The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-06-24
ROGERS ON THE STAND
Defends Himself Against the
Charges ofP. L. Williams.
SAYS THERE is ANIMUS
HIS FIRM WON CASES AGAINST
RAILROAD COMPANY.

P. L. Williams case of alleged cham
perty against Lindsay Rogers and Da-
vid Evans was continued before United
States Commissioner Twomey in the
federal court room yesterday morning,
and the conclusion of the hearing was
! postponed until Monday afternoon at 2
O'Clock. The postponement was made
in order to enable Mr.. Lee of the at
tOrney gene ais Office to get certain
witnesses for the prosecution over from
Nevada.
! Lindsay Rogers was the principal
witness placed upon the stand yester-
day, and the taking of his testimony
occupied the greater part of the ses-
sion. Mr.. Evans was called to the
| stand again for but very short time,
in order, to satisfy the attorneys for
the defense in regard to a question
! brought before the referee on Friday
sitting. Judge Dey called him to the
stand and asked the question.
Mr.. Evans" he said, Mr.. Williams
in his testimony OF yesterday claimed
that when he accosted you on the
street you grunted. Is that so, to your
| recollection"
If my recollection serves me right
| ~" replied Mr.. Evans, with the utmost
| gravity, that assertion of Mr.. VIII
liams' has no foundation in truth
The testimony of Mr.. Rogers traced
! the inner side Of the transactions of
| the firm Of Evans & Rogers forcibly
and clearly. Mr.. Rogers wasted no
in hrrt CT ~ Cd In Of
/ the outset to make a clear exposition
| from his standpoint of the transactions
| that OccasiOned the bringing of the
| suit against the firm.
How Contract Was Made.
1T was some time prior to the filing
| of the Nelson suit against the Southern
| Pacific company" he began, that AL
| fred H. Nelson, a practicing attorney
| of Ogden, came into the office Of Evans
! & Rogers and said that his brother,
] Charles Nelson, had been killed on a
/ Southern Pacific train. He also
J showed letters from the widow of the
J deceased brother, asking him to do all
/ he could as an attorney to secure a
/ recovery from the company. Mr.. Evans,
! Mr.. Nelson and myself looked up some
law on the subject and agreed to take
| the case in conjunction with Mr.. Mel
]
per cent of the money received as a
result of the suit. We did this because
J it appeared to be a meritoTiOus cause
of action and the widow of the man
who was killed was in very poor cir
! cumstances and was entirely dependent
upon the work Of her hands to obtain
for her a livelihood.
| "At this time Mr.. Alfred II. Nelson
was not administrator of the estate of
J III, ~,7f z4s.r7
/ to that position until some time after
the contract was made with him. Be
fore the trial came off he got into
financial difficulty with some building
association in Ogden and left the city.
Took Brothers Place.
1T was then that Mr.. Thomas Mel
/ son came to our Office and requested
that he be allowed to take Alfred H
| Nelson's place on the contract. We
told him that he wasn't an attorney
and that he couldn't render the as
| sistance in the case that Alfred II. Mel
| son could, but finally allowed him to
take the place, and new contract was
made with him. In doing this neither
Mr.. Evans nor myself was actuated by
any improper motives, nor had we
| thought Of obtaining judgment by IL
legal methods, as has been alleged.
/ FTOIn IHGn on uulli Itle suit was
concluded Thomas Nelson was of the
opinion that it could not be won, and
he accordingly refused to pay any
money toward pushing it to a conclu-
sion. And when it was finally con-
Guided he came and asked that his
part of the money, as stipulated in the
contract, be given to him. l told hin
that he had not performed under the
contract, and that we could not pay
him anything, nor did we do So"
That concluded Mr.. Rogers story Of
the case at issue, and the testimony
then reverted to any ill-feeling thai
might have arisen between the firm o.
Evans & Rogers on the one hand and
P L. Williams on the other. Mr.. Rog
4 ers testified that he had known Mr.
Williams some fourteen years, anC
that he had tried some 100 case:
against the railroads which Mr.. vii
liams has represented, and had re
! ceived judgments for something like
S150,000.
Relations With Mr.. Williams.
HAS there been any ill-feeling be
tween yourself and Mr.. Williams p
asked Judge Dey.
well, no ilI-feeling exactly" replied
Mr.. Rogers, but Mr.. Williams has al
ways arrogated to himself the right t
consider himself just a little hOlie
than other lawyers"
In response to the interrogations o
Judge Dey, he stated that Mr.. viii
Hams had testified in the Kennedy cas-
that the firm of Evans & Rogers was
firm of legal outlaws"
Upon what did he base that asser
tion?' was asked.
Upon the fact that the firm of Evans
& Rogers takes the suits of poor peOpl
against railroad companies" replies
Mr.. Rogers, with just a delicate toucl
of ironical pathOs on the words rail
road companies" Mr.. Rogers was jus
trifie sarcastic in another place, h
being asked by Judge Dey as to tn
result of a certain suit.
1.-The usual result" was the answer
against Mr.. Williams and in favor o
the firm of Evans q Rogers. And viii
liams was very bitter about it; in fact
| he took q very high moral plane"