The herald., 1898-01-18
Charge Against Attorneys
in the Young Case
IT is AGAIN CARRIED OVER
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVES
OPINION ON FEES
Supreme Court Opinion in the Z. T
Bryant Case to Arrive Today.
Birds Case Continued

The very much disputed divorce suit
of Charles L. Young VS.. Lulu Young
again was called up in Judge Van
Dykes department yesterday.
1t will be remembered that the plain
tiff blocked his suit by dying after ver-
bal decision had been made and before
the findings and decree had been signed.
Then the fight began as to whether the
plaintiff had really been divorced before
his death or not. Attorneys Pierce and
Gould, as counsel for Mrs. Young, con-
tended that he had not, while Marble
and Phibbs, counsel for plaintiff, took
the opposite view of the case. Briefs
were filed and the matter promised to
develop into a very pretty fight Sud
denly the matter was ended by stipula-
ton of counsel that the decree be signed
and ended, and it appeared as If with the
divorce the matter ended.
New life was injected into the case,
however, when stack of affidavits was
filed by Mrs. Young to sustain her con-
tention that she was entitled to change
her attorneys If she desired. She had
retained Winder & Davis to represent
her in her interests under the McCul-
Tough will, made by the noted editor at
st. Louis Messrs. Pierce & Gould, who
had represented her in the divorce pro-
ceeding, declined to stipulate for change
of counsel hence the stock of affidavits
referred to. These were all of the hot
stuff variety, but did not have full force
upon the motion for change of attorneys
Judge Van Dyke promptly ruled that
any client is entitled to change attor-
neys if he or she desires, and in this
particular instance if Messrs. Pierce &
Gould have any claim against Mrs.
Young they have their recourse in the
courts the same as anyone else.
Yesterday the matter came up on the
motion of Winder & Davis. Mrs voungs
attorneys, that the decree of divorce en-
tered for the deceased husband be va
Gated. To sustain this motion another
stack of affidavits similar in tenor to
those previously filed were submitted to
the court. Briefly put they elaborated
the main charge that Messrs. Pierce &
Gould had entered into an agreement
with Messrs Marble & Phibbs that the
decree of divorce might be entered
against their client and they be awarded
$500 as attorneys fees, to be paid out of
the deceased Young's estate.
Mrs. Young contends that this agree
ment was made unknown to her, ami is
contrary to her interests. Under the
laws of Missouri she is entitled to claim
her widows dover and also has, as wild
ow, interest under the laws of Kansas
and Arkansas, which is imperiled by
the decree of divorce being entered
against her. The affidavits filed tend to
show that Mrs. Young was sold out by
her attorneys, but there are two sides to
every story and theirs has yet to be
heard.
Yesterday Marble s, Phibbs represent
ed to the court that the citation to ap-
pear had been addressed to them as at
tprneys for the plaintiff. In order that
attorneys may appear they must have
client, and when Charles Young died
they no longer had a client. Young's es-
tate is represented by Mr.. Phibbs as
executor under the will and not as one
of the deceased's attorneys. If they
were required to appear in the case they
asked for time within which to file affi-
davts and also obtain others from
Messrs. Pierce & Gould. Mr.. Marble de-
sired the court to advise him in the
matter but the court refused any such
responsibility, but did grant until
Thursday afternoon for the prepara-
tion of the afiidavits desired.
Winder & Davis insisted that copies
be filed upon them on Wednesday in
order that they could respond by others
and then the matter went over.