The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1890-02-22

Judge Evans, as to his alleged advice
10 Funk not TO employ counsel, said
he told Funk that the administrator
might need one, but that at that time
(day after Armstrong was appointed
II was not necessary for either TO have
one.
Mr.. Mayo then offered a deposition
| by Mrs. Shaw tending TO saow that
she knew Sis Reddick had employed
Evans. IL was ruled out as lncompe-
! tent.
Mary O'DOnnell, servant in VIM.
Reddick's family from 1850 until Ss's
death, was called. 1t was endeavored
To prove by her that she knew Sis had
made contract with Evans to settle
the case. 1t was ruled out.
REBUTTAL.
John Funk was recalled on rcbuttal.
Said Evans never told me before the
will case was settled that he had been
employed by Sis Reddick. never told
Evans | knew Of such contract. On
the crOss-eyaminaton he said, Evans,
on March II, told Inc he had acted as
her attorney, and that | ought to pay
him $500. saying she had agreed to pay
So, 900.
ID. A. Cook said that he had con-
versation with G. w. Armstrong
shortly after the settlement on March
10, in which Armstrong said in sub
stance that he had heard that Funk
had been bled or blackmailed out Of
81, 800, and that he was determined to
find out who got the money: and that
few days after, Armstrong, in reply
to his question, said that he found out
to whom the money was paid and that
it came too near home for him to say
TO whom II was paid. Both these con-
yersatiOns occurred very soon after
the settlement-nOt to exceed ten
days after. On cross-eXaminatiOn he
said Armstrong knew Of the pay
ment of $1,000 before July, 1887. Knew
this for the reason that A. consulted
with him Cook about the settlement
frequently, and he Cook insisted on
his AS having Funk agree in writ
ing TO pay his pro rata share before
the settlement money should be paid.
Never had Il conversation with Funk
in my life.
+. G. Swift and Thos. f.. MacKin-
lay both testified that Armstrong had
made to them, individually, SULTAN
italy the same remarks made to Cook
as to the payment 10y Funk; both
stating that the conversations took
place inside Of IA month after the set
Element had been made.
This closed the testimony.
d. b. Snow made the opening argu
ment for plaintiff. He made chiefly
IA review of the testimony offered in
the case, which in his view clearly
entitled Funk to a Judgment.
Hon. Henry MAYO followed Mr..
Snow and reviewed the testimony for
defendant. He said: Funk knew
when he paid the money for what pur-
pose he had paid it, and in 1888 when
Judge Evans said he had claim
against the estate for professional
services, Armstrong said you had bet
ter give him the 800. Funk said, II
don't want to do it: have paid him
enough already" Why should he say
this? 1t has been shown that Evans
and isis Reddick talked over the
matter of a settlement She had
known Evans many years and could
rely on his honesty in giving counsel
she needed in this controversy. Sis
Reddick was anxious for settlement
and said she couldn't live through
trial. The library board have
got the money in their possession, but
they are ungrateful now to the man
who brought about the settlement.
After Funk got $40, 600 and the library
board $l50,O0O, an effort is now being
made to vilify and ruin the character
OF Evans, the man who brought about
the compromise. No man can say but
that Judge Evans did a mighty good
thing for John Funk and for the city
of Ottawa in making a settlement.
John Funk might well say he was
glad to have the matter set
tied, as he is 80, 600 richer by the COM
promise Would John Funk hesitate
to nav 81. 600 il order 70 oet noSSSeSSSio.99