The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-03-12
MUCH DEPENDS
On the Fate of the Kansas Mort
gage Case.
Monday Will Decide if It Goes
Over
UNTIL OCTOBER NEXT
AS a Result of w. j. ScOtt'S
Motion.
UNTIL OCTOBER NEXT
Particulars of the Situation
From Our Correspondent.

From the State Jonrnars Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON, March II. - The mo-
tiou of W. J. Scott of Kansas City, made
in the supreme court Monday to vacate
the order of January 81, providing for
the submission of the Kansas mortgage
REDEEM ption case (Bsrnitz VS.. Beverly on
briefs, and to permit oral argument will
probably be decided by the court Mon
day.
If Mr.. Scott's motion to permit oral
argument is granted it will in all proba-
bility postpone the hearing of this ur-
gent case until next October, although
MIR. Scott disclaims any desire to delay
the hearing.
Mr. Scott wss admitted to practice be-
fore the supreme court upon motion of
Senator Cockrell of Missouri aud just
before he made his motion Monday.
The attorneys for the plaintiff, Ferry
and Doran of Topeka, were not repre-
sented in person. but filed af1davits to
show that Scott was not in reality the
attorney of the defendant, Beverly, and
that E. A. McMath now of Houston,
Tex, who was Beverly's attorney, alone
had the right to waive oral argument
and that they got his consent by tele-
graph.
Ferry and Deran claim that E A Nc
UldbA 0oF0IAJ III iAO S0-
preme court of Kansas. That after the
first decision of the Kansas supreme
court McMath filed a motion for re-
hearing and that w. J. Scott of Kansas
City, Mo-, fled brief in support of it
and appeared to make oral argument.
But that when notice was served on
Beverly the matter would be brought to
the supreme court Beverly conveyed
that notice to McMath as his attorney.
This, they aver. shows that Beverly con-
sidered McMath his only legal repre-
sentative. hcMath consented by tele-
gram to the submission of the case on
briefs.
They further declare that Scott pur-
chased Bsverly's Judgment after the
case was appealed aud attempted to dis
charge McMath from the case. They do
not oppose the present motion of Scott
provided it doesn't delay the case, but if
oral argument will postpone it they urge
their point that McMath had entire
authority to act for Beverly, the defen-
dant.
When asked by the JOURNAL CORES
pondent if he would urge his motion if
it delayed the case, Mr.. Scott said he
didn't know, that would depend, he
would be here Monday and see. 81 don't
wish to delay this important case" he
said, "but thsre are some points in it
which should be brought to the attention
Ol LnS nuOlo court, anu buls COu1Q uOb D6
done on printed Briefs"
Mr.. Scott seems very anxious to argue
a case before the supreme court of the
United States, and the distinction he
thinks this would confer may have not a
little to do with his desire for oral argu-
ment. Mr.. Scott denies the assertions of
the plaintiffs that he is not the real at
torney of John L. Beverly. He sets
forth in his motion:
First-That E A. NcMath, who claim
ed to represent defendant in error and
who, it is claimed, tslegraphed the attor-
neys for plaintiff in error, agreeing to
submit said case in this court, was not
employed by defendant in error TO rep
resent him in this court and had no au-
thority whatever to make any agree
ments waving oral arguments or other
wise.
Second-That, as defendant in error
is informed and believes, said E. A Nc
Nj ath is not a mem Der of the bar of this
honorable court and had no authority to
appear in this court, either personally or
by stipulation, and make any agreement
waving any of the rights of the defend
ant in error herein.
Third-That while defendant in error
is willing to have this case heard at as
early date as will suit the convenience
of this honorable court yet ON account
of the Importance OF this case and the
hHOOQb l0EOlV6Q ne Is not wiling
to submit this case without oral argu-
ment.
Scott claims that NcMath asked him
IN June, 1895, to take charge of the case
anj again on Jnne 81, wrote to him
abandoning the case. That with the ap-
proval of Beverly and other interested
parties he went to work on the case and
didn't know he was not considered the
representative Of Beverly until the mo-
non OF January 81 was made.
Mr.. Scott appears to fear that Justice
Brewer has preconceived notions about
ehis case and affects, to believe that such
state OF things would do his case more
harm If submitted on briefs. This is
expressed in the following reason given
by Mr.. Scott in support of his motion:
"While we are thoroughly satisfied
that on principle and following the spirit
and letter of its own decisions from
Eturgis va Croninshield and Ogden vs..
Saunders down, this court will affirm the
necision of the supreme court of Kansas.
yet we are especially anxious that this
question should be finally settled by an
unanimous court. and to that end we
think a full discussion of the question
Involved is absolutely necessary, for the
reason that an honorable member of this
court has formed and expressed an
opinion which we think ia contrary to
the expressed opinion of nearly every
Dther member of this court. We think
that opinion was formed without full
consideration of the questions involved,
and was more the result of early associa-
tiens as the counsel and representative
Ut the largest life insurance company in