The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-19
CASE OF ROSE ZETTLER.
~ Boh- Up Again I'm a SUIT Brought
DS r.. W. Cnshnsan. of Tacoma.
for Attorneys Eee.

~ would seem as II the case Of Rose
Zettier. which had sufficient notorfety AT
me time OF It's trial. Is not 70 be suffered
70 drop out OF public notice. II came I'D
indirectly yesterday before Judge Benson
~ the shape OF a suit prosecuted by r.
~. Susnman, a Tacoma attorney. against
MT and Mrs. Zettler for legal services
rendered
The testimony in the case vastersa a.
showed pretty ennclussveiy that Mr.. Cusn-
man had been employed by the Zssflsr@
and that he had done efficient work In
connection with the defense Of Mrs. Yeti
Ter RE had made up and aIed the bonds
Tor her appearance. had done all The
routine work OF the case a; the Tacoma
END. had followed up the evidence In that
city where the alleged theft occurred and
had acted With VIII f. Humphrey as
counsel for the defense In the superior
ana supreme courts. Despite the testf-
mony OF Mr.. Zctflar and Mr. aud Mira
solomon Zettler 70 the contrary, Judge
Benson concluded that Mr. Cushrnan had
done the work he had been engaged 70 do.
and that balance Of 500 was due him on
account by the Zettlers, ard he accord
lnsiy gave judgment In that amount in
favor OF claypool. Cushman & Cushman.
The ground for giving judgment IN
favor or the firm rather than OF Mr. Cush-
man. who had brought the suit indiyidu-
ally. was the result of 2 point raised by
counsel for the Zettlers, who moved for a
dismissal on the ground that, while the
suit was prosecuted in the name OF r. w
Cushman. all the receipts and other
records offered in evidence showed that
the proper plaintiff would be the firm.
and that Mr.. Cushman as an individual
could have no standing In court unless
he could in some way show that the claim
of the firm had been transferred or as
signed TO him individually The court
was inclined 10 hold that the point was
well taken. but thought Il had been raised
at too late a stage In the proceedings.
and SO. on personal assurance OF the APP
pearance OF the two other members OF
the firm. allowed the substitution OF
plaintiffs.
There was startling discrepancy In
the testimony offered yesterday. Mr..
Zettier testified that at the trial OF the
case before the Pierce county superior
court Mr.. Cushman was not present In
the courtroom more than ten minutes out
OF the two days during which the trial
lasted. His evidence was corroborated
by that OF his sister-in-law. and neither
OF them varied from their story under
cross-examinatlon.
But Mr.. Cushman took the stand. and
the bundle OF manuscript he held In his
hand shed a different light on the mat
ter. He sWore that these papers were his
original notes taken by him at the trial
In the superior court. that he was pres
ent at every moment of that trial, and
that Mr.. Humphrey had Afterwards used
these notes I'm making up the appeal. In
these statements he was strongly cor
roborated by Mr.. Humphrey. who idenu-
fed the notes and testified that Mr.. Cush-
man had occupied a seat just behind him
during the trial: that Mr.. Cushman. haV-
ing a wide acquaintance IN Pierce county.
had conducted the examination Of Jurors.
had taken part in the cross-examination
OF witnesses, and had alone been present
when the verdict was rendered. Mr.
Humphrey having been called away.
Some amusing passages occurred be-
tween attorney and witness while Mr..
Zettier was on the stand. Witness boldly
took the position that he had never en-
ployed Mr.. Cushman at all.
what did YOU pay me money for.
thpnq' asked Mr.. Cushman-
'sFor fixing UP the bond" replied Mr..
Zettier.
sBut after that" said Cushman. don't
Won remember a conversation i had with
YOU IN front OF the Bailey building. In
which I SPOKE 20 You about money, and
YOU promised 20 try and get some for
meT''
Eyes: but didn't pay you, did II
.No." replied Cushman
'.Then why didn't 10" asked Zettler.
turning auestioner himself
..T'hats~ precisely what i should Ike 10
know" said Cushman dryIy.