The morning call., 1894-10-24
Lawyer Charles L. TiIden
Attacked.
ALSO PARTNER WHITCOMB.
Accused of Falsely Testifying in
the Hunter Case.
PLAIN TALK BY j.. c. CAMPBELL
Why Should TiIden Have Advised
His Client to Back Up His Deed
With a Will ?

Two well-knOwn attorneys Of this city
received severe scorching al the hands
cf brother lawyer yesterday when j. c.
Campbell waxed hot upon the subject of
the perfidy of two counsel that opposed
him, Charles l.. Tilden and Frank r. Whit
comb.
1t was during the closing argument in
the suit brought by Mrs. Joan n. G.
Hunter, widow of the late David Hunter,
against the Iidens as executors, and the
heirs Ot her late husbands estate, to es-
tablis a deed executed by Hunter in bis
lifetime whereby he granted the whole OF
his property to his wife. receiving in re-
turn similar deed from her. The suit
was hotly contested, the other side setting
up a will whereby Hunter revoked his
deed, and left only half of his $500, coo
estate 10 Mrs. Hunter.
For weeks the case was pending before
Judge Seawell. Various substitutions of
attorneys were made for the various heirs
who claim to come in under the distribu-
tion of half of the estate by the will,
which has long since been admitted to
vrooate, but 10 which cont st has been
filed and will shortly be heard on behalf
of the widow. The firm of Morrison, Strst-
with j. c. Campbell as special counsel,
while on the other side the firms of Tilden
& Whitcomb, Chickering, Thomas & Greg
oIy, Cormsc e DonOhoe and Hayes. Nc
Energy & Bradley do battle for the heirs.
good deal in the presentition of the
plaintiffs case depended upon the testi-
mony nj Charles L. Tiden and Frank r.
Whitcomb.
Mr.. Tilden was attorney for the late Mr.
Hunter and. with his father. was made a
co-executor Of the estate under this dis
pu;ed will. and MIR. Whitcomb Is his part
| ner. Now on the witpess-s:and Mr. Tilden
was unfortunate enough 10 incur the dis
pleasure OF the other side by his testify ylng
that he had understood Mr.. Hunter to say
that this deed OF his pro perry L, his wife
was not TO take effect un il after his death.
and that consequently. he (Mr. Tilden)
had advised his client to back up this deed
by Will, which his client subsequently
did. The testimony of Iilden's partner,
WhitcOmb, was of similar nature.
This sort Of testimony was not at all
what was expected by the other side, and
in making his address to the jury on be-
half of Mrs. Bunter Attorney Campbell
adyerted strongly 10 the uuiikeihoOd OF
its truth. He prefacsd his opening re-
marks in the u orning with an expressed
| desire that both Mr. Tilden and Mr.. Whit
comb should be present TO hear what he
| had 10 say, as he scorned to utter behind
their backs words be would not repeat to
! their faces. SO due Dotihcation t. be
present at their excoration was sent to
| the two unfortunate attorneys.
When court resumed at 9 O'Clock in the
afternoon neither Mr.. 1ilden nor Mr..
| WhitcOmb had obeyed the mandate of Mr..
Campbell. but the latter had his fires
banked up, full steam on, and was going
to let himself loose fer all that he was
worth. He did not take long, either to
warm to his work. He st rted in by mildly
suggesting that Mr.. Tilden need not, as a
lawyer, have given Mr.. Hunter any such
| advice as that he had better black up" his
deed by will. The law held that any
such deed must OF necessity take effect i'm
mediately upon its execution; il could not
| by any chance he held over until the death
of the grantor so long as it remained in the
possession of the grantee.
What need for Mr.. Tilden to have given
such sdvice? asked Campbell. He need
only have consulted his lawbooks to find
| out--nay, as lawyer he must himself have
| knOwp-that no such will was necessary,
or, in fact, was valid under the circum-
stances. If Mr.. Hunter had said to bim-
as you have heard Mr.. Tilden swear that
| he said 60 hlm-that he wished his deed o {
| bis properly to his wife tn remain under
| his control until his death. why did not
Mr.. Tilden, as lawyer. advise him that
all he had TO do was to deliver up his deed
| to third party ii it was to take effect Gnlv
| upon condition, l. e.: the death of the
| grantor.
Are we not TO suppose that Mr. Tilden is
! man acquainted with the law? II so.
vas that the act of man so acquainted?
Why. in pIace of hunting in byways and
highways for persons to come to his Office
and solemnlv witness the transfer Of this
deed from Hunter to his wife did he not
see that the deed was placed in the hands
Of third party? He tells US on the wit
neSs-Stsnd that he had examined the law
on the subject. II so. why did he advise
that this deed should be backed up by
will? Why when David Hunter expressly
desired 10 have an iron-claG instrument
that should entail no dispute over his
property after his death?
''He tells yon all this upon the Witness
stand with tears upon his face-I do not
wish to say thath he committed wilful per-
| jury-in order to put his rapacous paw
| upon the estate Of David Hunter. Your
Honor. it was either Mir. TIlden's ignor-
snce OF the law or his willful misstateinsnt
! of fact Charles l.. Tiiden and his father.
| Harmon j. Tilden. were made executors
under that will. They were made trustees
without bonds of all that great security.
| Had not this been SO Mr.. TildeD would
have held ON to that deed like grim death
TO the sickest Niger in the swamps of old !
David Hunter was hard-headed and
! h0rny-banGed son of Scotia. He knew
| what ne wanted. When Charles l.. Tilden
and Frank X. Whitcomb testified the way
| they did their testimony do not wish To
say it was faise-was decidedly colored."
MIR. Campbell went on to say that in
| lodging the effect Of their testimony or
| he questions put TO them in crOss-exam-
| inaton Messrs. Tilden and Wbitcomb re.
| minded him very much of that estimable
| character written of bv Charles Dickens.
| known IS "the Artful Dodger." If Tilden
| spoke the truth when he said that Hunter
destroyed his deed In his presence on one
| day in March, 1S93 why then did he, nine
| days alterwaTd, in the begin ming of April,
| in the presence of K. n. Clement, declare
| that ne had all those papers in safe keep
| ing? There was said to be an office-bOy
| present on that occasion. In heavens
! name, where was that ofice-boy? Why,
when his very honesty aud Integrity were
impugned, did not Mr.. Tilden for his own
! sake produce that office-boy?
Ii had heen argued by the other side
| that Mrs. Hunters testimony had been
| contradicted by these witnesses. How
was this, when in no one instance were
Mrs. Hunters statements on tho Witness
stan0 found to differ from those given in
her deposition taken year ago? On the
| contrary, it was the testimony given by
| these two LAWYERS that had been contra
dicted by Mrs. Hunter. Mr.. Clement and
| others.
In This strain MI. Campbell talked the
| whole day, and Frank r. Whitcomb rut
! In an appearance in court just in time to
hear the end of il. He demonstrated at
/