St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-03-19

thorne secured extension after extern
sion of time in which to answer, on the
assurance that Mrs Branch was about
TO sell property in Duluth for $4,000 or
So, 600, and would pay the banking COM
pany's claim as soon as she received
the money. The property in Duluth
was finally Sold but the plaintiffs
claim was still left unsatisfied. Mr..
Seymour says he did not charge that
the failure of the counsel for the de-
Tense to make good his assurances was
bad faith on his part, but he did state
that such assurances had been made,
and not kept, and if the court would
take the trouble to read the affidaVits
presented on the motion to strike out
the answer, it must conclude that no
misstatement of facts had been made
by him (Seymou) in what he said.
Continuing, Mr.. Seymour says:
The court will permit me to call it's
attention to the fact that the propriety
of proving these assurances of the de-
PENDANTS counsel has already been
ruled upon by the court in the trial of
the case. they being testified to by the
agent of the plaintiff, after objection
had been oVerruled. l am unaware that
any reason for failure to comply with
these assurances has ever been given,
except defendants declaration that the
motion to strike out the answer was
a reflection upon her honor, and for
that reason she declined to comply
with the understanding. That defend
ants counsel admits having given such
assurances is manifest from his testi-
mony in the trial" Here Mr. Sey-
mour quotes from the testimony of Mr..
Hawthorne to show that he practically
admitted this fact.
Mr.. Seymour then goes on to say that
he stated these facts substantially to
the court at the time the trouble arose,
his purpose being to call the attention
of the court to the fact that the prop
erty could not be worth the amount
Mrs. Branch represented it was, for
she had $4,000 at her command and if
she had considered the property worth
the amount of the encumbrance, she
would have paid the claim instead of
letting the foreclosure proceedings go
ahead. And as to the charge that
Hawthorne knew that the affidavit was
untrue, Mr.. Seymour calls attention
to the fact that Sept. Mr. Hawthorne
filed an affidavit in which he claimed
the property was worth only from
$4,000 to $4,000, and it could hardly
be probable that his views as to it's
value had been changed in such a
short space of time. Continuing, Mr..
Seymour says:
The statement I made believe to
dence, files and records in this case,
and called for by a fair and proper
presentation of the case, and what
honestly believed, as counsel for plant
if, should be brought to the attention
of the court. as a reason for thinking
that the affidavit in question could not
be made in good faith. I believed it
then, and I certainly believe it now.
The court will, therefore, not overlook
the fact that under the circumstances
1 cannot honestly retract the state
ments, because I believed them to be
true, and my opinion is still unchanged
I'm this order this honorable court
directs that the alternative shall be
that I shall file written charges
against counsel for defendant on or be-
fore Wednesday, March 18. I most re-
Spectfully state to the court. that I do
not desire to file charges against de-
PENDANTS counsel, and the court will
please contrue this statement to be the
making or preferment of any charges
against him. I do not. think the cir
cumstances Of the case call upon me to
do this. and have no disposition to do
it. AS understand the statute, and as
I am advised, I cannot be required to
file such charges.
Il do not, trust, need to assure this
court that I have the highest regard
and respect for it's orders, but l am I'M
able to comply with the direction in
question"