Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1891-01-19
THAT FEE CASE.
Ex City Attorney McEniry's Views
in The Matter.
A Plain Statement in His own DE.
ference ana the Law stated-A Lit
tie History.

tee of the city council for sllowing
and inserting in the general ordinance,
Mr. Haas bill for services rendered in go.
log up TO Ottawa to oppose a motion
filed by John 7. Kenworthy. Esq. in the
appellate court in the McEniry case. In
the same article, Mr.. Haas in very un-
professional manner. aims to attack Mr..
McEniry and MS course in the matter.
Mr.. McEnIry was found in his office this
morning by an ARGUS Representative, and
when asked about the article he said:
Yes, l read it and was somewhat sur
prised to learn that had been censurinp
the city council for allowing Mr.. Haas his
fees, and Mr.. Haas for presenting his bill,
which l did not, although 1 might have
said the manner in which the bill was
allowed, was sufficient to arouse suspic.
ion. and l still think so, in view of the
fact that bill Tor like services presented
by me was bitterly opposed by the three
gentlemen comprising the finance
committee, (uarnely, Aldermen Schroeder
Knox and Bur cheI.) And after had
twice obtained verdict in the circuit
court for my fees, these same gentlemen
vigorously urged an appeal to the appel
late court main aiming of course, (and l
supposed honestly, that l was not en-
titled to fees for services rendered in ap>
pealing cases from the circuit to the sp
pela'e court. 10 view of the fact they re.
fused to allow me fees for like sery-
ices, 1t must necessarily appear
that their reasons for not refer,
ring the bill to he council las has been the
custom without exception heretofore, not
withstandlng MIR. Haas thinks Different y
was to keep the items of the bill from the
public and thereby give color of cool
faith to their action in rejecting my bill.
Yes. see by his article he attempts to
sustain his action in not furnishing Mr..
Kenworthy or myself with copy of his
brief IN my case on the day that he filed
the record in the appellate court 1t is
quito evident that Mr. Haas did not con-
suit his associates in the Robinson block
before writing The article, since il he had
l don't think he would have shown him
self to be so ign GRANT of the rules of the
appellate court in which court he has so
ably conducted the city's business.
''ln order to explain this point clearly
it will be necessary for me to give you
short history of the whole affair. You
see, | obtained a judgment agsinst the
city for a little less than $500, from which
judgment the city took an appeal to the
appellate court. A new trial is asked for
by the city. and also by myself. The
city maintains that am not entitled to
the Judgment. for the reason that the or
dinance regulating the city attorney
fees does not contemplate the payment
of extra fees for services rendered by the
city attorney in carrying a case from
the circuit to the appellate court, or in
other words for such services as Mr. Haas
rendered in my case, and for which the
fiuance commit ee has allowed him fee
By rairosding it through in the finance
ordinance. That you may clearly UNDER
stand the city s posi- ton in this matter
permit me to re Ad from Mr.. Hass' argus
msni in the case, page 8; he says on this
point:
While. at a glance, it would seem that
the courts in which the suits were then
pending and the business was to be trans
acted, were outside of the county OF Rock
Islap = they cannot logically be consid-
ere.eso. All OF the suits aud business in
which appellant was involved during ap,
rellee's term IF office originated, were
originally commenced in the county OF
Rock Island. a d it was simply a follow.
ing up OF this same business TO the differ
ent courts to which the different steps
taken in the matter. led the parties liti-
CANT. We ina CINE the spirit of the ordi-
nance to be, al We submit this PROPOSE
ton to the court in all candor, that the
ordinance refers only TO such suits anG
business which originated outside OF the
county OF Rock Island and necessitate
the absence OF the city attorney from the
county. Now, it certainly cannot be
maintained that the appellate or supreme
court are outside of the county of Rocb
Island, simply because the building il
which these courts hold their sessions i.
outside of the territorial limits of OF
county. The appellate as we'll as thu
supreme court, appellant contends. while
held. geographically speaking. at som,
distance from our county. are neverthe
less parts of our county inasmuch as thel
cover every county in the district com
prising the different counties.
The reason why l ask for new trial j
that the court errored in not holding tina
the compromise of $500 between mysel
and city to be binding ON it, So you Sc
the case has al affirmative and negativ
Oh both sides. The;rules of the sppel
late court as cited by MIR. Haas are cor
rect as far as they 60, but his conclu