The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-04
MIR. SHAFFER SCORED
Ex-Attorney-General Miller Uses
Some Very Strong Words.
He Refers to Mr.. Skaters Conduct in
the Street-Car Deal-The
Courts Remarks.

leaves on Monday morning TO SIT on the
Court of Appeals there and will be absent
a month. Mr. Winter concluded his argu-
ment yesterday morning and Mr.. Beverage
followed on behalf of Mr.. Shaner, occupy
ing the greater part of the day. Among
other things he said that Mr.. Mason had
claimed to be the principal broker in the
transaction and yet he had asked Mr..
Shaffer, the subordinate broker. to divide
with him the large commission. This MIR.
Beveridge secuted as unnatural If Mr..
Shaffer was the subordinate broker he
would have gone to Mr. Mason, he claimed,
with such proposition. Another claim Mr..
Beveridge made was that with all his sus-
picions aroused as to the reliability Of Mr..
Shaffer in the matter of the division of the
commission Mr.. Mason did not say word
to Mr.. Werner regarding the matter. Mr..
Beveridge maintained that everybody in the
case testified to their belief that Mr.. Mason
was recognized as the lawyer for Messrs.
Mckee and Werner; he also urged that had
Mr.. Mason an agreement with Mr.. Shaffer
for dividing this commission he would have
inserted it in the contract which he wrote
for the parties to sign in Chicago. Mr..
Beveridge claimed that Mr.. Mason said not
a word to anybody about his claim for his
share of the commission until five months
after this contract was drawn, and that
meanwhile he had told Thomas Steele.
formerly superintendent of the road, that.
he had no contract at all with Mr.. Shaffer.
Another thing that Mr. Beveridge dwelt
upon was that Messrs. Mckee and Werner
had been putting Mr.. Shaffer off in the mat
ter of this balance of his commission on
what he denominated as two frivolous rea-
sons namely the Fairview Park deed and
old orad ohl
to find. They told him CShaffer) that Mr..
Mason advised them to have those matters
cleared up before making final settlement.
When they told Shaffer this Mr.. Beverage
says that he (Shaffer) and Mr.. Peirce went
to Mason and asked him if he knew any
reason why Shaffer should not be paid the
balance Of the commission, and that Mason
replied that he knew OF no reason.
Mr.. Beveridge dwelt foroibly upon the
following letter of March 9, 1898. from Mr..
Mason TO Mr.. Hutchins. the attorney for
the Chicago owners OF the road:
1.-The release of the Gold claim is salts
factory and herewith return the same to
you. The reason Mckee and Werner have
not advanced the money is, L presume, the
fact that the whole matter is just about to
be closed UP, so that all of Mr.. Shaffers
money will be coming to him at once. 1t
is possible that my clients are with you to-
day or will be tomorrow, in which case
Mr.. Mitchell can have them retain the $1,000
for closing out this Gold claim"
He also devoted much attention to the
kilograms which passed between Messrs.
Shaffer and Mason on May 10, 1893, and Mr..
Mason and Mr.. Mckee on the same date.
Mr. Skaters telegram to Mr.; Mason n was;
park deed
Mr. AIason's reply was:
II have wired Mckee and Werner to
make their own arrangements with you
Mr.. Mason's telegram TO Mr.. Mckee was:
''As L understand you expect to pay my
fee independent of Skaters commission
the only matters for you to adjust with
him are his signature to Park deed, which
stock of the old company which cannot
be found. Any agreement you may make
will be satisfactory here We ought to
became Of it, but Shaffer claims it has
nothing to do with his commission, and he
may be right
The contract between Mr.. Shaffer and
Messrs. Mckee and Werner was signed
Nov IL, 1892.
MIR. MILLER'S ARGUMENT. e
Mr.. Beveridge did not conclude his arglI-
ment until late in the afternoon, and in
order to give Mr.. Miller a chance to close.
Judge Baker consented to hold an evening
session. Mr.. Miller spoke for two hours,
his argument being largely devoted to as
sailing Mr.. Shaffer's credibility as a wit
ness. During the course of his argument
he referred to Mr.. Shaffer as a man who
had been accustomed to dealing with
councilmen in regard to the purchase of
franchises, and who therefore did not know
the difference between fair and foul deal
ings He characterized the proposition of
Mr.. Shaffer to Mr. Werner that he take
$4,000 of the bonds OF the road and Mr.
Werner take the other half, as a direct
proposal to loot the treasury of the Citi-
zens' company. He said that such a propo-
sition was practically larceny, whereupon
10 lxaTs int at.al
the watering of stock, commonly practiced
by large corporations, was moral larceny,
and that this proposition had nothing to
do with showing whether or not there was
a. verbal or written agreement between
Messrs Shaffer and Mason.
Mr.. Miller's argument was very largely
devoted to most scathing review of what
he considered Mr.. Shaffer's duplcity in this
matter. He abused him as a man who, in
the guise of a churchman, had hesitated
at what was nothing short of theft. He
denounced him as a hypocrite and about
everything else that is in the category Of
hypocrisy he cited Mr.. Skaters depreca-
ton of Mr.. Mason's having used the word
damn In heated argument between
them at the Auditorium Hotel over the
proposition that Shaffer assume the 5000
Gold claim Mr. Miller thought that a good
healthy damn was sometimes a great
relief, and had the effect of clearing the
atmosphere He criticised Mr.. Beveridge
for appearing in the case in the dual role
of attorney and one of the principal wit
it would be a sorry day for the United
States courts of Indiana if such was 10 be
the practice He claimed that throughout
the case the testimony of all the witnesses
agreed except that of Mr. Shaffer as to
the salient features of the case. Concern
ing Mr.. Mason's employment as an at
torney by Messrs. Mckee and Werner he
said that Mr. Mason having been employed
by those gentlemen was bound to render
them every service in his power, whether
as attorney, broker or in other capacity
Had Mr.. Mason been doctor, he said, and
on the trip TO Chicago Mr.. Werner had had
his finger smashed and Mr. Mason had been
called upon to dress the injured finger
Mr.. Shaffer might, with the same weight
have urged that Mr.. Mason was employed
merely as a doctor in the case. Mr.. Miller
said that Mr. Mason's treatment by Mr..
Shaffer had been shameful, and asked If
ii was conceivable that if a young lawyer
brought an important case to some premi-
nent older lawyer the latter would kick
him out of the office an take the case and
the fee. Mr.. Beveridge here remarked that
there was only five years difference be-
tween the ages of the two men, whereat
MIR. Miller replied that Mr. Shaffer was
many years older in making deals OK this
sort and in that line of experience general
~. He concluded his argument by saying
that he felt that if there were no barriers
in law which prevented Judge Baker from
deciding In favor OF his client the Judge
would certainly find for Mr.. Mason.
Mr. Miller claimed that as soon as Messrs
Beveridge and Shaffer found they could not
use MIR. Peirce as they wanted, or, in other
| words, that he insisted upon telling the
truth, they had no further use for him
1t viii probably be some time before a
decision is rendered in the case.
The Contract in Full.