The record-union., 1895-05-20
JUDGE M'KUNE RISES TO EXPLAIN.
What He Did as Counsel in the Case
of Henry VS.. the City.
He Claims That He, and Not Lawyer
Hatfield, Caused 1t co be
Dismissed.

At recent meeting Of the City Trus-
tees demand from J. III. Mckune for
$500 for services as special counsel in the
case of w. E. Henry against the city, Tor
alleged breach of contract, was consid-
cred. The suit had been dismissed in
the United States Circuit Court for want
of jurisdiction, but the Trustees laid the
demand over until they had received
from Judge McKune an explanation OF
the part he had taken in the case.
In response to this request he on Satur-
day filed with Clerk Flint the following
communication on the subject:
LAWYER M'KUNE'S STATEMENT.
SACRAMENTO, May IL, 1895.
To the Honorable the Board Of Trustees
of the City OF acrameRto-GENTLEME
On suggestion of your President. l make
this report of my action as attorney for
the city in the case of W. h. Henry,
plaintiff, against the City of Sacramento,
defendant. in the Circuit Court of the
United States, Ninth Circuit, Northern
District of California.
My employment on the 18th of April
last was limited to the Act of securing (if
possible) q dismissal of the case for want
of jurisdiction in that court to hear and
determine it on its merits.
My examination OF that question was
thorough, and if you request 1t will turn
over my notes to your body or to Cor
poration Counsel for examination.
finally concluded to move in that court
that the case be dismissed.
Your Corporation Counsel, prior to my
employment, had secured an enlarge
ment of time for the defendant to appear
to the 18th day of April. l secured also
by stipulation an enlargement of time to
the 25th day of April, and afterward, by
order of court, to the 5th day of May.
On the = day of April. 1895, L pre-
pared and served on Hon. Grove l..
Johnson, counsel for plaintiff, notice of
motion to dismiss, fixing the time for
hearing for the 9th inst, annexing to the
motion an affidavit of your Mayor to the
effect that the assignors of plaintiff, A. l..
Fish, J. III. Henry and A. Abbott, were,
at all the dates mentioned in the COM
plant, citizons of California.
prepared brief of points and author
tiles | intended to use on that motion, a
copy OF which gave to Judge McKenna
at the opening OF my argument on the
motion. Another was given to the Hon.
Grove l.. Johnson before the case was
called, and l annex copy OF the same TO
this report to advise you of the scope of
the questions involved.
Iopened the argument, Mr.. Johnson
replied, aud at the close of his argument
the Judge announced his decision, dis
missing the case. l thereupon prepared
for the Clerk the proper order, and the
case stands dismissed.
The President of your board also sug-
gested that | state In this report whether
l.. L. Hatfield appeared in the case. and
if so, what he did.
On April Sd he filed paper in that case
which ought to be preserved in am Der, or at
least it should be in the office of every
attorney who is anxious to have his name
connected with case of public impor-
tance. 1t commences thus:
Now comes L. L. Hatfield, an attor-
ney, proctor, and counselor of this court,
as anlicuS cu3'iCg, and asks leave to file in
the above entitled cause demurrer to
the complaint or motion to dismiss the
action, as may be deemed most appropri-
ate to reach the end desired. (Note-I
infer that Mr.. Hatfield expects tho court
to tell him in advance what his remedy
was.} He then says:
1.-The demurrer, or motion to dismiss,
for which leave to file is asked, will be
upon the ground that the court has not
and cannot have jurisdiction" (setting
out the facts that the assignors were resi-
dents of this State). He then reiterates:
The undersigned asks leave to file
such demurrer to the complaint, or mo-
tion to dismiss the action, as anllcus
cariCe, for the reason that he is an attor-
ney, proctor and counselor Of said court,
a citizen OF the said city of Sacramento.
and counselor for citizens and tax payers
residing therein; and because, although
more than sixty days have elapsed since
the service OF process IN this action, the
governing or executive officers OF said
city, or their attorney, have not made
known to the honorable the Judges of
said Circuit Court of the United States
the fact that the complaint in said action
shows that said court mas no jurisdiction
of said action or the parties thereto in
that behalf" You will see by this quota
ton:
First-That he insists on acting as a
friend of the court, using the phrase
''ontictts curtCe" without stint, while his
objective point is to assume control of
the case, believing (no doubt honestly
that he is the only lawyer in this part of
the State competent to take charge of it.
Second-That his position as proctor
and counselor was uppermoSt in his
mind.
Third-That in his opinion any lawyer
who resided in Sacramento and had
clients therein ought to be allowed to ap-
pear in any case against the city without
employment by your body.
Fourth-That although he knew Tor
should have known that Corporation
Counsel had carefully attended to the
case, preventing any default, yet he con-
cealed that fact from the court, asking
leave to appear. limiting (rather than say
ing that the officers OF the city were neg
lecting their plain duty.
Fifth-The governing or executive
officers of the city, had not appeared,
aud therefore he ought to be allowed to
act for the city. He then closes up his
paper as follows:
LAS aBliclts co11oe l will be present at
all times and in all matters when re-
Quired by the court or the Judges thereof
and will hold myself accountable for any
costs that may be incurred by reason of
my appearance, or the making of any or
ders on my behalf not properly charge
able to the plaintiff. All of which is re-
spectfully submitted.
IL. L. HATFIELD, Anaicus Curi9.
You will note from this .last clause that
he makes his application to the court 10
be allowed to take charge of the case,
promising to appear when required by
The court or the Judges thereof" This
seems to contemplate that the court, or
Judge if his application be granted, shall
take charge OF the case, note from time TO
time everything done by plaintiff requir-
ing attention by defendant. and by order
or letter require Mr.. Hatfield to do what
the court or Judge shall deem necessary.
While it might be convenient for the
city To have the court Tor Judge) OF its
own motion determine in advance all
matters necessary TO do for the defendant,
and require Mr.. Hatfield to act as directed,
yet thought, as courts are constituted TO
hear and determine-not to do the work
of lawyer and client-the city had better
keep charge OF its side of the case, without
asking the court for such unusual relief.
On May 9th. in court, Mr.. Hatfield
came to me and told me he had left copy
of his papers In my office, saying further
that when the case was called he would
appear and tell the court that as the city
was NOW raprasentad by COUNSEL he yxouI3