The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-08-26
THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE,

Messrs. Preston and Anderson Not the
Authors of a Scurrilous Article.
Much indignation has been felt here at
what appeared to be an attack on Judge
Falligant by the lawyers for the plaintiffs
In the Millen land case in an article that
appeared in the Macon Telegraph Of
Wednesday, under the heading "Falligant
Wins the Suit"
The article stated in the plainest manner
that throughout the trial of the suit Judge
Falligant had been judge, jury and lawyer
for the defendants, aud that the plaintiffs
attorneys realized that they could not OBJ
tain Justice in his court, but that the su-
preme court would deal fairly with them.
There were numerous insinuations in the
article, and to all appearances it seemed to
be inspired TO great extent by the plant
ifs attorneys
Considerable surprise was expressed here
that Messrs. Anderson and Preston should
SO far forget themselves as to resort to at
tacks of this character. 1t seems, though,
from cards published by them in yester-
days Telegraph, that they were entirely
innocent of completely h the publication Of
the article referred to.
in his card Clifford Anderson, Esq, says:
wish to disclaim all responsibility for the
statement made in the report published in the
Telegraph OF yesterday morning relative to the
Whilst think Judge Falllgant's charge to the
jury was erroneous, have made no statement
| to any person whatever rejecting on his mo-
tives or conduct l have not spoken to any
newspaper man, either In Savannah or Macon,
in relation to the case, and have said nothing
to any one in reference TO any ruling made by
Judge Falligant except that thought some of
his rulings erroneous.
j. w. Preston, ESQ.,, says:
Without passing upon the business or I'M
to-day
headed "Falligant Won," / respectfully ask
space to say promptly that l disclaim any
knowledge of the article before its publication,
or of its author. This much l deem it proper
to state in justice to myself, who as one of the
attorneys against whom the conduct of the
| judge initiated might naturally be supposed to
have-ha0 some agency in the matter.
While we cannot prevent our personal con-
| victious, and may entertain views uncompli-
mentary to the judge presiding in the case, we
| are placed under obligations by the rules of
| professional ethics not to publicly attack his
integrity, unless his conduct is palpably cor
| rupt as to deserve impeachment, In this case,
| so far as know. none of the plaintiffs have
| grounds Of complaint Of want of judicial
courtesy during thu trial. Some of us, at least,
| have our impressions Of the law in the case,
| and are unable 10 understand what seems to be
| the anomalous charge of the court, viewing it
| from our standpoint. But that is legitimate
! subject Of review in a hi her forum and to that
alone we must appeal and be content to leave it.
| To such as have inquired Of me concerning
| the case have not heSitated to express my in
| a0 lily to explain such q treatment of the case
| otherwise than by the usual and ever-potent
| force OF environment which always did and al
| ways will affect tue judgment and conduct OF
men to a greater or less degree Iprefer to at.
! tribute any apparently unseemly conduct, il
such there was, to this cause rather than to any
willful disposition to defeat the ends of justice
! Should a proper occasion present itself shall
not hesitate to appeal to the press and shall not
! then fail to make myself fully understood
Until then l shall content myself with such
| private expressions as the nature of the case
seems to sjustify and leave the case to the
arOitrament Of the established appellate tri-
bunal.