The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-24
BLAIR SUES COL. GARDINER.
WANTS BACK SOME or $4,000 PAID
IN COUNSEL FEES.
Plaintiff II Observation-Disclosures Of outdoor
Poor, Twice Bounced. ands Defendant
Is EG-Dlstrict AttOrneY-An Exchange
OF Compliments Between Them.

T.
Is EH-DistriCt AttOTneY-An Exchange
OF Compliments Between Them.
On behalf Of George Blair, formerly Su-
perintendsnt Of Outdoor Poor, Lawyer j..
j. Dutton asked Justice Gildsrsleeve yester-
day 70 compel ex-District Attorney Asa Bird
Gardiner and his s1n, Philip b. Gardiner,
to return to Blair at least part Of
the money which Blair paid 10 them for
professional services in connection with his
proceedings for reinstatement In Office and
for back pay.
It developed that out Of t4,S54 back pay
Blair recovered, Col. Gardiner got 81 500
and his son the same amount, both under
assignments mado by Blair leaving si,S54
for Blair. Blair charges that he was com
PEELED to part with the - 900 by threats and
demands made by Col. Gardiner.
In 1902 Blair was summarily removed by
Homer Folks, then Commissioner OF Chari-
ties. Tho Court Of Appeals reinstated him
In 1908, with back pay from the date Of his
success in the trial court. After that Com
missioner Tully removed him for good.
Mr.. Dutton declared that while Blair
was willing to pay a reasonable sum for
Col. Garci ler's services, he considered
o 900 enormous. In his afidavit, Blair
SAYS Col. Gardiner informed him that certain
creditors Of Blair were insisting on a
statement, and that only an assignment
TO Col. Gardner would prevent the money
recovered from being attached. Blair
also says that II was his understanding
that Col. Gardiner, IA an old friend and
fellow veteran, had agreed 10 act as attorney
for him for a nominal sum. As TO the
second assignment OF 81 500, made to Philip
B. Gardiner, Mr. button declared that IL
had been forced upon Blair by Col. Gardi-
ner, and was an unjust assignment
COL Gardiner, replying to Mr. button
said he was prepared to show that Blair
was oharReable with perjury. He read to
the Court several affidavits by Blair, ao-
knowledRinR the justice OF his claim TO
the first ii 800, and said that he had agreed
TO take the case originally on these terms
$500 for the Supreme Court ,proceedings,
400 for the appeal TO the Appellate Division
and $500 for the Court Of Appeals proceed
tngs, should there be any.
Blair was reinstated, and subsequently,
when his creditors began execution pro-
ceedinRs In the City Court, Col. Gardiner
applied to have 81 800 act aside for his oom-
pensation in any distribution OF the assets,
Blair then made an AFFIDAVIT. swearing that
he had agreed TO paw this sum.
Il consider that $3.50 Is a very meagre
compensation for any lawyer who carries
a case TO the Court Of Appeals said Col.
Gardiner. As regards the second $3.50,
drafted the bill which enabled veterans TO
recover back pay from the date OF their
removal instead OF the date OF the first
order Of reinstatement. When Blair was
IN on his second trial before Mr.. Tully
defended him again, at his earnest request,
and was mortified TO find that the charges
were true and he was a crook. He was
summarily dismissed. and refused 70 have
anything more 10 do with him. He APP
piled 10 my son TO take up his suit for back
pay from the earlier date. My son CON
quilted with me. / warned Philip that al
though Blair had legal right TO recoVer
he had now been shown 70 be q crook.
told him also that he would have TO take
the case on a contingent fee, and take II TO
the Court Of Appeals probably, and that the
law might be held unconstitutional and he
would get nothing. ! advised him, there
fore, not TO aooept less than ti,5Oo and TO
get an assignment for that amount.
my son succeeded at Special Term In
getting a judgment for Blair for $3.50,
and the money was paid over TO Blair.
Blair was fortunate In getting anything,
and what he did get was gratuity-he was
glad enough 10 get a Jew hundred dollars.
Throughout the case have acted In en-
tirely good faith, and my son also. Blair
concealed from me many things, among
them that he had had a receiver appointed
for himself in order 70 cheat me az ne did
his other creditors. Besides, he made an
assignment Of all his back pay TO his wife,
Agnes Blair, regardless Of the assignment
held, and, after the decision In his favor,
he and his wife united In another assignment
to the receiver, which was subsequently, set
aside
Justice Gildersleeve reserved decision
on plaintiffs motion that q referee be APP
pointed 20 determine what would be a fair
compensation.