Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-07-15
LIVELY SCENE
IN LEWIS COURT.
COmstOck Silver Mining Company
The Defendant in Case
Now on Trial,
THE ATTORNEYS Get ANGRY.
And Hull Charges and Counter Charges
Against Each 0ther-Nearly
Had a Mix.Up.

Charges and countercharges few
thick and fast between Attorneys era
ham +. Putnam and z. d. II. Thompson
today in Judge Lewis court, during the
hearing on the motion, made by Mr..
Putnam on behalf Of the Utah Mining
Machinery & supply company, to strike
from the files the answer fled by Mr.
Thompson in behalf Of the Comstock
Silver Mining company on the grounds
that the same was false, perjured and
frivllous and was known to be such by
Attorney Thompson and NJ Dusseldorf
who verified the same
The suit was filed by the plaintiff to
recover about 5000, alleged to be due
for machinery purchased by the de-
PENDANT company. Nh Dusseldorf on
behalf Of defendant, by his attorney
Mr.. Thompson, filed a general denial of
the allegations Of the complaint This
answer MIR. Putnam asked to have
stricken from the files for the reasons
Al stated above. IN support Of his mo-
ton the attorney for the plaintiff said
that the answer was not only false and
perjured. but that Il was filed merely TO
cause veXation. delay and expense to
plaintiff. He said further that Attor-
ney Thompson well knew that the an
swer was false and periured, and that
by filing the same he was In contempt
Of court, and had grossly violated his
duty as an attorney.
In support of his motion 90 strike the
answer from the files, Mr.. Putnam pre-
sented the afiidayts Of two Of the Off
GERS OF the plaintiff company and of
Attorney c. II. Smith In which II was
stated that Dusseldorf on several occa-
slons, had said that the defendant
company owed the amount and that II
would pay the same as soon as possi-
bic. on one occasion he said that
plaintiff had not treated defendant fair
~ in regard to the account, and that
defendant would not pay It until after
all OF It's other creditors had been paid
Mr., Thompson said that he had been
practising at the bar OF this court for
IL years. and that he had never put In
an answer in better faith than he did
this one lie said that the statement
Of the attorney was a wanton and mali
eious charge, without any foundation
whatever and was made with a view 20
secure in an unfair manner an early
trial OF the case. He moved that the
motion OF Attorney Putnam be strlC zen
from the tlles. as being a scurrilous and
standaous pleading
Judge Lewis decided that there was
nothing In the aflidayits presented by
The attorney for plaintiff to support his
allegations against Attorney Thompson.
and that the only remedy for plaintiff
was n speedy trial of the case, and
prosecution for perjury, Il the facts at
he trial disclosed that the answer had
been periured He sustained Attorney
rhompson's motion 20 strike the mo-
ton made by Mr.. Putnam from the
1es
AS far as the perjury Is concerned
retorted Attorney Putnam, I'VE don't
propose to let that matter drop
go ahead with your perjury matter
MS far as | am concerned" holly replied
Mr. Thompson.
II WAS feared that the attorneys
would have It out after they left the
courtroom, but probably the only thing
which prevented II was the fact that
Mr. Putnam had business in the clerks
office, which detained him for some
lime. Mr.. Thompson threatened to place
the matter before the county attorney
and have Mr. Putnam prosecuted. The
trouble may be renewed when the case
CONS up for trial II not before that
time.