The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-04-03
D|EHL RETAINED CRAVEN.
Why the City Attorney Refused to
Defend Building Inspector
j. D. McNally.
The Contractor Involved Says He
Had Retained Him in
the Same Case,
Note Running Sixty Days for 500 Given
by Diohl n Month After the Build
-. ing Collapsed.

At the republican meeting in tho Sixth
ward Friday evening T. +. Sterling, III his
speech. referred to questions at issue be-
tween Building Inspector McNally and City
Clerk Craven, as to whether the former mad
asked the latter to appear az his counsel IN
the suit for damages brought aealnst Nc
Nally by David Merritt. 1t will be remeni-
bered that the CITY couacil appropriated
$3.50 to pay MoNallyss attorney fees IN this
case in the district court. The building
inspector is a resident of the Sixth ward.
The following statement Of Inspector Me-
NalIy, made after weeks of silence. on MS
part, places the blame, for the unnecessary
expenditure of $3.50 of the city's money
where il belongs-upon City Attorney
Craven. The ease, rs made out by the ln-
%spector. is a plain one. The building col
lapsod Aug. 6, 1891. The same day Mr.
McNally consulted the city attorney. IN MS
official capacity. as to what steps should %
taken in the matter by them. Shortly
after this Contractor Dlehl. in the same
month Of August, employed the city attor-
nav AZ his attorney in the same case. 1t
must BE- remembered that Diehl was liable
to prosecution under the city charter Tor
uOE oDlAlHlut q PcAAAIAo -
Of the building that collapsed. and such
prosecution it would be the duty q City
Attorney Craven to conduct. Sept. ? Dlshl
gave his note to Leslie II Craven Tor 1lOu 80
a retainer in tho case. MoNally formally
asked Craven if he would defend him IN
case be was sued. and the city attorney told
him he would not. This was q few days
before the note Of Diehl, given as q re-
tainer in tho same case. was due.
The only official service rendered by the
CITY attorney in the case was to give the
building inspector a copy Of his official
bond, and for this the attorney charged VI.
This charge was a very small matter, but "a
the CITY council increased Mr. Craven's
salary 5000 80 that he could employ a clark.
it seems, to say the least, q little out OF
place that he should charge n fellow Official
81 for a copy of an official bond.
If Mayor Kleinschnlidt had looked as
carefully into the conduct of his appcintees
ss the taxpayers believed he would when
they elected him last year, the city council
would not have been compelled to pay $3.50
to outside attorneys for defending a suit
against the building inspector in his official
capacity. In an interview yesterday Mr..
McNally said:
For the past two months there has been
a great deal of discussion in the press Of
this city regarding the merits Of this case.
My position in the matter ia Just this: On
the morning Of the 9th day Of August,
1891, an accident occurred On Water street,
in this city, bic caused the loss Of a life
by the falling OF a building. AS soon as /
returned from the scene of the accident on
Water street I went to see the city attor-
ney and informed him that the contractor
or owner of the building did not have a
permit for the erection of the said build
ing, and consequently had violated tho
law. After discussing the matter with the
city attorney for nearly an hour, and look
ing up the law upon the subject, we came
to the conclusion that the city was not
liable, neither was [ liable as building III :
spector. In the course of time the cor
oner's inquest indicted George B. Dlshl
for m~anslaughter, and he was placed under
bonds to appear before the dist let court.
''While the case was pending against the
contractor | met him On tho strcet one day
and we talked the matter over. This was
March %. Afterward, M. Diehl furnished
me with the following written statement:
While in conversation with the build
ing inspector about the latter part OF Au-
. gust. 1891, ] asked him if he had q copy of
blS ClhY oIAlllLICCbs dliA liz sSElE bIRL
he had a copy of tho city ordinances in his
Office In the course of the conversation
that followed | informed him that 4 had
the city attorney retained in nay ease before
the district conrt. Mr.. NcNally seemed
surprised and said, his first duty is to the
city and it's officers This was said by
McNally after | asked him his opinion in
regard to the city alto snee's official duties.
then procured a copy of the city ordl-
nances, and after reading the section de-
fning the duties of the city attorney,
concluded that he could not serve the city
and me at the same time. G. i. DIEHL.'
II make this statement for the purpose
of showing that at that time | was under
she imp ession that it WAS the city atter-
ney's dnty to.defena if an action should be
brought ~against mo in my official capacitf.
Some time afterward, | do not know the
exact date, butt think it Vas IN the latter
part Of October, | met the city attorney ON
the corner of Broadway and Main street
and he told mo he thought an action would
be brought against my bonasmen and my
self. l answered, If sHeh is the case, do
you feel that it ID your duty to defend ms
in the matte =
1.-The city attorney answered, No; If the
action was brought against tbs city then it
would be my duty to defend tho city,
Il make this statement in answer to an
interview which Mr.. Craven had with {
re representative Of the journal, Feb, II, in
which the following words occurred: Man
~ifestly it Was not my of1iclul duty to appsar
for the %suretles. nor did ! think. nor do
think SO now, that it was within my ofic1a
duty TO make u personal defense OF MIR
MeNnilT. / have understood that $3.50 o
the $3.50 was paid by Mr.. McNally TO til,
attorney who appeared in the case golel,
for the sut etles of the bonds. MIR. Nc
Nally never made q demand upon mo o
requested me to take his case. He ha
never lntilnated TO ms that he thought i
was within the scope of rny duty A fep
days afterwards papers were served upol
me ana my bondsnen to appear before th,
district court IN an action brought by Da
vld Merritt.
November 2 I visited the city attorney
office and told him that the papsrs ha.
been served upon nae, but that [ did no
have thsm With me aud asksd him il it wa
necessary for nae to get them. adding: I'D
you feel that it would ba your duty to de
fend me Ia this case where the action
brought against d.. j. McNally, bnildin
inspector. snd E. W. knight and Tho,
Gilchrist. sursties? DO you feel that il isyou
duty to defend me In a cage of this kind?
MI. Craven walked back and forth an
answered, after q few moment's though
No., l do not think that it is n
duty to appear in & case Of this kind
II then requested a copy OF my ofici
bond from Mr.. Craven. Mr.. Cravan's a,
sistant made the copy and the city attorns
charged me one dollar for it. / talked vii
my bondsmen and it WAS nrranged tn,
Messra. Ioole j Wallace should defend Ii
bondmen and mysslf in the case.