The Helena independent., 1891-12-19
Once Lawyers Practiced for tho
Honor, or the Gifts OF
Clients.
The Question OF Champerty Raised
In o Case Between Helena
Attorneys.
Among tho Romans It Was n Disgrace 10
Demand Pay for Legal
Services.

Judge Armstrong, OF bOzBmhn, I6Huoreu
his decision yesterday in the case OF Car
penter, Buck q Hunt against Hedges d
Miller, concerning the fees which tho
former firm were to get from the latter in
acting for the New York devisees under
the will Of the late Walter +.
Chadwick, Of Helena. ''rhe court finds,
first, says the decision. that the contract
was entered into between the law firms and
contemplated partial aocountings from
time to time, Immediately upon any moneys
or property coming into the hands Of
Hedges. Second that trust exists in
Hedges under the terms of the agreement
and contract with reference to moneys re-
ceived from the town property sold in
Dot, 1889, and also with reference to the
Bald Butte mining stock and any accrued or
accruinR dividends thereon, and that an
accounting is therefore forthwith due from
Hedges as trustee for the firm of Hedges d
Miller and Carpenter. Buck d Hunt; but it
appearing that Hedges, trustee, has affected
settlement with the defendant, Miller,
of the firm of Hedges & Miller, the ac-
counting will only be necessary as to Car
penter, Buck q Hunt, and that reference
should be forthwith ordered to take an
accounting az to the moneys or properties
that may have been received by Hedges as
accruing to the New York devisees, and
consequently as ohargeable with this trust;
the amount Of Bald Butte stock that he
has 80 received, and the dividends. if any.
that have accrued thereon, and the amount
Of such dividends that would be accruing
to Carpenter, Buck q Hunt under the
al AIA f~,E
chase price Of tha treasury stock which
should be chargeabls to Carpenter, Buck q
Hunt; and that they are the equitable own
ers Of one-half of whatever moneys or
properties flowing to the New York de-
visees may have from time to time come
into the hands of Hedges as such trustee;
and upon report of such references decree
will be filed"
Judge Armstrong did not differ materially.
Under this condition of affairs the attor-
neys for defendants interpossd an objec-
ton to the testimony and asked that
plaintiffs' action be dismissed on the
ground that the contract alleged in the
complaint, in support of which proof was
offered. is tainted with champerty, and that
under the common law such contract
would not be enforced in court of equity,
but that the court would refuse tho parties
it's assistance, and leave them where it
finds them; that in the absence of a repeal
ing statute the common law of England
should be the law and the rule Of decision
in this state.
1.-THE parties to this action are all of them
lawyers, eminent in their profession, of
high moral standing, and not likely to ad-
visedly enter into contract that would
not stand the test of the closest scrutiny,
while the defendants counsel have urged
l, ,Sov vurikh h Y,nI
estness that approach this question with
some dif1idence, especially since it is the
first of it's character that has arisen in the
history of the courts of this state or terri
tory. It is true that under the Roman law
an attorney rendered his services gratuit-
ously. The roman advocate was usually
man OF wealth, and found the reward for
his labors (as too often the advocate of the
present day is forced to do) in the gratitude
of his clients. 1t having become custom
among some of the Roman lawyers to ask
and demand mrensation for their servi
ces, it was esteemed a disgrace to the pro-
fession, and accordingly the Cincian law
was passed, which provided that thence
forth no one should receive pecuniary
compensation for pleading cause. By the
downfall of the republic the Cincian law
became dead letter, and advocates were
allowed to receive as an "honorarium" such
sums as their clients might see fit to bestow
sesterces. Clients, however, were required
to take oath before entering upon the trial
Of their case. that they had not given or
guaranteed any sum of money whatever to
the attorneys who represented them. The
rule in England in the early days Of the
common law was that the reward of the
attorney was an honorarium. Which fol-
lows that as this was the rule, no action
would lie by an attorney for the recovery of
his fees; no difference how faithfully he
might have earned them, and this was the
rule in the early history of this country
In conclusion Judge Armstrong says that it
is not to be questioned that our laws recog-
nize the CLAIM of an attorney at law for
such professional asN services very as legal de-
reasonable amount. Judge Armstrong de-
cides against the defendants on the question
of champerty.
The Bee Hive has tho largest and most CON-
p1ata lima Of 0Olis in tho nricaa fo bo