The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-03-15
ONLY LAWYERS IN THIS CASE
PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS AND AT.
TORNEYs OF ONE PROFESSION.

LAWYER Owens Sued for n Fee OF
$500 Out of Money Claimed by
Lawyers LeaIen, O'COnnOr and
O'Byrne, as Partners of the For
mer Firm of Mitchell n Delaney.
Some Light Thrown on the House
Drainage CONFERENCE.-The. O'Byrne
Testifies That His Experience in
This Connection Was Most Unsat-
isfactOry.
The entire day In the City Court yester-
day was occupied in the hearing of the
suit of George w. owens against Delaney
and Zipa and Mitchell & Delaney, claim
ants.
The suit Is for $500, which Mr. owens
claimed to be due him as fee for his SER
vices as attorney for Bryan Delaney &
Zipf the first contractors for Savannah S
system of house drainage.
In the effort TO collect this fee Mr.. Ow-
ems garnisheed funds in the hands of the
Germania Bank as the property of Mitch
ell & Delaney, to satisfy a Judgment OBJ
tanned against Delaney & Zipf. holding the
former firm TO be the successors of the
latter and responsible for their obliga-
tons.
The suit was peculiar on account of the
fact that all the parties engaged are MEM
bers of the local bar, the firm of Mitchell
G. Delaney which is no longer existent,
being represented in the persons cf
Messrs NJ. A. O'Byrne, p. ]. O'Connor
and w. r. Leaken, who were partners in
the firm. M s. b. Adams was the at
torney for the three gentlemen, while Hon
A. II. MacDonell represented Mr.. Owens.
AS would naturally be expected in a
suit in which all the parties were law
yers, there was considerable having done.
Early in the case Judge MacDonelI sprung
a point which made 1t necessary for the
court to dispense with the presence of the
jury for several hours while the point was
debated
The funds in the hands of the Germania
Bank were claimed by Messrs. o'Connor,
O'Byrne and Leaken as former partners
of the firm of Mitchell & Delaney, being
assigned to them in the settlement of the
affairs of the firm.
1t developed In the evidence that the le-
gal gentlemen became partners in the
firm, not out of any expectation of large
profits in the drainage contract but be-
cause they had already involved them
selves in the effort to maintain the sta
bility of the first contractors, Delaney &
Zipf Mr.. O'Byrne stated on the stand
that he found after becoming one of the
bondsmen for the firm that the situation
was not very desirable one and that he
entered into the new combination in order
to save himself and friends from loss Mr.
o'Byrne explained that his experience
with the drainage contract was about the
most unsatisfactory of his whole career.
Not only did he receive no profit but neith-
er did he receive single cent for his time
and trouble. to say nothing of the anxiety
which was caused him by the unpleasant
situation in which the financial instability
of the drainage contractors threatened to
leave him.
Mr.. Owens contention was that the
claimants were not entitled 10 the money
because the drainage contract was never
transferred to them by the city and, fur
Their, because no notice of the assignment
OF the funds in the possession of the bank
was given. The most interesting feature
OF the case, perhaps. was the point made
by Judge MacDonell that Mr. O'Byrne. as a
city tax assessor and Mr.. O'Connor as a
member of the sanitary board were CITY
onieers and that as such they were barred
by statute and ordinance from entering
INTO any contract for gain with the city.
and that. therefore, the contract was ne
gal. and they were debarred from any mar
tcipation in the funds resulting from this
agreement This point was argued at some
length by Judge MaeDonell.
Mr.. Adams, representing the claimants
neid that the Offices which they held were
not such as came within the ordinances
ana statutes forbidding city officers from
entering into any contracts for profit with
.he Guy. Even should this be the case
however, he held that 1t was imgnaterial
for the reason that no contract was ever
entered into between the city and Mitchell
Delaney. The drainage contract Was
awarded to Bryan, Delaney & Zinf Mr.
Adams stated, and Mr.. Bryan Withdraw.
ing the work was undertaken bv DELANEY
Llpt The contractors proved 10 he
financially weak. and In the effort 10 bols.
Ter mem up the three claimants in the
Csse became involved TO an extent that
threatened them with loss hnanciallv The
Messrs Mitchell opportunity came along
al this time and purchased Mr.. Zipf,t
interest. The firm Of Mitchell &, DeIane,
was then organized with his three clients
as silent partners in return for whit theV
hau already Ventured. 1t was the intention
OF thls firm to assume the contract I'm,
our good friend John Rourke." as Mr.
Adams called him, came forward ~ III
moment and purchased the interast 30 D1
Iahey. A new firm Of Rourke &. Michel
was organized in which the claimants ir
SourI had no interest The amount in bank
~Nich py the way was part of what baf
been advanced by them, was assigned a.
their share. ieN az
Mr' owens, hearing that his former oil.
emit Delaney was about to leave town
sarnisheed the Germania Bank. which beld
lne FUNDS. The notice Of garnishroen,
was served on Jan. T. however. while Inc
night before. paw Oie
The case was given to the iurv abo,,, ,
o'clock last night. and shortly theroo 90
verdict was returned in favor OF the