The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-07-01
HOT SHOT FIRED AT HINES.
One Of His Law Clients Charges Him
With Bad Faith.

~o NAa1An made That Hines Law
Firm Sold Out the Plaintiff While
Pretending to Act as His Attorneys.
The Sale of the Southern Cotton
Mills the Basis of the Suit
Atlanta, Ga, June 30.-A sensational
suit for damages was filed in the superior
court OF Fulton county to-day against
Judge James X. Hines, the populist can
oloate for governor. The action is
brought by w. w. Brigg, a well known
citizen of Atlanta, through Col John A
Wlmpy, as attorney. Mr.. Brigg is a
writer and inventor. He is a brother of
W. o. Brigg of New York, who is several
times a millionaire, and has another
brother in England who is worth $40, 000,-
600, the Brigg family being more or less
distinguished both in England and this
country Col. John A. Wimpy, the attor-
ney who brings the suit, is populist who
has taken an active part in the partys
deliberations in this county and in the
section about Oxford where he lives,
though his law practice is done from At
lanta.
BASIS OF THE SUIT.
Brigg sues for So, 900 damages upon an
allegation of facts setting up that the law
hrm OF Hines, Shubrick & Fielder, while
acting as his attorneys in the prosecution
of certain claim, betrayed their trust
and practically sold out his interest to the
other side. The petition recites that in
1881 Brigg, the petitioner, employed
Messrs. Hines, Shubrick & Fielder as at
torneys to collect claim of $4,000, which
was due him by the Southern Cotton
Mills, the defendants to receive a contin-
gent fee of 10 per cent. Suit was
brought in Fulton county superior court
to recover the $40, 600, but the petitioner
alleges that owing to the carelessness and
negligence of the defendants the whole
was entirely lost to him.
THE SENSATIONAL FEATURE.
The most sensational part of the suit
tnen follows: Brigg says that by virtue Of
their position as his attorneys the defend
ants gained his confidence. Confiding in
them as honorable and upright attorneys,
In The course of said employment, and by
reason of which, and the fact that the
SAID southern cotton mills being indebted
and EN- barassed by a $4,000 mortgage,
the defendants being at the time Briggs
attorneys, and by reason of their control
OF his claim, they got control of this $40
OOO mortgage. Brigg was led to believe
that the defendants were acting in good
faith In his interest to collect his $4,000.
THE PROPERTY ON THE BLOCK.
The property of the Southern Cotton
Mills was brought to sale at public out
cry, at which sale the defendants had the
control and management. The property
was worth 100000, the petitioner AYERS,
and previous to the sale he conferred with
his lawyers, the defendants, as to the ad-
visibility of his buying the cotton mill
property, which the defendants advised
and were to assist in so that the petit
toners &c., 600 claim might be protected
Under the $4,000 mortgage referred to.
the property was sold Brigg. believing
that Judge Hines and his partners, as his
attorneys, were acting in good faith with
him, was present at the sale and bid in
the property at Sl3, 600.
THE LAWYERS BUY 1T.
The defendants having control of the
sale were present, and by permission OF
the United States marshal, who conduct
ed the sale, Brigg claims he was given
fifteen minutes in which time to produce
the money to clinch his bid. But while
he was gone, and before the fifteen min
utes passed, he alleges that Judge Hines
and his associates caused the property TO
be resold. They bid it in themselves for
$4,000, and refused to deliver the prop
erty to him, though acting as his attor-
neys, but informed him that they had
represented James w. English in making
their bid. Brigg continues that he made
a further demand for the property of
James w. English, but he said he had
sold it to Ware Il Owens, real estate
dealers in Atlanta, and when he applied
to them they offered to let him have it
for $25, 900.
TRICKED AND DECEIVED. =.
''There," the petition continues, cit
came to the knowledge of your petitioner
that the defendants had tricked and de-
ceived your petitioner out of his said bid
All of this happened within few hours
of said sale.'' Brigg says he then APP
piled to Judge Hines firm, and they told
him they did not think he could get the
property from Ware & Owens for less
than S25. 900, though little later he dis
covered that he could get it for Sl7, 900.
1t developed still further on, the petition
alleges, that the defendants had them
selves given an option on the property to
Secretary Hoke Smith and one F. c.
Foster for Sl5,0O0, who finally bought it
from them at that figure, Foster being an
owner of stock in the mills.
Bragg concludes his petition by alleg-
ing: "That the pretended sale of the
to James w. English, and from
English to Ware * Owens was a sham
trick done in order to deceive and de-
fraud your petitioner out of his bid and
out of the property, and ali of which was
done by the defendants in violation of
their duties as attorneys of your petit
TONER