Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1900-02-22

BALTIMORE, MD. Dept. 300.
In last weeks Sullivan Herald an
artible written by Mr.. Scouten,
headed "Two lawyers and no
CLIENT, comment is made on busi-
ness transaction of the firm of T. j.
and +. H. Ingham. 1t would seem
almost unnecessary to notice this
article, except, by letting it go un-
answered, some might believe the
statement to be true. In justice to
my father, as well as myself, i feel
that a fair statement of the facts are
proper for the public to know. The
facts are as follows: In 1894, March
3rd, we received letter from w. f.
g. G. A. Little, attorneys of Tunk-
hammock, enclosing a judgment to be
| entered against John q. Scouten for
100000, with interest and costs
which we duly entered to No. -
May Term 1894, and thereby became
the attorneys of record. In Janua
ry 1899 my father left home and
was absent for about three months.
During his absence in looking over
the docket to see what judgments,
in our care, it would be necessary to
revive that the liens should not eX-
pire, among others l found the judg-
ment No. y May Term 1894, w. l..
and Sarah Belts VS. John G. Scouten,
for 100000 would expire.
AS attorneys of record we would
be responsible to the plaintiff if the
lien was lost through our neglect, l
Immediately wrote Mr.. Scouten, adj
vising him that the lien was about
to expire. | received no reply, and
at the first opportunity | spoke to
him personally about the matter,
and ask him to sign an amicable re-
vival or file his receipt if the judg-
ment had been paid: He did neith-
er, so l was compelled to issue Sci.
Fa. to revive judgment. This was
returnable to the next term, and
duly served by the sheriff on Mr..
Scouten. 1t is well known to all at
torneyS that "In all actions of AS
sumpsit or Scire Facias the plaintiff
shall be entitled to judgment unless
the defendant shall file a sufficient
affidavit of defence thereto" on or
before the return day. No affidavit
of defence was filed, and in the reg
ular course of business the matter
came up in open court and we asked
for judgment. Whether Mr.. Scouten
was present or not at the time of the
taking of the judgment do not know
nor is it of any consequence, as
the judgment was taken in open
court, at a regular term, at the time
of taking judgments, when there
We're other Judgments taken, by
other attorneys against other de-
PENDANTS.
On September 2S, 1899, James w.
Piatt, attorney for John G.Scouten,
asked for rule to show cause why
the judgment should not be opened
etc. On October II 1899, Morgan
Gavitt came into my Office and said
he had 4 paper to serve on me. /
saw it was a rule to open judgment
in this case and marked on the copy
left with me "Served on me Oct. IL
1885," and no part of the paper has
been torn off since that time nor
changed i'm any manner. If ! had
torn the paper in twoand thrown it
in the waste basket, or destroyed ii
n any other manner, Mr.. Seouten
would have no reason for complaint
as after the paper was given To me
it was our individual paper, simply
kept for reference. The paper
shows on its face that it is Il copy,
and il also shows on its face that it
is still intact, rs on the bottom of
it in Mr.. Scouten's hand writing are
the following words: g! hereby cer-
tify that the foregoing is Il true copy
of the original rule issued and grant
ed by the court. (Signed) John G.
Scouten, Defendant. with seaD
With the above .statment of facts l
drop the matter so far as any furth-
er newspaper controversy is con-
cerned.
FRANK III. INGHAM.
LaPorte, Feb. II, 1900.