Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-04
THE BUTLER-STRONG CASE.
Answer Of Defendant to the Motion for
Publication of BroOke's Evidence.

In the case of Gen. Butler against Col Strong,
the contest over fees claimed as counsel pend
ing in the Equity Court, Col Cook this morn
ing filed for the defendant an answer to the
motion for the publication and impounding the
evidence of T. Humphrey Brooke taken in be-
half Of defendant by Examiner Montgomery.
Defendant says he does not object to the pub
hcation for any proper purpose in the case, but
does object for any other and Interior purpose.
That this qualification may be understood he
states that complainant and his solicitors have
been engaged in efforts to have defendant and
some Of his witnesses and attorneys indicted
for perjury. subornation Of perjury and forg-
cry. He says these efforts have been carried
on clandestinely and they have avoided making
any sworn complaint before an officer or court
authorized to receive and hear charges of
crimes; that instead Of pursuing the usual and
open course by preliminary examination they
have placed themselves in secret communica-
ton with the district attorney, who has caused
subpenas to be issued in the case of the United
States against John Doe. All this has been
done while complainant has been allowed one
hundred days to take his testimony, and on
the 25th ultimo he obtained an extension for
twenty days time, and he (defendant) when
complainant concludes, intends to ask few
days for sur-rebuttal
BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.
Defendant says further that it is the inten-
ton Of complainant and Barrett to use the
testimony of Brooke before the grand jury in
their attempt to procure indictments, and be-
cause of these facts he protests against said
evidence being published unless under due and
proper restrictions. He further Gays that the
proceedings before the grand jury are irregular,
improper, unjust, and unlawful, and 80 would
be the use Of parts Of the evidence, and in fact
the use OF the whole, in support Of the ex-parte
proceedings. He says that such action has
been judicially condemned, and while the civil
suit is undetermined for the purpose of effect
ing the civil suit such action is not only in its
Self gross improperly and wrong, but a con-
tempt OF the court in which the case is
pending-the Equity Court. He says further
that he intends to call Brooke in sur-rebuttal
and for this reason the testimony should not
be laid before the grand jury. He cites
similar attempt, in the suit of Shipman against
Fletcher. in which the district attorney refused
to act, and he says that he simply desires to be
treated fairly and justly, and submits that the
evidence should remain in the clerks Office.
AS TO THE ALLEGED FORGERY
OF the $4,000 agreement defendant says he
has maintained the integrity of the paper and
has offered direct and indirect proof of its
genuineness, while complainant has produced
some to the contrary, and these facts are sup
pressed in the motion. The statement that the
evidence shows that Huyck was in Providence
hospital at the date of the agreement he says,
is ex-parte and conclusions are premature un-
til all the evidence is taken.