New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-16
REPROVED BY JUSTICE DAILY.
LAWYERS WHO HAD JURORS SIGN
PROTEST AGAINST A VERDICT

APPARENTLY THOUGHT THEY KNEW MORE THAN
THE cOURT-AN UNUSUAL INCIDENT IN CHIEF
JUSTICE DALYs EXPERIENCE.
The report of Francis d. Hoyt the referee APP
Dointed 10 investigate the facts leading up 70 the
signing by ten Of the jurors in the suit OF "a'eT
p Williams against Catherine r. Dunscomp ana
others of a letter to Chief Justice DAILY OF the
Court Of Common Pleas protesting against the
verdic. he directed, was submitted to the CAiet
Justice Yesterday and made the subject OF
lengthy argument 1t is an exceedingly Volufhi-
nous document covering over one hundred type
written pages The particulars of the suit nave al
ready been fully published. A striking featurs
was the fact that Mrs Martha E. Clark and her
con Irroderlck X Clark were contestants in the
suit The polnt involved the settlement OF
conflicting claims to the ownership OF the puild-
ing and lot No 80 West Forty-sixth-st Inc YER
diet directed was against the plaintiff and Frede-
rlcl, X Clark, who made defendant Inc
charge IS that Frederick X. Clark and David Burr
Lucky secured the signatures OF the jurors 10 tne
letter of protest sent to Judge DAILY. The intima-
ton is that the course they are alleged to have
taken IN the matter renders them BOTH as they
are lawyers liable to disbarment
eeven ~ the Jurors as shown in the report. have
been examined by the referee. They all claim 10
have signed the letter upon the statement mace
either by Clark or Lucky that they had perfect
right TO do so in the expression VI tH't4 '''N'N
victons as juror9 that by doing so they wouiu
no. involve themselves in any trouble with the
court and that 1t would be material 10 MT ClarA
I'm connection with filing some papers In the case
BENJAMIN Loewy read the referees report and
the testimony Of the jurors. Here Is poruo" u
n letter which It was said had been sent 10 sol'ie
Of the Jurors after they had been subpoenaed 10
onnoar before the referee The letter is headed
with the statement This is sent you by friends
and. OF course. IS strictly confidential" and then
runs follows: go
The jurors examined far have stood up aRS
stand By their IN oa e the referes yeser
a% t Ir men be entertained an entirely different opn
lon from the Judge as 10 the way the case should
have been decided and when ne asked THIS his talk
about contempt is all rot The referee was not not
apr a5yerse 9 sd an" 70 find out il they could
iha Jurors into saying the letter was got Dy sonle
snmetbnr IKE that but he did not dare come be-
fore the referee and face me otner srle %
NJ tho other Jurors has been about as follows You
viii therefore probably be asked; 49, ,., l., ,
verdict by direction OF the Court?
YES bv direction OF the Court, but not OF my
own free will.
\ series Of other questions and answers followed
mainly explanatory of the reasons for signing the
letter TO Judge DAILY and. of course. Intending TO
show conclus!vey that they knew what they were
about whereas the Judge clearly. in their opinion
did not.
~ ask said Mr.. Ioewy after he had finished
reading the report. that the papers be sent 10
the General Term disbar Clark ana LUCKY ana
also be presented to the Grand Jury.
Mr. Lucky denied most emphatcaly having seen
the letter before It's presentation at the nearing
before the referee Mr.. Clark made an equally ex-
pllclt denial. They did not deny. however. having
secured the signatures OF the jurors to the letter
protesting against the verdict.
| z Lar
what ala YOU expect to gain by getting that letter
signed by the Jurors
Il wanted" replied Mr. Lucky. ITO get an eH-
ures.lon OF the Jurors opinions in the matter.
What good would that do?'
SHOW that the verdict directed was on techh!-
cality. and not on its merits
Il think YOU are responsible for IT," said the
! Judge sternly. As 10 Mr. Clark. his conduct
| simply illustrates what has often been said ABOUT
| a man acting as his own counsel HIS frame Oh
mind and overzealousness in his own behalf were
such that ne did not know what was right or
wrong. but YOU acting as attorney should nave
! known better. II this anonymous letter coula De
traced 20 any one. IT certainly could be the SUBJECT
| OF criminal proceedings" b..
| Mr levy thought there could be no doubt as to
pressed himself clearly and directly as TO what ne
! thought ought 90 be- done.
! Mr. Lucky explained. ami 50 ala Mr.. Clark what
they had done. and pleaded innocence oil any h'e"-
! ton % show dsrespect 20 the Court ,
/ Judge DAILY read severe lesson to Mr Lucky.
/ whom he alone he'd responsible. lie expressed ms
| amnzement at what had been done, and said that
! he had never known anything Ike II before IN MS
~ ask he Conrt." said Mr. Loewy. 80 permit
the papers 90 hc h.ei ana sent TO the Grand jury
| the J,ise. The subject Of contempt must be on a
separate motion. All the papers are ordered on ne
ami L any ono feeis agsrieved he can use them ioF
! And thus wa ended a most unusual and remark
! able scene IN court