The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-08
HE WISHED TO INTERRUPT
David Keane's Attempt to Be Heard
in the Godfrey Warner Suit.
His Name Hnd Been Erased rs an At
torney of Record in the Case, But
tunity 10 Explain Certain state
mcnts Supposed to Refer to Him.


sensation in the Court of Appeals on Fri
day last at the close of the argument in the
case. which had been on hearing in that
court for some days
Keanes name had been stricken from the
record as an attorney in the cause. but for
some reason not clearly brought he desired
a hearing in the court before the case
closed. Chief Justice Alvey declined to
hear Mr. Keane, but the latter persisted in
| being heard, because be said statements
made during the hearing Of the case were
supposed TO refer to him. At this point
J. ]. Darlington, who represented the de-
| PENDANTS, stated that the case was close
and it was not necessary that anything
further should be said. This, however, did
I not suppress NJ. Keane, who still insisted
| on being heard. Arthur A. Birney, who
represented Miss Godfrey, then objected in
| an emphatic manner TO anything more be-
| ing said on the subject. This objection,
coming as it did from an attorney who rep
resented Mr.. Keane's former client, created
n stir in the courtroom.
Exactly what Mr.. Keane would have said
! had he been allowed to make a statement.
took exception TO references made n the
brief of Messrs. Darlington and Mattingly,
representing the defendants, to the charac-
ter of and manner of introduction OF GER
tain testimony on the part OF the complain
ant when represented by Keane. The evil
dence referred TO was offered at the trial
of the case before Justice Hagner in Equity
Court No. l, when Miss Godfrey was repre-
scented by Mr. Keane and Messrs. Jere NJ.
h -gs
Since then MIR. Keane's connection with the
case was severed, at the suggestion, 1t is
stated, of the complainant.
In the brief prepared by the counsel for
the defence, II is stated that the evidence
alluded TO, both in character and In the
manner OF bringing it forward, is perhaps
the most unique and the most amazing in
the history of litigation in this jurisdic
ton"
The litigation is the outgrowth OF a real
estate deal between the complainant, Lily
Allys Godfrey. and her mother, Mary \.
Godfrey. on one side and stephen A. Dut-
ton of New York. on the other, in which
the Godfreys exchanged certain real es-
tate in Washington for certain wharf
property in New York. alleged TO be
owned by button. II afterward developed
that the property claimed by DuttoD, and
decided TO the complainant and her mother.
did not belong TO him, and Dutton was pro-
ceeded against criminally. being convicted
and sentenced TO six years Imprisonment
in the penitentiary in New York, which
sentence he is now serving.
In the present suit an attempt was
made on behalf OF the complainant 10
prove that B. II. Warner, who purchased
part of the Godfrey property from Dutton.
was in collision with the latter in the
nj
tempted 10 show by the fact that he pur-
chased the property for a much smaller
price than that for which he had once
held Il for sale. To show this the com
plainant endeavored 10 prove that on
more than one occasion Mr.. Warner was
seen in buttons Office in New York, about
the time the real estate deal was made
with the complainant and her mother.
The first step in adducing testimony ON
this point II is stated in the brief Of the
defence. vas a motion asking the court to
allow the complainant to take evidence in
New York by deposition. stating that II
the names OF the witnesses were known 10
the defendants they would be tempered
refused by the court, and the witnesses,
It is stated, we're produced at the trial
without notice TO the defence.
The testimony thus produced is that OF
witnesses, most Of them alleged criminals
and parties Of i'll repute. who testified
that they saw Mr. Warner in buttons
office. or in his company. in New York
at divers times.
One of these witnesses. John Staud-
niger, according 10 brief filed in the case
by the attorneys for the de-
fence, testified THAT he was office
boy in the Office of Henry Daley. ir. New;
York lawyer, who had transacted business
Tor Dutton; that, on March IS, the com
plainants solicitor called on him at his
house mad asked him to recognize a
photograph. which he showed him. as that
of B. H. Warner; that the solicitor on that
occasion, requested him to examine the
call booa at Daley's Office. giving him s.
for expenses, though the witness did Tot
him for: that on the call book
under the date of August 30,
and under that OF September IS or 10. 1894,
he found the entry S. A. Dutton and
friend that on March 81 having been pro-
vided with a railroad ticket by the solicit
tor, and an additional s. ne came On 10
Washington, testified he had seen Warner
in Daley's office on August 80, and on Sep
TENDER Is or 10, but swearing he had no
means OF fixing those dates"
Further, the brief declares that In
Staudinger was asked, in Hands presence.
whether he had not seen Warner in Daley's
office with Dutton, and he answered,
What is the use of asking me. after you
know what testified in Washington
Anthony Comstock, John W. Rockwell,
William F. Henessy, and Louis Z. Dittman
all testified that Staudinger admitted TO
them compliments solicitor had showed
him the photograph. asking IL ne knew
the man, to which he had replied that he
did not; that the solicitor then asked him
What would II cost to have you know
him. TO which he replied, That depends
that he then came on to Washington and
testified that he had seen Mr.. Warner in
Daley's Office with Dutton a dozen times,
although he never had seen him in New
York, or anywhere. before; that, after his
deposition was concluded, the solicitor COM
plimented him upon being star witness,
and that, before testifying. he had been in
structed that IL asked any questions he
did not want TO answer, he should say he
did not remember and that he signed a
written statement to this effect IN Mr..
Comstock's presence, his object being 10
find employment to commit perjury In a
supposititious divorce case in which Hen
messy and Dittman, who were detectives,
had led him to believe that Mr. Rockwell,
a prominent business man, and Mr.. Com
stock were interested"
On the occasions referred TO by the COM
plainants, at which it was attempted TO
prove that Mr.. Warner was in New York