
Cunningham, without the other sid
having examined it, and whether
was true or not, is known to Cunning
ham only. Cunningham did not den
these facts i'll the supreme court. Th
defendant asked that the case be dis
missed because the settlement
of the case made had been fraudU
lently procured. Cunningham claim
ed that he was the attorney for tn
plaintiff, and that whatever act c
bad faith may have existed betwee
himself and the defendant, that b
was individually accountable for it an
not his client, and that his client ougt
not to be made to suffer for it. Upo
this the supreme court says:
This may relieve the plaintiff hin
: self from any imputatiGn of miscOI
l duct, but we hardly think 1t places hi
! attorney in an enviable situs
ton. Indeed in whatever a:
pect we may view the conduC
1 of the plaintiffs attorney (Cunnin,
ham), We hardly think il can he Col
sidered AS Commensurate. Such euI
duct is rare. and very rare amnn3 l.
gal gentlemen who take pride in the
profession.
The case was revised AMI sent baC
, for trial, and WIS again taken to IL
supreme count and Is reported
30 Kaus.. t,a.e 4nI. Upon the hed
ing of this case Cunningham pteseIiJt
tn the sut RENE court statements an
letters frrm attorne1s aid others ~
= asked the su,hvIt'e cuuIt iu lake hA'
their former criticism AID in III
, opinion the court again ealio sttrnti,
: to the matter as follows:
This case has hcen once before III
D court. at that time we felt GALE
upon to auilnadycTt GIioH /! Z Condut
1 -. II a AZ
did so reluctantly, but because undt
the circumstances we felt it our dut
! to do SO. The learned counsel fee
hurt by our criticism. and i'll conUet
t ton with the present presentation {
, the case calls our a1teQtion to the ma
ter, and earnestly insists that he va
wTonged by such criticism, Couple
D with his own statements are preSente
! the statements and suggestions
other counsel from that district, SON
. of whom are familiar with the facts Z
they really existed.