Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1897-08-26
How Dearing Lost HIS Fee.

The last information Mr.. Dearing re-
ceived in regard to the Kidd case, prior
to the Incidental discovery that il had
been compromised, was the following
letter from the attorney for defendants
1t shows that he expected Mr.. Dearins
to win the case:
..ST. LOUIS, June 81, 1897.-FRANE
DEARING-DEAR SIR: On Saturday
had an interview with my client IL
hopes of obtaining consent to settle
ment of the Kidd case on some basis
that would be satisfactory to you and
your client. but without success.
am extremely sorry. for do not relish
the prospect of having to argue the
case in St. Paul in September, particu-
larly with a good prospect of getting
another licking at your hands. Al
one time l was quite confident of re-
veesing the judgment in the case. but
the more closely | study it the less
sanguine | grow,
yours very truly,
'sJoHN f. SHEPLEY.
OF course this letter made Mr.. Dear
ing feel like prosperity was coming his
way. He could count on having, with
in a little over three months, the sum
of two thousand dollars; and he pic
tured to himself how he would pay off
the mortgage on his home and settle
his other debts, and feel encouraged
to continue to work to support his fam
lily; but the other fellows saw it was
time for them to do something desper-
ate, and they did it. They began
dickering with Mrs. Kidd, warning
her to keep the matter dark from
Dearing.
After an Intellectual attempt to get
Mrs. Kidd to tell him about the COM
promise and how it was secured,
Dearing went to st. Louis to see Mr..
Hitchcock, and that gentleman could
only promise him TO get report on
the matter from Mr.. Brown, his su-
perintendent at Crystal City. This he
did, and copy was promptly forward
ed to Dearing. Mr.. Brown reports
that about July 1st he received let
ter from Mrs. Kidd saying she was de-
sirous of a settlement IL favorable
terms were offered, and that he for
2nd Ann ha
company. On the 14th of July he got
word from the company that they had
seen Mrs. Kidd and had mailed her
money to pay her way to Festus where
she could consult her son. On July
18th Mrs. Kidd arrived at Crystal and
Mr. Brown wired the insurance COM
pany when they could come down.
They replied next day. He then ad-
vised Mrs. Kidd to notify Dearing, and
she promised TO do so. Representa-
tives of the company came down next
day and were closeted with Mrs. Kidd
IN room belonging to the Glass Co.
After they reached an agreement they
called him in to get his consent TO a
clause promising work TO her son, and
he agreed to make the same promise
to him that he made to all his other
employees. He asked several times
where Mr.. Dearing came in in the
transaction. but got no reply. They
told him they had agreed to pay Mrs.
Kidd $3.50. which she would take In
full settlement in case her son was
given work. He says he asked Mrs.
Kidd on the morning of August 10th If
she had notified Mr.. Dearing as she
had promised to do, and she acknowl-
edged that she had not; that Mr..
johnson had told her at De Soto not
to do so. He then volunteers his pri-
vate opinion in this language: 81
presume she thought that If Mr.. Dear
ing was present he would not allow the
claim to be adjusted for the sum she
took, aud that the amount Mr.. Dear
ing would ask the insurance company
would not give. The case would then
drag on for years, perhaps, and she
would be 10 poverty all the time, and
thought she had better get what she
could at once.
Mr.. Browns presumption is Yio-
lent one, and whoever assisted in cul-
tivatiug such an impression in Mrs
Kidd's mind is accessory to the wrong.
The case could not have been dragged
along for years. The appeal would
have been heard and decided next
month, and there could not have been
more than few months delay
son Democrat.