St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-03-19
WILL NOT RETRAcT
ATTORNEY SEYMOUR STANDS BY
WHAT HE SAID ABOUT AT
TORNEY HAWTHORNE.
SAYS HE RESPECTS THEC0URT
BUT HE CANNOT COMPLY WITH
THE DIRECTION TOUCHING
THE CASE.
HOW THE WHOLE TROUBLE AROSE
Came Up in Connection With Suit of
MiddIeseX Banking Company
Against Mary branch.

Attorney Mcneil V, Seymour declines
90 file charges against Attorney j. NJ.
Hawthorne. and he also refuses to re-
tract his statements concerning his
opinion of that gentleman What 1
said I believed to be true, and I have
not since changed my mind, therefore
I cannot retract; but must be ex-
cused from fling charges, for have
no desire to do so, and I think the
court has gone outside CT its legiti-
mate business in the matter anyhow"
is, IN substance, the answer of Mr..
Seymour to the order of Judge Willis
directing him to file charges against
Mr.. Hawthorne or a written retrac-
ton Of his statement to the effect that
that gentleman was guilty of unpro-
fessional conduct. But the answer is
couched in very respectful terms, and
disclaims all desire to ignore the or
der OF the court, or to show, any lack
Of proper consideration therefor,
The trouble arose last Saturday in
the course Of an argument on a mo-
ton before Judge Willis. Seymour is
attorney for the plaintiff and Haw-
thorne for the defendant in the suit
of the NIiddlesex Banking company VS..
Mary Branch. The argument was on
motion in supplemental proceedings
in suit on mortgage. Hawthorne
presented an affidavit Of Mrs. Branch
TO the effect that the property was
worth $4,000, and Seymour stated that
the aftldaVit was untrue and both HaW-
thorne and his client knew it was un-
true. He went over the history of the
n iTnn -o5 -
court to certain facts that had been
developed in the trial to substantiate
this statement, and intimated that
Hawthorne had been guilty of other
sharp practices in the case.
Hawthorne took exception, and Judge
Willis ordered Seymour to either file
written charges against Hawthorne by
noon yesterday or else an explicit re-
traction. He further ordered that if
charges We're filed, Hawthorne should
have until tomorrow to reply, and then
the court would hear the matter Sat
urday. Mr.. Seymour did not ignore
the order of the court, but came in
yesterday and filed a paper that con-
talns neither charges nor a retraction.
but is in substance as above stated, Mr..
Seymour begins by saying:
do most respectfully reserve the
right to object to the making of said
order, upon the ground that this court
has no Jurisdiction or lawful right to
make the same"
He then goes on and gives a brief
history OF the case, stating that it is
a suit on note for $4,000 and interest,
secured by mortgage; that in pursu-
ance of a verdict directed by the court
IN October last, judgment for SIS, 9O4 IS
was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
An execution levied in st. Louis county
brought $1,000, but another levied in
this county was returned unsatisfled.
On March an order was secured di-
recting Mrs. Branch to appear before
referee and make disclosures, but
she, in turn, filed an affidavit to the
effect that the mortgaged property was
worth $4,000, and secured an order di-
recting the plaintiff to show cause why
the order for her to show cause should
not be vacated. The question as to
the value of the property was there
fore material, Mr.. Seymour thinks,
when the matter came up before Judge
Willis last Saturday.
Going back again to the beginning
OF the action, Mr.. Seymour says that.
after the complaint was filed, Mr.. Haw-