The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-10-04
Rather Sensational Developmentsin the
Bruce-0sgOod Litigation.
Judge Brown Severely Censures a Young At
tornsy for ImEuyning the Integrity Of
Other Lawyers
Rocker in bis Complaint Charged Fraud
Against Baker and Harrington.
Defends His Position and the Testimony Pro-
ceeds, Though the Point in Controversy
Is Settled.
The Bruce-ossood litigation, with which

The Bruce-O sgood litigation, with which
the courts of Marion county rave been &C.
cupied. more or less, for tho last dozen
years. developed some sensational features
IN the Circuit Court yesterday. This case.
while we'll known TO the bar of the county,
has nearly passed out of the minds Of news
paper readers. In 1878 George Bruce was
one of the weslthiest men in tho city, his
real-estate holdings being valued varlously
at 500, 600 to $4,000 In the next year or
two, however, he was caught on indorse-
ments, etc.. for over $lO0.0O0. Judgments
on these fell into the hands of Mason j.
Osgood and others. Many of them were
satisfied. but others were not. A receiver
was appointed, in the person Of the late +.
NJ. C~hurchmsn, and when the estate was
wound MP the entire proceeds of the notes
and personal property in the receivers hands
went to Mr.. Osgood. In 1885 Mr.. Osgood
began an action in tho Superior Court
egins the estate to revive the
unsatisfied judgments, and got
decree foreclosIng upon certain
property of James A. Bruce. Last winter
James A. Bruce entered suit TO aulet title
against Osgood and others. In this COM
plant one paragraph alleged fraud upon
the part of Bruca's attorney in the reviver
suit, James p. Baker. based upon the fact
that his fee was paid by tho plaintiff in
that through this alleged deception on the
part of his attorney he was deprived OF his
day IN court. and had 10 opportunity to
make q defense. Judge Harrington had
been Osgood's attorney in this sui it of 1886,
and this paragraph implied. of course, his
collision in the alleged fraud. This suit
has been hotly contested in the Circuit
Court for q week past, with w. V. Rocker
rs counsel for Mr.. Bruce and A. &. Harris
for MI. Osgood. On Friday last Mr.. Rocker
raised the point that the reviver proceed
ings of 1856 in the Superior Court were void
because the action was instituted by the
creditor of adecedent against the heirs OF
the decedent by complaint and summons In
ing being made that there had
been an administration of the estate. The
statute limits the jurisdiction OF all pro-
bate matters to the Circuit Court. and oven
there the practice is technical and very
much restricted, one of the requirements
being that all claims against a decedent
must be filed with al administrator Yes
terday afternoon Judge Brown decided
this point good. multiplying the proceedings
of 1885. But after. DONG this the court
''read the riot act to Mr.. Rocker.
The following is the substance of what
Judge Brown read: There Is more than
money or property involved in this suit. If
what was alleged In the company
James Baker and Judge Harrington ought
to be disbarred from this and all other
courts, snd if not true the allegations are
the vllest Islander. In the judgment of the
court there has been no evidence intro
duced tendingto impllcate either of them or
to reflect on them In any way.. lt Is the
first duty of an attorney to give TO his
client ais best ability. and II. alter taking
his case. he should find that his rights
have been compromised by the fraudulent
conduct of attorneys, IL IS also his duty, IL
sure of the facts, To right that wrong and
TO have no delicacy about attacking such
attorneys. He should not be influenced by
fear OF favor, and should stand by his
client to the end. Counsel for plaintiff
(meaning Mr.. Rocker is known to the court
as q Jealous and painstaking lawyer, but
in this case he has allowed his zeal for
his client to lead him beyond the bound
of propriety, as far as Judge Harrington
and Mr.. Baker are concerned. His client
has testified that he knew positively nothing
of the practices alleged, except that which
he received from his attorney tMr. Rookerl;
IN fact there was nothing which the attor-
Dey investigated in the case from which
such conduct coald be inferred. ex-
cept that the complaint, as originally
drawn, was interllned. Reference to
the record of the case will explain that in
terlineation. A motion had been made by
Mt Baker requiring the complaint to be
more specific, and these interhneations
were made In compliance with the sustain
ing of that motion. The court has known
Judge Harrington and Mr.. Baker for
twenty years. and he has known them as
honest and upright men, professionally and
every other way. He has never before
heard their characters i~mpugned. Judge
Harrington has presided on this bench, and
offered, and If there Is any to be made of
Mr. Bakers professional career It would be
that he is too punctilious. sometimes. for
his own ana his clients good. lt is not
necessary for either of these gentlemen
TO go on the witness-stand before me
IN denial of the allegations made
against them. as the course of the
trial Is sufficient proof that they are
false, even If L had believed them at the be-
ginning. The charges made against them are
disreputable and an outrage, and the coun-
sci for the plaintiff tMr. Rookerl seemed
inclined To place the worst possible con-
struction on she trifing fact Of those in
teriineations without giving the gentle
men the benefit of tho doubt or n nance
10 explain. The court considers that it is
due to these gentlemen. TO the counsel for
the plaintiff and TO the bar In general that
he make these remarks."
M. Roohef maue reply In MS own de-
Tense. In which he said that the informs-
ton alleged In the complaint had been
given him by his clients. In whose RELIABLE
ity he had faith. and that when men as
reputable as they made such charges
against attorneys. no matter how high
their standing. he believed that his duty
was TO protect his client and contribute his
share toward preserving the purity of the
courts. No evidence. be said, had been
taken on this phase of the case. but If the
court would permit il. he thought he could
s~ubstantIate the allegations of the COM
plant.
After this episode both sides were snx-
ious to 20 on with the case and the testimony
of Judge darlington n Mr. Baker was
taken. That of each was substantially the
same. beng TO the effect that after the case
of 1856 was decided Bruce and Osgood en-
tered into an agreement BY which Osgood