The Irish standard., 1898-10-29
A PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS.

William Henry Eustis, explaining the
i 81 200 check given to him by Julia A.
| Cling, the administrators of the estate OF
Catherine Cling, the victim of Harry Hay
, ward. He says that the actual disburse-
| ments incurred in setting aside the as
signments of the two insurance policies
to Hayward were 5000. and that $1,000
was not an unreasonable charge for the
services he had rendered in making Julia
Cling the administrative. filing proofs OF
loss under both policies, and visiting
New York for the purpose of seeing if a
settlement could not be had without liti
CATION. He also says that after making
what he considered a reasonable charge
and just to all interests. he gave Julia
Cling his own personal check for $500,
being one-half the amount OF my fee, ="
because she had been here during the
Hayward trial at large expense, and was
receiving but a small fraction of the pro-
ceeds cas- the estate was divided equally
among three different heirs. in other
states. and yet under the law there was
no way in which she could do this" He
says that these are the facts in the case,
which it would have been easy for us
to have ascertained had we called upon
Miss Cling or himself before publishing
our statement.
The proper place for the facts to he
Iscertaned is the probate court. and
had Mr.. Eustis or the administrative APP
pointed by him filed an itemizcd bill in
the regular way, we could have spared
him the trouble of explaining about the
check of 81 200 which he received from
her for his services and disbursements
In the matter OF the Cling estate. Now,
let us see what services Mr.. Eustis rem
dered to cntitle him to fee of one thou
sand dollars out OF the estate besides
5000 paid for setting aside and cancelling
the assignments OF the policies to Hay
ward in the district court
In referring to file 66,174 we find that
Julia A. Cling through William H. Eus-
tbs. brought an action against Harry 7.
Hayward. and that on Dec. IL, 1895, it
was stipulated that w. w. Hayward be
the same day the following stipulation
was drawn up and signed by the attor
ncys in the case: III is hereby stipu-
lated and agreed by and between the
plaintiff and defendant w. w. Hayward,
in the above entitled action. that the
plaintiff in said action may take judg
ment at once against said defendant, w.
w. Hayward. as prayed for in the COM
plant at the plaintiff in said action
except that no Judgment shall be entered
in said action against the said defend
ant, w. w. Hayward for any costs"
The next day. Dee. IA. Judge Robert ID.
Russell ordered the action set aside and
camced. That is the extent of the liti-
cation. and the policy in the New York
Life was soon after paid without any
hesitation on the part OF the company.
or any expense to the estate. as far as
we can discover. Mr.. S. A. Reed. who
had been the attorney for w. w. Hay
ward for many years, informs us that
he received from Mr.. Eustis about $75.
to the hest OF his recollection for drop
ping the case.
Mr.. Eustis may have gone to New
York. as he alleges, but in our opinion
lie might as well have stayed at home
until the Hayward claim had been set
aside. He was lawyer enough to know
that the New York Life would not pay
the policy until it knew VINO the legal
claimant was. Perhaps he was vain
enough to imagine that his broad OK
ranse of smile would have hypnotized
the company into paying him $4,000 on
the life of Catherine Cling, because no
was then mayor of Minneapolis. BE
that as it may Mr.. Eustis did not get
the money until the action against Hay
ward was disposed of by stipulation.
On looking over the files We find that
SIPS was paid to two other attorneys out
Of the Cling estate, which, added to Mr..
Reeds fee of SIS. would make $2OO-the
amount said to have been disburscd by
Mr.. Eustis in getting judgment against
Hayward. 1t may be lcsltimately asked.
what other services besides these
enumerated did Mr.. Eustis render to
earn his fee of $1,000 to enable him to
exercise his philanthropy" toward Julia
Cling at the expense of her three sisters.
For her services as administrators Julia
Cling was paid $500 and $l79.5O and re-
ceived an equal share of the estate be-
sides and she had nothing to do until
Mr. Eusts got the policy paid up. Ac-
cording to the final accounting. which
can be seen in the probate court, the
entire expense OF administration was
$1.S25, exclusive Of funeral expenses and
balances due to creditors. The total ex-
penses aggregated s2,531.77. leaving ST.
530.61 to be divided between the four
sisters of the deceased, share and share
alike. Each of the three sisters got
s634.l5 out Of an estate Of $5,O6S.3S, while
Julia Cling received in all $1,S13 65
nearly as much as the three sisters got
altogether. 1t is certain he gave
her the $500 check. for we have
seen the voucher, facsimile of which
appeared in the Sunday Tribune of Oct
s~l 4.