The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-25
ALL THE BLAME ON LEWIS.
Why Hunt Failed to Appear for lriai
New Bond offered.

New Bond Onered.
The muddIe resulting from A. Il. Hunt
failure 10 appear at Tacoma or jury 10,
for trial on the charge Of ootaihihg nat
uraliza ton papers BY fraud, IS all a.
tTiouted TO the negligence OF James nam
ilion Lewis his former attorney, IN NOT
notifying Hunt OF the day OF the trial
and withdraw suddenly from the case
without notice. and this was MADE the
ground for asking Judge Hanford 10 &C
cept a new bond Of 1900. Judge Han
ford stated that IL the 5000 judgment
against Hunts boudsmen was set aside
1t would be on account OF the alleged
negligence on tie part OF the attorney.
A Tacoma special gives the following
account OF the proceedings:
Hunt was present In the United States
court today with his attorney. A. d.
Warner. OF Seattle. The latter moved
that the default and Judgment entered
last week be set aside. Judge Hanford
continued the motion with leave to the
United States attorney 70 file a counter
affidavit within two weeks. The defend
ants bond was fixed at 5000. and in de-
fault he was ordered 10 be committed 10
the custody OF the marshal. Later. SIR.
Warner asked and secured Judge Han
ford's permission to submit a new bond
for approval at Seattle tomorrow. Hunt
was taken to Seattle this evening by
Deputy Marshal j. NJ. Quilter, and will
remain in his custody until The bond
is approved.
Mr.. Hunt and Mr.. Warner said this
afternoon that John Collins and DIR. o.
+. Askam, tie old bondsmen. would
again go on the bond. Mr.. Collins was
here today. bus DR.. Askam could not
come. as he was investigating the muir
other sureties would readily be secured
II Mr.. Collins OF Dr.. Askam for any rea-
son should no: qualify.
Four interesting afiidavits were filed
today in the case. one each by Mr.. Hunt,
William Martin, attorney for the bonds
men: John Collins and DIR. Askam. The
affidavitc charge that the recent default
OF Hunt was due TO the negligence of
Mr.. Lewis in falting 10 notify Hunt or
his bondsmen of the date set for his
trial. The affidavits state that for soma
time past Hunt has been In the employ
OF the Northwest Mining Company, in
the SLOGAN district. and was there pre-
yious to July 10. when his ease was called.
Mr.. Martins affidavit read: HE tHunO
had Informed and assuredyour petitioners.
the boadsmen, that he had made ample
provision for being notified when his
presence would be required in said court,
and that he would be sire 10 be present
whenever required. Your petitioners were
further assured by the defendants at
torney James Hamilton Lewis. that
they would be Informed and notified by
him whenever the defendants presence
was required In said court. sufficiently
In time so @that they would be enabled
TO produce the defendant IN court at
such times as were required. Notwith-
standing these arrangements made by
your petitioners TO secure the appear
ance OF the defendant whenever required.
they never received any notice whatever.
or knew from any source that ;he defend
ant would be required to be present IN
court AZ the time he was
The petition goes on 10 state that de-
spite the lack or notice Hunt started
back from the mining district, but on ac-
count of the rise of Thompson creek and
other streams he did not reach Seattle
until July H. while otherwise he would
have been present In court. not later than
July y n is alleged that the defendants
attorney withdrew from the case with
out notifying them OF his intention TO do
SO. or when the defendants presence
would be required In court.
The affidavits of DR. Askam and Mr.
Collins contain substantially the same al
legations. Mr. Collins says that he used
all due diligence TO be notified when the
defendant would be required TO be in
court.
Mr. Hunts affidavit states that he had
arranged for his attorney to notify him
when his presence would be required
and that his attorney was always kept
Informed as 10 his postofflce address: that
shortly before the case was called for
trial atlantis counsel withdrew from
the case without notifying affiant OF his
intention 10 do so. or that his presence in
court would be required at the time at
which It was. and without notifying afr
ants hondsmen. Hunt says that upon
reaching Seattle he called upon Deputy
Marshal Quiter and offered TO surrender
himself also notifying his bondsmen OF
such action: that he has at all times in
tended 20 he present for trial. and I'm no
way sought TO evade trial by remaining
away
On hearing these affidavits and the mo-
tion 20 set aside the default and jude-
meni. Judge Hanford remarked that the
affldavits made very grave charges OF
negligence against Mr.. Lewis. He said
that II the court made any order setting
aside the default and judgment on these
affidavits. II would be on account OF the
misconduct Of Mr.. Lewis. and that the
grounds for the courts action in that
case would be made a matter OF record.
Turning to Assistant District Attorney
Robertson. Judge Hanford told him that
he had better take time to file counter
afidavits II Mr.. Lewis had any statement
10 make. Two weeks were allowed for
this purpose.
Attorney Warner stated that Mr. Lewis
had informed him that he had addressed
a letter to Mr. Hunt In May notifying him
of his withdrawal. but Mr. Hunt never
received the letter He presumed that
Mr. Lewis would make this explanation
ADJUSTMENTS.
''Fritz I'm "A Mad-House.''