Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-30

today and on former occasions, when this
question Of champerty has been discussed
by counsel. 1t has been discussed with
great ability by counsel on both sides.
have been impressed with the great impor-
lance of the question in a case like this.
l am fully impressed with the Importance
of endeavoring to properly decide ana right
ly decide the question here in this court,
Notwithstanding each party may, as he has
the right to do, take the case further Tor
the purpose of correcting any error that
they may believe this court has committed
In its ruling.
II cannot look at the circumstances that
have been developed by the proofs which
have been offered here in support or TINS
deed and which are furnished by the ueeu
itself and avoid coming to the conclusion
that they all do amount to champertous
arrangement. 1t may be. as counsel claims
that no such thing was intended; that the
matter did not occur to the parties or to the
counsel engaged by them at the time or the
execution of these several contracts and
instruments of writing. But 1t does seem
to me that II there be such thing as
champerty recognized in this jurisdiction,
the applca ton of the principles underlying
that doctrine of champerty to the 1acts IN
this case could very well result IN no other
conclusion than that the deed is champer-
tous in that there was an arrangement
made between the parties who claimed 10
be the owners of this land, with third par
ties by which the third parties were 10
take the one-half Of all the proceeds that
might result from the efforts which they, or
persons that they might employ, In connec-
ton with this property, paving over tne
other half to the heirs, less any costs or ex-
penses which may have accrued or resulted
from the efforts of the third parties.
Against Public Policy.
"Not only has this been done, but an ar
raneemept was made-whether called
champertous, or whatever 1t may be called
which was at any rate one that should not
be regarded by any means as harmless, ana
one which 1t does seem to me Is against
public policy, leading to speculation on the
part of individuals and to taking chances
as to the result of litigation or of efforts on
the part of persons in some form or other
IN obtain money in possession at the time
of the ARRANGEMENTS, and issuing these
bonds to the amount of $2fOOOO, beleVe,
which are to be sold for whatever can De
realized for them. This deed whlch Is pre-,
scented seems to be the elimination of all
these previous arrangements. 1t likes a
practical mode by which those arrange
ments are to be carried out, fixes trustee
to whom the legal title is sought TO De
transferred in the deed, who is to go for
ward and act for all the parties in the way
of collecting money, recovering title or re-
covering money in the place of 1t. invested
with full discretion in that respect, and
with full power to convey at will After re-
covering the title he is to convert that title
so recovered into money, and that money
which may have been recovered by MIN IN
any form whatsoever is, according to the
deed. to be deposited by him with the
Union Trust Company Of Philadelphia, to
be divided according to the arrangement
made in this contract between the heirs
and Mr. Blodget in 1873. Thereupon, of
course. under the further arrangement and
contract made, by which these shares We're
created and these bonds were issued, the
holders of these bonds are to receive what
ever prizes may be due by virtue OF their
haV D11rChaSe1 these bonds.
The person named as trustee, while he
does not appear to have been specifically
provided for by any named compensation
for his services, must be presumed to be
laid of course, out of the half of it which
Is reserved in the Blodget contract. at
least If this contract is held to be a legal
one for whatever his services may reason
ably be worth. 1t is not to be presumed
that he is rendering his services or expected
to render his services gratuitously. He, too,
is connected with this arrangement be-