New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-06-30
COMPLICATED LEGAL DISPUTE
THE TROUBLE BETWEEN TWO LAWYERS
BROUGHT TO MIND By THE SUIT
OF ONE FOR DIVORCE

THE TROUBLE BETWEEN TWO LAWYERS
BROUGHT TO MIND By THE SUIT
OF ONE FOR DIVORCE.
The suit which Charles +. Beach, law author OF
this city, has begun divorce, against his wife In
Oklahoma City, recalls the somewhat remarkable
controversy In which Mr.. Beach some two or three
years ago wa the principal figure There were
many interesting phases surrounding the case. the
facts Of which will bear repetition. Mr. Beach
was at that time connected in business with Simon
Sterne the lawyer of Beaver-st. and upon the sew
erance OF these business reat lions Mr.. Beach MADE
a claim against the latter for a large sum OF
money. His contention was that Mr.. Sterne mad
in the winter OF 1883 entered into an agreement
with him. whereby In consideration OF the services
10 be rendered by him In the business OF the Mis-
souri, Kansai and Texas Railway Company he
should receive 20 per cent of the fees to be paid
TO Mr.. Sterne. who was then acting as counsel FOR
that corporation. The claim was denied on the
ground that such agreement had ever been en-
tered into and the settlement Of the dispute. In
stead of being fought out in the public law courts
was submitted to the arbitration OF Frederic r.
Coudert IN the spring of 1892 There was no pre-
tenco In any part OF the proceedings that any
written agreement ever made between the
parties, or that the existence OF any such agree
ment was referred to in their correspondence sub
seauent to the time when II alleged 10 have
been entered into. The question as TO whether
contract was made turned wholly upon the unsup-
ported testimony of Mr. Beach. the plaintiff In
the proceedings. which the arbitrator said was or
IAN extremely vague and unsatisfactory char-
acter" Indeed at the very outset. the arbitrator
expressed the opinion that the whole difhcuity
might be explained by a misunderstanding OF the
effect OF the conversation alleged TO have taken
place between the dsputants. and that he might
dispose Of the case by holding that there was no
meeting Of minds which would In law constitute a
valid and binding obligation on the part OF the de-
PENDANT 10 pay the amount claimed
Mr. Beach. however insisted that this theory
was untenable and urged that II was the duty or
the arbitrator to proceed with the case. Ultimate
ly the case was decided in favor OF the Defendant
upon all the points argued. In spite OF an agree
ment which had previously been entered into be
tween the parties to the effect that the decision
of the said arbitrator shall be final and conclu.
sive that there shall be appeal thcrefrom.
Mr. Beach persisted In his obviously unfoundel
claim and carried the case 10 the Court OF Appeals
which also decided against him Subsequently Mr.:
Beach had printed and distributed the speech o,
his counsel before the arbitrator without n word
OF explanation and without any statement OF the
decision which rendered IL was apparent that
the publication OF this document was prompted by
motive 10 injure the professional standing OF the
defendant and Mr.. Sterne. in fairness and justice
to himself published pamphlet containing fun
report o. the exhaustive Judgment OF the arbi-
traitor which showed Justification for his refuia-
ton Of the plairtin s claim