The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-26
WILL DECIDE TO-DAY
SUPERIOR BENCH WILL MAKE Al
LOwANCEs IN IRON HALL CASES.
of Their Own Services in the
Litigation.

The allowances to Receiver Failey and
the attorneys who took part in the Iron
Hall litigation will probably be made in
the Superior Court to-day. Yesterday the
judges heard the opinion of witnesses as
TO the compensation of attorneys in the
case. r. o. Hawkins, of the firm CT Hawk
ins & Smith, occupied the greater Tart of
the morning with a statement In detail OF
the work performed by his firm. The total
amount asked for by Hawkins & Smith is
s27.0Oc. of which 5000 is for two trips made
by r. o. Hawkins to Philadelphia in the
interests Of the litigation. A. c.
Harris put in a claim for $4,000 in addition
TO the $1,000 he has already been paid. At
torney Howe wants $1,000, in addition to
the 81, 100 received heretofore. Harold Tay-
lor has been paid 1850 and asks for about
that much more. He told the court that he
thought his services were worth $1,000 or
$1,000. The smallest claim is that of Cham
bers, Pickens & Moores and Finch &
Finch. These attorneys filed a joint claim
for 5000. There is no claim on file from
Baker & Daniels
The attorneys claims will not be argued.
They were submitted to the court yester-
day evening after the examination of a
number Of witnesses as to reasonable
amounts. The testimony of r. o. Hawkins
covered all of the litigation in which the
firm of Bawkins s& Smith has been en-
gagged. When the firm was retained by the
receiver it was assigned TO the litigation
In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland,
Missouri, Virginia, District of Columbia,
Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Colorado and
Montana. Among the duties attended to
by Mr.. Hawkins was the settlement of the
litigation in Philadelphia, including the ex-
animation of the books of the Somerby
the question as to how the funds should be
disposed Of. Mr.. Smith, OF the firm, spent
two days at ST. Louis in a vain attempt
to have the Missouri receiver made auxil-
larry TO the Indiana receiyership. Mr.. Hawk
ms made trips to Trenton, n. j., and Balti-
more, spending several days in each city.
For a time he failed to get an order from
the court recognizing the Indiana receiver.
In Virginia attachment proceedings were
pending when the receiver was appointed
represent the receiver IN that State. 1t fell
10 the lot OF Mr.. Hawkins to go to Vir-
ginia, but the receiyership failed to realize
anything from the litigation. After several
trips TO Baltimore Mr.. Hawkins was able
to secure a decree of the Maryland court
which placed the funds of that branch in
the hands of Receiver Failey. The firm of
Hawkins & Smith assisted in all of the
legal proceedings which involved an appeal
of the defendants in the litigation TO the
erward to the Supreme Court. Mr.. Hawk
ms, individually, devoted nearly all of his
tlIle 10 iron f1dll mdttefS lTOIn tile tiitlc VI
the appointment of a receiver until Decem-
Der, 1894.
The statement of Mr.. Hawkins referred
to the work done by attorney Harold Tay-
lor. The latter spent much of his time at
the Office of the Iron Hall. He the
books and made an argument In one case
volved. Mr.. Taylor. in speaking for him
self, showed the court that he had not
been a laggard. He took a vacation in Feb
full time he went to New Orleans, where
he spent four days trying to adjust the
Iron Hall litigation there. In Louisiana the
branches brought suit against the officers
to prevent the fund from being sent here.
MIR: Taylor prepared the briefs for the Off
Gals. In the Maine attachment suits he
prepared the pleadings and also looked aft
er the litigation in Minnesota. involving
several thousand dollars. He made a trip
to Tennessee, where $4,000 was at stake,
to the United States Circuit Court. AL
though Missouri was assigned to hawkins
& smith, Mr.. Taylor did much of the work
in that state. In the absence of Mr.. Hawk
ms he prepared a petition and sent 1T to
Missouri. The argument. before the Missouri
the important duties performed by Mr..
Taylor was the making OF a tabulated
statement showing the amount of money in
ence was immense and required close at
~tention. Probably one thousand letters have
e e Many Ia Su of fShs sns letters sfersg re OF n,i
as much work as a brief.
A. G. Harris, In recounting the history
of his connection with the Iron Hall litiga-
tion, said that in Maine he secured $4,000
for the receiver. In New York he assisted
in getting the litigation through the Su-
preme Court and helped prepare a special
finding of facts. The other claimants who
testified were ID. w. Howe, John a. Finch,
Of Finch & Finch. This firm, with Cham
bers, Pickens & Moores, were engaged in
the litigation before the temporary receiver
was appointed.
ID. w. Howe told of his connection with
the trust. He worked hard, he said. to re-
organize the Iron Hall prior to the APP
pointment Of a temporary receiver. He
full much money would have been saved
the members. Mr.. Howe said he had al
ready drawn 81, 100 and would be satisfied
with $1,000 more. He was not asking for a
big allowance. Charles w. Smith and John
s. Duncan both testified to the work done
by Mr.. Howe. Both were of the opinion
that his services were worth $4,000. Five
thousand dollars. they thought, would be a
low estimate. Duncan & Smith were IA
miliar with the character of the work dohe
by Hawkins & Smith and thought that $25.-
600. in addition to the extra allowance TO
Mr.. Hawkins for his two trips TO Phila-
delphia, a reasonable compensation for that
firm. Encouragement Ketcham thought
the amounts named by the other attorneys
were reasonable.
To-day the Superior judges will consult
together. They announced last night that
they would be prepared to give a decision
BRIEFS FILED TOO LATE.