The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-11-16
HUTCHINSON INDICATED.
BUT PATRICK WAS NOT PERMITTED
TO INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
Patrick Fought With Desperation, But he
Was in the bands Of His Enemies
and Got the Worst Of It
AL Around.

III bEo OulIeu SbAIoS CIRCUIT
co1rt this morning. The charges pre-
ferred by Albert j. Patrick against
him as an.amicus curia of the court,
alleging malpractice, gross immortality
and professional conduct in the prac-
tice of law and especially in his con-
duct OF the litigation in behalf OF Nc
Ilhenny, executor of the estate OF
Paul Bremond, in which the bonds OF
the Houston East and West Texas rail-
way were involved, of which the late
Bremond was the principal owner at
the time Of his death, were not sus-
tained by one particle of evidence
otfere1 and fell flat.
When the hearing of the case was
resumed before Judge Boarman this
morning Gen. Il. N. Waul and X. w.
Rhodes, two prominent lawyers of the
Galveston bar, were called to the
stand and each testified to the high
moral and professional character OF
Mr. Hutcheson and that in their many
years of practice at the bar where
they had met him professionally, and
in social intercourse with him, had
they ever seen anything In his con-
duct other than bespoke the actions OF
high minded and honorable attorney
and gentleman.
Presley K. Ewing of Houston was
then called and testified at length as
TO the nature and character of the
Houston, East and West Texas rail.
way litigation and Hutcheson's con
duct thereof, and although subjected
to sharp oss-examination by Pat
rick, maintained that in that litiga-
ton or elsewhere had he ever seen
anything that would show that
Hutcheson was guilty of NAL
practice or conduct unbecoming a
Jealous, able and honest attorney, who
in court and out of court was honor
ably seeking to promote, protect and
conserve the best interests of his
clients.
At the conclusion of Ewing's testi-
mony Patrick again tried to introduce
the record and evidence taken before
the United States commissioners in the
case of Sperry vs. McIlhenny and
Hutcheson, which, it is claimed, would
sustain every allegation made against
Hutcheson. This the court ruled was
inadmissible from the fact that the
case was now pending before the court
of which he (Patrick) appeared as
counsel, and from the further fact that
Mr.. Garrett, senior counsel in the
case, had testified that from a careful
examination of the record and evil
dence sought to be introduced there
was not scientilla OF evil
dence that reflected upon
the character anu standing of
Hutcheson as an attorney or gentle
man, that could be sustained. This
view was also sustained by United
States District Attorney Hanna who
had examined the evidence sought to
be introduced so far as it related to
Mr.. Hutcheson.
Mr.. Patrick then asked permission
to file bill OF exceptions. This was
also overruled by the court which
thought he had been allowed all the
latitude reasonable attorney could
ask, and had signally failed to make
out case.
Patrick then pleaded that the court
was refused on the ground that as a
tenable reason was offered and 1t
would be injustice to the respondent,
whose characte; and professional
standing had been attacked
Beaten at every point, Patrick re-
tired from the chse and court room.
District Attorney Hanna then made
a brief statement of the case and his
connection Herewith. Major Hanna,
counsel for Hutcheson, then read the
state statutes at the suggestion of the
court, outlining the course of pro-
cedure and the punishment to be in
fiicted upon an attorney guilty OF the
action OF Patrick in this case and fol-
lowed it by brief and pungent argu.
ment.
Patrick In the meantime reappear-
ed in court and at the conclusion of
Major Hanna's argument addressed
the court in his own behalf and re-
iterated that he was actuated by the
highest and purest motives in institu-
ting this action, that 1t was brought
without malice or vindictiveness. He
felt it was his duty to do it
and was struck dumb with sur.
prise that attorneys, honorable
practitioners at the bar, would
countenance and uphold such methods
OF practice as he firmly believed Mr.
Hutcheson guilty of. His remarks
produced an ebullition among the at
torneys and Hutcheson glared and
seemed ready to spring upon his ac-
cuser and his friends hastily surround
ed him. The court firmly commanded
order and the excitement subsidized as
quickly as it had arisen.
United States District Attorney
Hanna disagreed with the statement OF
Patrick that the filing of this action