Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-03-23
Cltys Former Legal Representative
Replies to Defendants Answer,
SAYS NOTES WERE NO GOOD
Also Accuses the Mining Nan OF Ems
teriug Into PrauduIenf Arrange
ment with Clerk oil Court.

Former City Attorney William Nc
Kay who some time ago sued Michael
Shsughnessy, the well known mining
man. to collect $500, alleged to be due
him for services filed a reply TO the de-
PENDANTS answer and counter-clalm to-
day, denying the allegations contained
therein ana asking that the same be
dismissed.
II will be remembered that on the End
OF last September Mckay brought suit
against Shaughnessy, alleging that dur
ing the years 95. 49, 80, '9S and $50 he
had been attorney for the defendant
and all he received during those fiye
years as compensation amounted In the
aggregate 10 $780, The alleged services
consisted Of prosecuting and defending
for Shaughnessy diverse and sundry
law suits. drawing, copying and en-
crossing divers and sundry contracts,
conveyanccs, deeds. affldavits and other
instruments In writing and attending
to. counsellng and advising the defend
ant In and about his business Affairs.
Mckay believed these services, extend
ing over the period they did, were rea-
sonably worth 1866 per year. which, null
tiplied By five, with interest, would
bring the total to $500.
The defendant IN his answer Genied
plaintiffs allegations, and as further
separate answer and defense alleged
that Mckay Was given three promisso-
~ notes to collect, amounting In the
aggregate 10 about 5000, for which sum
he failed to render proper account.
Shaughnessy demanded judgment for
the amount Of the notes. with legal In
terest.
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
In his reply Mckay denies each and
every allegation OF Shaughnessy's an
Aver and cross complaint. and sticks 70
his original allegation which Is that
none Of the services sued for In this ac-
ton have ever been paid for except
tl0o. The services which the defendant
claimed 10 have paid plaintiff for were,
II Is alleged. rendered prior TO 1885, and
therefore have nothing 10 do with the
case Mckay admits having received
three promissory notes from Shaugh-
messy In February. 1895. Two OF the
notes. he AYERS, were made by II. L.
Giles and T.. Z, lie Compile ~ $3.50
each, and dated May %, 1891. Both
We're made payable to defendant who
directed plnintiff to sue the makers. on
the 23rd Of February, 1895, Mckay says
he prepared complaint against the
parties and delivered the same 10 de-
PENDANT for the purpose OF having II
verified and filed In the Third district
court. The defendant, Il Is alleged,
failed TO cause the complaint TO be
filed until after the statute OF llmlta-
tons had run against the indebtedness.
A SERIOUS CHARGE.
Mckay then charges the defendant
with having entered into an arrange
ment with the deputy clerk Of the Third
district court supposed TO be George
d. Loomis,J whereby on October 10,
1926. the complaint was filed as Of date
the S0th OF July, 1895. This. Mckay
says was done for the purpose OF unlaw.
fully and fraudulently evading the sta
tute Of limitations. Plaintiff further
alleges that no summons was ever Is
sued and nothing was ever done In the
case.
ANOTHER NOTE NO GOOD.
iHc tiiIu mute pldlntlH says was
made by c. c. Goodwin FOR 81 $50. dated
October 20, 1893. and made payable on
demand. This note Mckay says was
given him for collection during the
month OF February, 1895. with instruc-
tions TO cal upon Goodwin and demand
payment. In case Goodwin could not
pay the whole amount he was told to
accept payment OF such sum as Good
win was able and willing TO pay. Me-
Kay says he compiled with the instruc-
lions. but was unable to collect cent
on the note. He did. he says, succeed
In getting Goodwin 10 renew the note.
but that was all He afterwards did. az
the defendants request. try to get a
settlement with Goodwin, for any rea-
sonable sum which he was willing to
pay. but failed even In that. To the
best OF plaintiffs belief the note is
still unpaid, and, OF course. is now I'M
coliectibe
Mckay asks that Shaughnessy take
nothing by his counter claim and that
he be given judgment for $500 as orr
ginally prayed for