The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-04-29


by its chief Justice as follows TO wit:
THE fact that the attorneys in this
case seek to avoid their contract cannot
take it out of the operation of the prin-
ciple above announced. No reason can be
given why champertouS contract or
contract against public policy which
the attorney cannot enforce against
his client, may be enforced against him.
The contract is equally vicious, wheth-
er in the hands of client or attorney,
and in neither case can be enforced.
The client is not an innocent party;
he has no right in law or morals to at
tempt by contracts of this kind, to per
vert
THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
by laying before his attorneys tempta-
tons and incentives for unprofessional
and unlawful conduct; he is not en-
titled to the favor of the court.
But 1t is insisted that as plaintiff
has paid the defendants the money
named in the bond, it is a hardship to
deny to him the right of enforcing it.
As we have said, he is violator of the
law; and entitled to no sympathy. He
ought not to be surprised by the re-
fusal of defendants to perform the con-
( tract, for it is doubtless rule, subject
! TO rare exceptions, that attorneys who
would enter into such contracts would
violate them. The want of professional
honor which would prompt a lawyer to
make a contract of this kind would be
accompanied, in most cases, by those
| traits that would prompt them to in
terpose as a defense thereto its Illegal
ity."
And this defendant alleges that the
plaintiff herein is
THE SAME TATLOCK
whose want of professional honor and
other traits are referred to in the opin-
ion of Chief Justice Beck in the case
above referred to.
And this defendant further alleges,
upon information and belief that the
publication complained of is true, for
| that, on or about the 18th day of May,
1898, the plaintiff herein, E. W. Tat1ock,
as attorney for one Annie T. Witt
MACK, commenced an action in the dis
trict court of the Third judicial dis
! trict of Utah, wherein said Annie T.
Wittmaack, as plaintiff, sought a d.
vorce from her husband, Ferdinand w.
/ Wittmaack, the defendant, on the
ground of drunkenness and cruel treat
ment. Upon information and belief, de-
PENDANT alleges that the said Tatlock,
knowing that the defendant was an ig-
norant person, though possessed of
some means, so conducted the litigation
and made use of the process of the
court as in every way possible to OPP
press the said defendant, with the DELHI
crate intent and purpose on his part of
compelling said defendant to pay
MONEY TO BUY HIS PEACE.
That the said cause was pending in
said court from May Is to July 81 1893;
that during said period the said Witt
maacl1s. husband and wife, had nu-
merous conferences, and were willing
! to reconcile their differences, and de-
] mt
belief, would have done so except for
the dishonorable and unprofessional
/ practices of the said Tatlock, Who for
his own purpose prevented any AMIGA
bic adjustment of the difficulties until
a sufficient bride should be paid to him
by the defendant in said action. That
during the tendency of said suit, the
said Tatlcck procured subpoenas 10 be
issued and served by the United States
marshals upon numerous witnesses, at
the expense of the defendant, ,equir-
ing them to appear unnecessarily and
at a time when the case was not set
for trial. That for the purpose Of
TERRIFYING THE DEFENDANT
| into submission to his demands, ne
caused to be served upon said defan-
! dant a notice of motion that said Tat
I lock would apply to the court for a
writ of ne eXeat regno, a writ unknown
to the practice of this court; he pro-
cured from the court an order compel
/ ling the defendant to pay The sum of
| $40 as court expenses, the sum OF $50
| per month as temporary alimony, and
| the sum of 800 as counsel fees for him
self; and on July he served upon the
attorney for the defendant notice of
a motion to compel the defendant to
! pay additional aIimopy; he caused
word to be conveyed to the said Witt
p ,lrN \
! ter come to time that is, that ne had
/ better see Tatlock and arrange the
matter privately with him. That ON or
about the Goth day of July, 1898, the
| said defendant Wittmaack, and the
said Tatlock, secretly, and without the
/ knowledge of the plaintiff, Mrs. Witt
MACK, arranged a settlement of
THE DIVORCE CASE,
for and in consideration of the sum of
$3.50 to him (Tatlocl1) so secretly and
lcorruptly paid by the defendant Witt
MACK, said Tatlock procured the plain
| tiff to consent to a dismissal of the
cause. That upon such dismissal the
defendant paid or secured to the plain
| tiff, Annie T. Wittmaack, a sum of
mony, and that out of this money the
said Tatlock induced the said plaintiff to
pay to him the sum of $50; that said sum
of $50 was paid by said plaintiff in ig-
norance of the fact that he, Tatlock,
| had received a brilbe from the defend
ant in the action, and was paid under
the belief that the sum of 500 paid by
defendant f. w. Wittmaack under the
order of the court, was the only money
/ received by said Tatlock as his fees in
said action. That by the industry so
! displayed by the said Tatlock in rem
dering professional
SERVICES FOR BOTH SIDES
| in said action, he collected, for an in
considerable amount of labor, the sum
! Of $500, besides the balance of unex-
pended suit money, the amount of which
/ is unknown to this defendant. And
this defendant alleges that the acts and
practices of the said Tatlock in and
about sal d cause were and are those
| of a shyster.
THAT CIRCULAR.
The de PENDANT then alleges that the
letter complained of is true, and that
! in July, 1893 the plaintiff took for col
! lection for Prudence E. Fitzgerald a
claim for S645; that defendant was to
receive SIS for such collection, and of the
amount of the claim did collect $780, out
! of which he retained SIS for himself, and
! then refused to attempt any further
! collection, although often requested to
! do so by Mrs. Fitzgerald.
THE RUSH WARNER CASE.
Further answering, defendant alleges
/ that the letter complained of is true
for that in August, 1892, the defendant
was attorney for the United States Mu-
/ tual Accident association. in an action
! in which NJ. Rush Warner, as admins
traitor, was plaintiff; that the plain
! tiff incurred in behalf of his client
certain court expenses in she office of
! ~ ~. IS 4.