The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-05
SCORCHED BY WEATHER
A MUNCIE ATTORNEY WHO WAS TOO
HOT TO BE PUNCTUAL.
j. Frank Mann sends the Members of
the Appellate Court Into
Fits Of Laughter.

The judges of the Appellate Court are
laughing yet over a ludicrous motion which
they disposed of last Tuesday. The motion
was filed July %, and might have been seen
By the Judges at that time. but they were
absent enjoying their summer vacation. ].
Frank Mann. a Muncie attorney. prepared
the motion, and its object was to secure
permission of the court TO file a brief for
his client. the time for fling the brief I'M
der the rules of the court having passed
by. The part of the document which ex-
cited the merriment of the high tribunal
reads as follows:
Appellants counsel, J. Frank Mann,
who had charge of drawing and fling the
reply brief herein, was from the LIST day of
July. 1901, to 10Th day of the same month
that being the time during which the re-
ply brief ought to nave been filed-busily
engaged in trying to keep cool. 1t was so
'all-ired' hot in the city of Muncie during
said days that people were compelled to
feed their chickens cracked ice to keep
them from laying hard-boiled eggs; eggs
were Matched in the shade and fried in
the sun. and water came out of Muncie's
water works plant so hot that weiner-
wursts could be cooked therein TO a turn.
Counsel Mann was kept continuously busy
wiping the sweat from his placid. bald and
weeping brow. So great was the flow of his
perspiration during those days that many
persons thought he had water on the brain.
His thoughts refused to float. or. rather,
possibly did float out with the tide of per-
spiratiOn and were unconsciously wiped off
with a handkerchief.
by reason of the extreme heat herein
before veraciously described, appellants
counsel, Mann, overlooked the rule relative
to the time of filing reply briefs. The brief
as finally written and sent TO the clerk
of the Appellate Court will materially as
sist the court on two propositions raised
by appellee's counsel. and if the honorable
judges of the Appellate Court desire TO
know the law-as we believe they do-then
they ought to read the reply brief. The
saying The query is not so much to know
the law as where to find it, is a query no
longer, for IL is found In the reply brief of
the appellant.
I'm view of the extreme hot weather,
which no doubt has been experienced by
the members of the Appellate Court and
which is therefore judicially known to you,
the court ought to excuse a lapse of five
days in the filing Of the briefs. They were
filed five days too late.
Lastly we would suggest that an amend
ment ought to be made to the rules of the
Appellate and Supreme courts prohibiting
any briefs being filed during July and
August under penalty of disbarment of
the attorneys and the Acknowledgement of
the guilty litigant.
Wherefore, appellant thoughtfully prays
at least as t~hOughtfully as the continued
hot weather will permit-that permission be
granted him to file his reply briefs herein"
Notwithstanding Mr.. Mann'S humorous
and pathetic plea. the court was compelled
to o%verrule his petition because of violation
of two rules of the court, one requiring
such a motion to be accompanied by an
affidavit and the other rule directing that
notice of the motion be given the opposite
marty in the On SO