New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-03-09
LAWYERS OBJECT TO BEING INDICTED.
THE DrsTRIcT-ATToRNEY's vIEws-MoRE WIT.
MISSES SENT TO THE GRAND JURY.

THE DISTRICr-ATToRNEY'e vIEws-MoRE W.T.
NEssEs SENT TO THE GRAND JURY
The attempt to prosecute the lawyers who have
brought suits against the elevated railroads has not
yet been abandoned by tho DstrIctAttorney. Mr.
Fellows was not at HIS Office yesterday, and mono Of
his assistants had authority 10 cease sending witnesses
before tho Grand Jury. Judge GGdersleeve said on
Thursday that he would probably have some nstruc-
tons to give 10 the Grand Jurors yesterday morning
the Grand Jurors had taken their places In the
courtroom, however Judge Glderslceve said " have
determined to delay until Monday morning the giving
OF the instructions had expected TO give to-day.
have received briefs from Of the most eminent
lawyers in the city on the points involved and feel
that mu0t give the questions presented due consder
ton and generalization. You may examine any Wit
nesses who have been summoned, and on Monday
will give you further Instructions
The Grand Jurors retired to their room, and there
we're some lively scenes in the building. Some wit
nesses were In tho room adjoining the Grand Jury
room, and q lawyer interested In some OF the suits
against the elevated roads insisted that persons were
excluded from the RON who desired to mako state
ments before the Grand Jury. Ono lawyer was
anxious to make complaint against Dstrict-Attorney
Fellows for allowing his Office 10 DO improperly used 70
aid rich corporation in preventing the bringing OF
suits against II. It was said that ne succeeded In
entering tho Grand Jury room.
Ex- DlstrictAttorney Peter D. 01ney visited tho
Court Of General Sessions, and many other lawyers
most Of whom appeared behalf Of the attorneys
against whom Il alleged that proceedings had been
begun were In the building They declared that the
construction put upon the law by the DstrictAttor-
ney was altogether wrong They said that suits
against rich corporations could not DO carried on by
poor persons except by an agreement with the law
yes by which nothing should be paid II the case was
not successfully prosecuted. Assistant DisrictAttor-
ney Davis who was in charge Of the Office, explained
Mr. Follows's view. Tho taking of cases. he sald'
on contingent fec by lawyers Is perfectly legal
That question has been decided We assert however,
tia, lawyers who have given an indemnity that thelr
clients shall not BIO called upon TO pay costs u .ne
suits not successfully prosecuted nave
tim and We believe that that Is conSoefauon "lhh
the meaning Of the law -. ,,....-,. ora.R
Mr. paws added that the District-A ttorneys oince
wished 10 mako test case, and he was unaole 20 soo
Why reputable lawyers should OOiect TO oeins prOse-
cut6d IA test case, provided they were eertah
they had done no wrong Tho lawyers VINO ooJecs1sa
10 Indictment, even In order 70 iutnisu tInin ibsr
ne District Attorney, furnished briefs containing Iae
roastruction OF the law to Judge Oiluersleeve
declared that the practice referred TO was almost un
yefsal IN certain classes Of suits sueh a. th
SUITS French spoaiion claims ana JTS .n5 honorG
Collector Some OF tho most reputable ana honDrou
attorneys IN the city were engaged In such cases
The principal representative OF the hAnnaItan To
vnted Hallway this action against me hWSoIs WIZ
snstnrcT Who has been engaged on behalf o. the com
nsnv IN the damage eases. John S. G Bauey law
sr yeprrssuted the Manhattan Company ~ prePellhS
Inc brief which the cases are az rosds
ss cne ~ the witnesses who went before the Sranl
Tn The directors OF tho Manhattan roan lnIeIssuS
themselves IA tho prosecution. wh.h w. elce
through the machinery OF the Dstrie'A'''ri'ss