The Washington times., 1901-12-10
Mr. Stiles Makes Vigorous
Reply to Allegations,
CHARGES OF COLLUSION DENIED.
Increasing Bitterness Manifested
in the Legal Struggle for the
Possession of About 100000
Acres of Land.

acres Of land in West Virginia and Ken
sion in bringing an appeal before the su-
preme Court have been filed in that court
together with motion for his disbar-
,nont therefrom. has filed his reply to the
various motions and charges. Mr. Henry
c. Flosher the attorney of record for
Mrs. Hatfield and her daughters. the ap-
pellants in the case at bar, against whom
similar charges were filed also made a
reply.
Some Of these charges were that Flesh
er while nominally appearing for their
side was really acting for Mr.. King. This
is denied by Messrs. King. Fleshar aad
Stiles in their affidavits. the two FIRST
named, stating specifically that Flesher
had never been employed by King. and
all repel the allegation that there was
any fraud or collision IN bringing the
suit.
Aflidavits are also made by Messrs, II.
X Shumate of West Virginia, and A.
Wilder of New York. and Edwin L Butt
rick. OF West Virginia. lawyers as to
their knowledge OF the faoJs in the case,
in refutation OF the charges against
Mossrs. Flesher King and Stiles.
cPeStfIcntinI Nilsmn oe Prejudice
Mr.. Stiles in his brief gives a resume
Of the litigation by MIR. King for posses
sion of the land and his connection there
with, asserting that his conduct Of the
various suits had been entirely proper.
On The other hand he claims that the
petitioners. among whom were the repre-
sentatives of Messrs. Kenntz Bros. OF
New York, who, be is informed, were the
real claimants of about 35 900 acres of the
land. had pursued him Stiles and Mr..
King and his cause with false accusa-
tions and wanton aspersion, with re-
morseless persistency and endless malig-
nifty from court to court and Gaze to case,
breathing into the surrounding atmos-
phere OF the courts, through every pub
lie or secret approach. the pestilential
miasma of prejudice, in their efforts TO
oemoralize and disarm said King"
Limit of Federation.
The petitioners, he says. have for years
pbstructing the payment OF taxes by Mr..
King in suits to which they were not par
ties. and having reached the limit of
possibilities and federation as friends Of
the court in July last. and long after the
Setting aside OF the submission of this
cause" intervened in the suit Of the
State against King for the purpose OF de-
laying a judgement Of the same upon its
merits
He is willing. hessays, that his conduct
and methods should be compared with
those Of the opposing counsel.
The suit under appeal, Mr. Stiles AYERS,
was regularly brought and proceeded with
and any statement TO the contrary was
an unwarranted reflection on the Circuit
Court before which it was pending for a
year.
Every averment in the bill, he declares,
was made in good faith and the claimant
had been in actual possession of al parts
OF the tract
He acknowledges stopping at the Hat
field House, but AYERS no mention Of lands
OF any business matter was made during
ihe visit.
lie denies the charges Of collusion in
bringing the suit or in appealing it TO
the Supreme Court
Charges Renewed.
Former Solicitor General Holmes Con-
rad. OF counsel for the various petitioners
against Messrs King. Stiles. and Flesher.
has fled with the court additional afi-
davits in rebuttal OF the replies made by
fhe three named
These afiidavits are made by Ably
Browning a sister Of Mrs. Hatfield and
T II Graham. d man employed on the
Hatfield farm, and confirm the deposition
of Mrs Hatfield that Mr. Stiles hal called
on her regarding the institution Ct the
suit now on appeal before the Supreme
Court. and that Messrs Stiles and y. X
shumate had spent the night al the Hat
field home. and TO that extent refutes the
statement Ct Mr. Stiles that he had never
mentioned the case TO Mrs Hatfield.
"E,asive and Insufficient"
Counsel contend that in the principal
question az issue-the authority OF Mr..
Fiesher TO represent Mrs. Hatfield and
her daughter in the suit and appeal-the
replies OF Messrs. stiles. Sbumate and
Fiesher upon all the vital points are eva
siye and insufficient.
The matters set forth In the petitions
and aGdayits they claim, are. II not true,
easily susceptible OF refutaton and dis
proof. and We're open to direct. positive,
and explicit denial
Yet the only witnesses. the brief states
out OF all the bench, the bar, and all The
people Of West Virginia who could be
procured were five lawyers concerned in
the case dnciuding the two against whom
CHARGES were made) and the plaintim in
the cause.
Suggest Some Queries
In view OF The statements made coun-
Bel suggests these queries
How Mr.. Flesher's employment by
Mrs Hatfield in the eiectmcnt suit ia
1875 could extend over TO the present
suit three years laterg when and where
be was authorized by her to represent
her 10 her former suit? Why he does not
produce the letter he wrote after the de-
rurrer had been 0verruled2 Why he did
moi inform Mrs. Hatfield of the suit and
obtain her Instructions
They also point out that Mr. stiles does
:l0t deny The affidavit OF he clerk OF the
tHi+od states Court 80 the Southern Dis
triet Of West Virginia. that she record Of
Tie court shows no decree or order or
petition for appeal from d final decree IN
Iha pending case
60 insel also claim that reference to the
booA,a Of the Office OF the Supreme Court
wouli reveal that nearly two-ihirds OF
he c,sts paid there on the pending ap-
It+l -au breu IIdld DF Dir. SfllcE +he
. counsel for the appellee.
Conduct of MIR. i'Ieshcr.
Another brief on behalf OF the state Of
West Virginia has also been filed from
Special Attorney Ruckor In which ;he
conduct Of Mr.. Flesher in the suit is taken
vi in detail TO prove the allegations that
there was collusion in bringing IT,
from the course of the cour in dealing
with cases where similar charges have
been made Mr.. Rucker states that he IA