Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-06

the second part as follows .to-wit:
"rhe said first parties. as attorneys.
agree to assist in the preparation for
trial and trial of any of
| the special assessment app
peals now pending In thc dis
| trict court OF Marshall county, Iowa.
| and to accept M compensation in full
for such services and assistance, III
tho preparation and trial of amy of snid
causes. the sum Of two hundred, (S200)
dollars. payable. one hundred (SlO0)
| April t5. 1904. and one hunrded t$l0p
| dollars. upon the full. faithful! and COM
| plete performance Of the services, as
| hcrcinbefore stipulated. 3oardman
| Aldrich & Lawrence acknowledge
| themselves retained In all other spec
| ial assessment cases now pending IN
the district court of Marshall county,
Iowa. and for said retaining fee are to
receive the sum Of fifty $500 dollars,
payable May 10, 1904
ut is furthec agreed, that should
any one of said causes be appealed to
the supreme court OF Iowa. compensa :
ton for assistance in such appealed
cause shall be agreed upon prior to the
previous agreement shall be neces-
sary before the said second party shall
be liable for any compensation what
ever in connection with any such ap-
peal.
Dated this 23rd day of January, A.
D., 1904.
"BoARDMAN, ALDRIcH & Law
RENEE"
IL. c. ABBOTT,
20. H. INGLEDUE.
Judiciary Committee of the City
Council of Marshalltown Iowa
The above is an exact copy of the
contract which is now on fiie In the
city records. On Sept. o. '03. resolution
was passed by the council, as Follows:
'Resolved-That the judiciary COM
mttee be authorized, If In their judg-
ment they deem necessary, to employ
additional counsel to assist the city
attorney in the defense of the paving
suits now existing and threatened
Mr.. Waterbury now contends, in
communication to this paper that
"All / have ever claimed was that
this contract with it's fee of $200 woull
be used as n basis of settlement for the
cases to follow. IL they should come
to trial, and we feared they would, ana
we claimed at the time. and used Ger
titled copies OF the contract for that
purpose and not for any roorback pur-
pose. and we then claimed that ths
people were entitled to inlornallpa
as to what the understanding was re-
gnrtiiug the additional fees FOR any or
all of the (then) seventeen cases.
II is n matter of knowledge with TINS
newspaper that 1t was contcndea gem
orally by Mr.. Waterbury's friends dur
ing the campaign for city election last
spring thatjthe contract could be con-
strued to have employed assisting
counsel in all Of the appeal cases at
fee of $3.50 for each case, and this was
so stated In these columns on March
2Sth. Campaign propagnndas are not
always matters of record subject to
documentary proof, hence Mr.. Water
bury,s explanation must be taken as II
statement of his Individual position.
However, the facts are that the con
tract not only did not cover any other
than the one case, but when second
did arise subsequently this contract
was not even used as q basis Tor as
sisting counsel was employed by the
judiciary COInIDlltee Oh a. pSA "A~A'i
basis.
Mr. Waterbury's communication also
contends that Van Law did not
''prophesy Alright" when he "staked his
professional reputation that the con-
tract allowed only for recovery OF
$3.50" because the city Is now paying
$50 per day for II weeks litigation In
a second case. However, Mr.. Van Law
has made 1t clear that so far as the
contract was concerned his prophesy
was exactly right. These paving cases
involve u large sum Of money and are
important. 1t was not strange that
the council should employ additional
counsel in the second, the same as was
done in the first, as 1t was important
that Just as strong case should be
presented to Judge Burnham as was
presented to Judge Caswell 1t Is hop
ed and expected that no more OF these
cases will have to be tried, but That
they can all be settled on the basis
of the court decisions in the two nrst