The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-05-15

visement,
Attorneys Farley L. Williams, David
Evans formerly of the law firm of
Evans & Rogers) and Lindsay r. Rog-
ers, now in partnership with Judge
Zane, and the justices of the supreme
bench form the dramatis persGnae in
sensational proceedings instituted in
the supreme court yesterday.
Attorney Williams presented moth
ing less, in fact, than a petition
for the disbarment of two of the best
known attorneys in Salt Lake City on
account of alleged champertous and
unprOfesSional practice. The petition
asks that the attorneys be cited to ap-
pear and show cause why they should
not be disbarred.
The petition for disbarment hinges
on damage suit against the Southern
Pacific Railway company. in which
Evans & Rogers were attorneys for the
plaintiff, Alfred H Nelson. Nelson S
brother, Charles, a travelling agent, had
been killed in the winter of '93 while
travelling on the Southern Pacific, and
Alfred II. Nelson, having been appoint
ed administrator of the estate of his
deceased brother, brought suit to re-
cover damages from the railroad COM
pany.
The case was tried three times. The
first trial resulted in a hung jury, but
at the next trial the jury awarded the
plaintiff $4,000. The company appealed
the case and the supreme court re-
versed the decision of the trial court
At the third trial the damages were re-
duced to $4,000. The company ap-
pealed again, but this time the ruling
of the trial court was affirmed.
Percentage Basis Alleged.
It is alleged that the case was
taken by Rogers & Evans on a
percentage basis, they to get
the estate of the deceased to get
half On Dec. %, 1898, Rogers & Evans
paid to Alfred II. Nelson the sum of
So $50, being half Of the amount of dam
ages received from the railway COM
pany with accrued interest. There
was a side issue to the suit, which be-
came the issue in another suit and
which in turn has formed the nucleus
of the present disbarment proceedings.
In order to secure the presence of the
necessary witnesses to prosecute their
case, Evans & Rogers, it is charged,
made a contract with Thomas Mel
son, a rancher and another broth
er of the deceased, by the terms
of which they were to pay Thorn
as Nelson one-third of their one
half of whatever money should be re-
covered from the railway company,
whether by compromise or otherwise.
This is what is called in the legal pro-
fession a champertOus contract, and as
such is null and void from a point of
equity.
Nelson had expended close on $1,000
in securing the appearance Of wit
nesses at the trial. After the case had
been decided and the One-half of the
damage money paid over to his brother
for the benefit of the widow of the
brother who had been killed through
the alleged carelessness of the railroad
company Thomas presented his claim
for 1888, the One-thiTd of the one
half of the damages awarded in the
suit and which his alleged contract
with Evans & Rogers called for.
But the law firm resisted the claim
on the ground that it was illegal. AT
this point of the story, Attorney Par
] ley L. Williams came into the case.
! Nelson applied to him and he took the
case.
No Hope For Nelson.
In doing so, however, he did not hold
out any hope to Nelson that he would
ever be able to recover a cent on his
| contract. The case was heard before
: Judge ROlapp. Evans & Rogers filed
demurrer. The court sustained the
! demurrer and dismissed the case Al
/ the same time the judge denounced the
| practice of making champertous con-
! tracts. Nelson appealed the case tC
/ the supreme court.
When Attorney Williams presented
! the petition to the supreme court yes
terday morning he also read the af-
/ fidaVit of Alfred H. Nelson, the brother
/ OF the appellant and administrator Of
| the estate of their deceased brother
| Mr.. Williams put the case before the
! court in a very strong manner, init
mating that the court had really little
/ choice in the matter; that il could no
! go into the matter in a half-hearteC
way by simply affirming Judge Rolapp
| but that the court was face to face
with a case Of disbarment. Mr.. vii
liams claimed that nothing would JUS
tify the alleged champerty. The cOur
has taken the case under advisement
Attorney Evans Talks.
Mr. Evans, in talking of the petition
for disbarment, said that he had no
seen it and, therefore, did not fee
/ like expressing any definite opinion
| He says that he believes that suci
J matters ought to be tried in the propel
p, forum. However, he says that it is {
well known fact that Mr.. William!
for a year past has exhibited the mos
| bitter feelings toward him on accoUn
of the fact that he has, in connection
/ with Mr.. Rogers, prosecuted numerou;
cases against railroad companies fol
! widows and orphans whose husbands
or fathers had been killed by the neg
ligence of a railroad company
He further states that It is his con
viction that it is a deliberate attemp
on the part of Mr.. Williams to cut of
i all such prosecutions against railroad
| companies, although meritorious cases
| may exist against them. and that i
! Mr.. Williams can succeed in this at
| tempt he will be instrumental in Sc
! curing for railroads services vastly in
| excess of the value of his services al
an attorney in defending such cases.
| Mr. Evans says that he stands ready
| willing and anxious to meet any cnarg'
| which may be made by Mr. Williams