The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-10-03
ANSWER MADE BY
CORNELIUS SMITH
Serves His Paper Book % Attorneys
Named by the Court.
SAYS He HAS SOME NEW FACTS
They Are Set Forth in Detail in His
BOOk..ClOses by Reiterating the
Statement Thnt Everything He Has
Done Was for His Client and Not
with View OF Maiisning the
Judiciary.

Cornelius Smith yesterday served his
answer to the paper book of the ap-
pellee's attorneys, S. b. Price. James
II. Torrey and T.. G. Newcombe. In 1t
he and his associate, A. Ii. McCollum
say:
The following facts not known to re-
spondent at the time the history or the
case was written, are here stated as part
of the history of the case: On the morn
ing of the preliminary hearing in the case;
Myron Kasson, deputy prothonotaly, ana
John G. McAskie court reporter, called
l.. =. Wedeman behind the jury box in
the court room. where the following con-
verSatiOn took place.
Mr.. Kasson said: Mr.. Weideman YOU
are mistaken as to the opinion yo" say
Judge Gunster handed down.
Weideman replied No, Mr.. kasson.
am not mistaken. You know you came to
me with the opinion in your hand and
said this will never do | must see Burns
and get the opinion changed. the judge
has made mistake.
Mr.. McAskie then said: Mr.. Weideman.
whether you are mistaken or not We must
stand together; this matter m0st be fixed;
you must acknowledge you are mistaken.
WHAT wEIDEAIAN SAID.
Weideman replied: No. gentlemen. | am
not mistaken and | will not falsely ac-
been to see both Judge Gunster and Judge
Archibald and told them that l was the
person who informed Mr.. Smith that an
opinion discharging the rule to strike off
handed down, and that if was called as a
witness | would be Obliged to say that
such an opinion was handed down.
1t is argued that the position of the
court is that the opinion handed down was
this is true why do they not prove it?
Why did Judge Gunster go upon the wit
ness stand and say so? Why did he not
produce the opinion or at least account
for its non-appearance? Why do they not
call as witnesses some of the other law
yers that were present in court when the
alleged opinion was handed down? These
lawyers, like the learned Judge Gunster.
declined to come forward and testify.
The respondent could not safely take the
chances of forcing such men to testify
against the alleged position of the court.
But the courts alleged position being
square in the face of the evidence ii is
thought that honor, duty and law, alike.
compelled them to call as witnesses these
attorneys. and especially so when Mr.
Kasson. the witness that they did call,
contradicted their alleged position in tes-
tifying. My recollection is there was no
opinion lin the rockingham casey.
1t Is also denied that Mr.. Smith told the
prothonotary to hold his check. He says
he told Mr.. Kasson he took exceptions to
the arbitrators claims of $50 each and di-
o.
them as he intended to appeal against
paying for more than two days pay.
ABOUT JUDGE ARCHIBALD.
Regarding Judge Archbald's statement
that he called the case out of its Regular
order that il might be tried before an out
side judge, Mr.. Smith says that If. as
Judge Archibald states. ne did this on ac-
count of the scandal the case had created.
1t would have been far better for him 10
have withdrawn Myron kasson from the
case and allowed some disintereStcd party
to draw the jury, as up TO that time kas-
son was the only one charged with any
wrong doing.
In addition to the eleven propositions in
the original paper book nine new ones
are submitted in the appellants answer:
!. That the court committed fundamental
error IN refusing to hear and determine
IN the first instance the respondents mo-
ton to quash the proceedings.
:. That an attorney for anything done
in defense OF his client cannot be dis
barred.
3. That the evidence of facts as claimed
by the respondent Is uncontradicted and
as Il legal consequence, conclusive.
l. That the facts proved in the case are
all one way. and the iinding of fact by the
learned judges are all the other way.
H. That the criticism complained Of be
ing made upon condition Is not an offense
D. That the writing of the letters to re-
spondent was an honest effort to AS
{. That the failure of the other side to
produce the alleged Frothingham Opin-
ion or account for it's non-production
leaves them subject to the presumption
arising from the suppression of material
evidence.
g. Excepting for contempt in the pres
ence of the court, no court can create a.
jurisdiction for itself by its own state
ment of facts. put on the record without
any proceeding as the basis of such rec
ord
g. The proceedings from beginning to
the end are in violation of natural jus tice
and the law of the land.
DONE FOR HIS CLIENT.
In closing Mr.. Smith reiterates that
anything he did was done for his
client and not with any view of ma
ligning the judiciary, Mr.. Kasson or
anyone else.
The argument on Mr.. Smiths appeal
from the rule disbarring him will he
made before the supreme court in
Pittsburg next week. The attorneys in
the case leave for Pittsburg today.
Great Excitement
at the auction sale of Davidow Bros.
now going on. Watches, diamonds,
etc, at unheard of prices. 90