Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1892-10-07
A Remarkable Law Suit.


Pittsburg, last Monday, case was argued
which illustrates the delays of law and the
uncertainty of figures, which it is said
"don't lie." 1t was that OF J. S. Foster VS.
J. ". Werner, appealed by Werner FROM
the COMMON Pleas Court of Clarion county,
ordering him to pay half the masters fees,
fixed at 81 200, in an equity suit begun in
1877.
The story Of the case is peculiar one.
J. S. Foster owned a third interest in the
clothing stores of J. W. Werner, at East
Brady, Modoc, Millerstown, and st. Peters
burg, and Is years ago he sued for dis
solution of partnership, an accounting and
the appointment of a receiver. Foster
said the assets of the firm were $33, 600
and Werner answered that they were only
s5.134.I0. B. J. Reid was appointed mas
ter in the case, and while he had it in hand
three of the lawyers in the case were sue
cessively elevated to the bench in the Clar-
;on District. In the history of the case in
the paper book this statement is made:
No mere man, since the fall, is able in
this life perfectly to present a clear and
proper history of this case in any ordinary
paper book Neither Darwin, nor Huxley,
nor Herbert Spencer ever attempted the in
vestigation of anything more unknowable
and insoluable than the grotesque mystic
ism and the horid and gymnastic arith-
metic and frescos in which this case is en-
ye,oped. We refer to the exploits of the
master, not to the decision OF the Court
nor TO the actual facts oil the case
Mr.. Reid was appointed master in &C.,
1877. In October, 1878, the first hearing
was held, aud in April, 1880, the taking of
testimony closed. The arguments were
ended July, 81, 1880 at II NJ. Then the
paper book states:
Nothing remained for the master to do
but 10 adjust the balance due from one to
the other on their respective private
accounts-a work requiring at most but
few hours. Every other matter and thing
connected with the business had been dis
posed of. At precicely o'clock a. m.
June 20, 1882, the master "began the work
of examining, arranging and dlgestlng the
| testimony and exhibits The master then
discovered that the mice had anticipated
him and bad already "digested" very
considerable portion OF most Important ex-
bibits. books and papers, which the mas
| ter undertook to repair and supply. In
| August. 1888, without request from either
| side. the u.aster reopened the case, sum
moned plaintiff and defendant to appear
| before him 10 answer, under oath, the FOL
lowing, among other questions The fol-
| lowing questions numbered 443. Having
thus reopened the case, he kept it open
| until February 7, 1901, over 10 years after
| the final argument In an0te alter the state
| ment of his work on the case, the master
\ says: 1.-THE foregoing and annexed inmates
| of the time was employed shows ! work
| ed at this case 264 full days and 6I fractions
| Of day, averaging half day each, equal
| in all To 26i full days"
Owing to the peculiar character OF this
note it was photographed, as was also the
masters method Of finding percentages,
etc, and these Photographic reproductions
form part Of the paper book, which il
probably the first use of illustrations in
such document. The appellant says
| The master erred in not making and re-
| turning his report in ono original package
| instead Of returning it in detached portions
| and scattered fragments. some of whlch
are TO be found on pages OF the hrm, DoOk'
| in evidence, some written across tle lace
| and on the margin of the testimony. Ala
some on the margin and back OF exhibits
| MANY other books and exhibits contain
| portions of this report generally, painted
| red; some sections having dOubiS coat,
| with many erasures and incOmprehensible 10
| references and characters.
The plaintiff filed 16 exceptions to the
masters report, and the defendant filed 81,
and the Court made an entirely new dis
tribution OF the ass4sts of the firm. In
stead of finding balance due Foster OF
81, 267. 80 as found by the master, the
Court found that Foster owed werner
$47.37.
In replying to counter statement made
By the master, in which he charges the de-
fendant with having fraudulently altered
the partnership books, the appellant says
the masters own report disprcves this.
The reply also says:
We have here the extraordinary spectac-
le of a master in equity, whose report IN
favor of the plaintiff was reversed by the
court below. appearing in this court in the
role Of counsel for the plaintiff in the same
case. There il, however, no occasion for
further discussing the masters exploits as
book keeper, when the fact is stated that
the masters notion OF bookkeeping and
the law of partnership accounts is exem-
plifed i'm his report wherein he states
that when our client, the defendant, adj
vanced money to the firm he was To be
charged with il, and when bis client, the
plaintiff, drew money out of the firm, he
was to be credited with it. No wonder he
rought his client out ahead.